France supports India as permanent UN Security Council member

[Suman]

UNITED NATIONS: Asserting that the UN must reform to reflect contemporary realities, veto-wielding permanent member France has voiced support for India in an expanded UN Security Council.

Permanent Representative of France to the UN, Francois Delattre said at a session of the General Assembly to commemorate the victims of World War II that 70 years after the creation of the UN, the world of 2015 no longer has much to do with that of 1945.

"The UN must adapt and reform to reflect the world we live in today. The reform of the Security Council is urgent and crucial in this regard.

"France supports an enlargement of the Council in both categories of membership, permanent and non-permanent and supports Germany, Japan, which deserves to be mentioned today, but also India, Brazil and African representation," according to the English translation of the French ambassador's remarks.

Apart from France, other permanent members - the US, Britain, and Russia - have also supported India's candidature as a permanent member of a reformed Security Council, the most powerful organ of the UN.

India, the world's largest democracy and a rising economic and world power, has said that it is a rightful claimant to a permanent seat in the UN Security Council, along with Japan, Germany and Brazil - the G4 group of nations.

Delattre said the international community's ability to act in times of conflict and development is linked to the "legitimacy of our institutions".

He said along with legitimacy, there is need also for credibility, adding that the credibility of the powerful UN organ will be questioned when it is powerless to stop mass crimes committed in Syria for the four years.

The French envoy recalled that in 1945, the nations had signed the UN Charter which said countries will work together to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights.

He added that the permanent members of the Security Council should refrain voluntarily and collectively from resorting to the veto in situations of mass crimes, crimes whose extent and severity such as in Syria are an "insult" to the victims of World War II.

Delattre expressed hope that that the 70th anniversary of the UN would provide a platform for nations to look into this issue.

 

[nForce]

They are getting paid well in terms of these military deals. Indian civil aviation sector is also one of the biggest customers of the French aircrafts.
They should be supporting India.

 

[maxpayne]

So only China is left. How about pivot to Asia to neutralise it? Mutual interest of India and US!!

 

[desimorty]

How about we make the UNSC irrelevant if 1 billion people of a single federal nation don't get a say expecially since this nation is represented by the ballot box?
Some one please tell me if the UNSC has ever done anything relevant? Most of its members are the worst nations to create global policies of have not positive effect on the world. So lets look at the merits of each nation currently in the UNSC.
1. USA - global leader in finiance and military spending. Largest military arsenal in the world, capable of carrying out 5 iraqs simultaneously. For all the good the USA does, it does the opposite like supporting dictators like saddam, and causing chaos by bombing nations with out plans to rebuild nations. Iraq is good example. Terms with Pakistan also a good example. Why threaten Iran when you support Pakistan which is the same thing essentially? Good that this nation that causes so much problems pays for the UN bills and has the largest fleet of strategic lift aircraft to help in disasters.

2. Russia - Once relevant in Asia and Europe now largely irrelevant in Asia and contributes 0 financially for the UN and peacekeeping efforts as well as disaster relief. Its broke, and just because you have large arsenal built up, doesn't mean you can use it if you can't pay for it.

3. China - once an irrelevant nation in the equation for global stability, no very relevant even more so than Russia with large economy and a military to boast. However China has financed the UN little and hasn't shown global leader ship and has contributed less than Nepal in UN peacekeeping operations. Nations like Japan and Korea have contributed more to global stability especially disaster relief and Nations like Pakistan and Bangladesh have contributed more troops to UN! If China wants to play global or regional superpower, it needs to learn that power isn't military strength but diplomacy and maturity on the global stage.

4. France- a victor of the 2nd world war that largely is irrelevant by its self outside Europe. Has funds and a decent military and has shown global leadership in ability to assist other nations to better them selves. This nation is pragmatic and truely believes in liberty even for sovereign unfriendly states. Something other nations can learn from. However, it too is becoming a smaller player as Asia re-emmerges, nations like Japan can contribute more than France alone.

5. UK - like france but with a huge chip on its shoulder because it was Great at one point, but great only for those living on the island not for those they exploited. Same problem, and denial in British society has turned in pragmatic acceaptance that britian is no longer a global power, just regional one but that to dominated by Germany and France.


Potiental candidates?

Top list,

India: growing economy and miltiary, and a track record of soft policy through diplomacy. Despite the neighbourhood and odds, this fragile nation has survived the odds and has become a regional power well before Indians believed it was. 1 billion people deserve to be heard on the UNSC.

Japan: large economy with shrinking population. This nation can not afford a war nore does it want one. A completely defensive society that has contributed large sums of cash to the UN. Deserves some reconignation despite opposition from the Chinese. Japan has done more for the UN and global peace after the war than the USA let alone China or Russia. Its the envey of Asian nations.

After that I would recommend that UK and France get 1 seat for the whole of Europe.
And in another 50 years or less another restructure of the UN to perhaps consider acceptance of a African nation that is growing and dominate or is in the place to do so as with Brazil.

 

[anonymus]

So only China is left. How about pivot to Asia to neutralise it? Mutual interest of India and US!!

China is not objecting to India getting permanent UNSC seat.

Ahead of PM Modi's visit, China says will back India for UN Security Council permanent membership - IBNLive

It is objecting to Japan getting it, out of G-4 group (India,Japan,Germany, Brazil), and would use Pakistan as cannon fodder to block India's bid.

 

[desimorty]

So only China is left. How about pivot to Asia to neutralise it? Mutual interest of India and US!!

Thats the stupid thing. The UN is location in New York in the Atlantic that is becoming largely irrelevant as the pivot to Asia is already happening. Asia combined is the most important continent and i'm not saying that because that what you need in the RISK. It is essential that the UN not just the UNSC be restructured to include Asia from the West pacific to Indian ocean. Follow the money, and it leads to Asia. Nations like Malaysia, Vietnam and other small asian nations combined would have more cash than Europe. But remember, as of now the USA is number 1. Until they admit they are not great anymore, well have a tussle until then.

 

[nForce]

So only China is left. How about pivot to Asia to neutralise it? Mutual interest of India and US!!

We have US$70 billion trade with China, which may increase upto 100. On the other side, banning a few mobile companies like the way GoI did a few months back may serve as a wake up call as well.

 

[maxpayne]

We have US$70 billion trade with China, which may increase upto 100. On the other side, banning a few mobile companies like the way GoI did a few months back may serve as a wake up call as well.

It will be economic suicide for Indian people to stop trade with China, perhaps it it is same of most countries of the world. On the other hand China will not support her adversary tp reach UNSC even when her very close ally Pakistan dont want to

China is not objecting to India getting permanent UNSC seat.

Ahead of PM Modi's visit, China says will back India for UN Security Council permanent membership - IBNLive

It is objecting to Japan getting it, out of G-4 group (India,Japan,Germany, Brazil), and would use Pakistan as cannon fodder to block India's bid.

If it is true then why India is still out? Which country stops u??

 

[nForce]

It will be economic suicide for Indian people to stop trade with China, perhaps it it is same of most countries of the world. On the other hand China will not support her adversary tp reach UNSC even when her very close ally Pakistan dont want to

Who is saying anything about stopping anything ?

And let me tell you something about these alliances, by its very nature this is mutualism, nothing like blood brothers. As long as mutual benefit is there these alliances exist.In reality, everybody will have to fend for yourself. The sooner you understand that the better it is for you. Stop finding big brothers in US/KSA/China etc., grow a pair and make alliances as equals.

 

[anant_s]

Potiental candidates?

Brazil (for its large population) and Germany (for being the economic powerhouse in Europe it is).

on Topic:
In a world where US still calls all the shots as far as Military intervention is concerned, UK is fast loosing its clout (if its hasn't already), Russia is drifting from formal legacy world organizations, wonder if UN is of much relevance today.
I mean if we see how things have gone on forums like environmental changes plan, trade talks etc we'll find each nation or a block is for itself.
I won't comment of institutes like UNESCO, ICJ, WHO, but UNSC sure is loosing out its influence on world matters. Slowly but surely.

 

[maxpayne]

Who is saying anything about stopping anything ?

And let me tell you something about these alliances, by its very nature this is mutualism, nothing like blood brothers. As long as mutual benefit is there these alliances exist.In reality, everybody will have to fend for yourself. The sooner you understand that the better it is for you. Stop finding big brothers in US/KSA/China etc., grow a pair and make alliances as equals.

We have relations on equality basis. Do u knw what was Pakistan role that helped China getting UNSC seat? For KSA, see we have not participated in Yemen conflict bcz it was not good for us and region.
Im thankful to our policy makers that that dont 'buy' other countries to get benefits, just like India did with Russia and now doing with US.