What's new

India abandons quest for permanent UN Security Council seat

Status
Not open for further replies.
has the goi issued any statements regarding the above news

This is no news. Just a load of BS.

Indian FM was lobbying Netherlands and Netherlabnds accepted India's candidature for UNSC when this 'news' was being invented.

...so much for 'news'.

:lol::lol::lol:

But anyways, who can stop Chinese and Pakistani fanboys from having a field day, right?

So just let it go and relax...enjoy the show while it lasts till the next 'news'.
 
.
What's the use of running behind a Permanent Council seat when we are actually getting our job done staying outside it? I was always wondering what would that seat do? We got exempted from the most sensitive of bans, we got friends in the P5 and even potential adversary(s) from the group came for diplomatic expansion with us last year in quick succession.

No point of joining the P5. We might as well stay out and command our current respect.
 
.
:cheesy:

neutral source
India dump the mission of Permanent Seat on the UN Security Council

According to latest BBC News reports concentrated six-year fight by India and three other candidates for a permanent seat on the Security Council of the United Nations, Brazil, Germany and Japan have failed for lack of support among Member States, and has even led to divisions in the group called the Four.

The collapse of the unit G-4 for permanent membership on the board main body in the world is evident in his recent letter to Assembly President, Joseph Deiss, and asked him to take charge of the intergovernmental negotiations on Council reform 15 members, a process that had been dropped and continued to circulate a resolution to expand the category of permanent and nonpermanent members.

However, the resolution, the G-4 had to be cut below their targets, won in his own words, with the promise of 80 or even a simple majority in the Assembly of 192 members in 128 votes, the most two thirds is required.

Critics of the G-4 said that since the resolution has not been tested on the floor of the Assembly, but his request of 80 Member States, as mentioned in paragraph G-4, could be a little exaggeration.

“This (claim 80), is an admission of defeat, to say the least, a shocking blow to their ambitions,” one European diplomat.

“It is clear that the reform model advocated by the G-4 is not acceptable to Member States.” Four months ago, G-4 has opted out of inter-governmental negotiations; said talks n has made no progress.

The G-4 has emphasized the need for Council reform, which reduced almost to a simple extension of the categories and ignoring other important issues, such as working methods, the veto, regional representation and relations between the General Assembly and Security Council.

During this period, representatives of the G-4, especially India, has almost gone door to door to convince a support for his resolution that would open the door to the category of permanent and nonpermanent members.

The Security Council currently has five permanent veto-wielding members Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States and 10 non-permanent members elected for two years at a time.

Although a general agreement to expand the Council, in the process of reforming the United Nations, Member States are still sharply divided into the details, many of which are attached to their position.

In fact, the General Assembly President said there was little chance of reforming the Security Council in the near future, unless the groups firmly attached to their positions to forge a compromise on the issue at least temporarily.

Probably it is not possible to actually find a solution where one of these groups have all their wishes, said President Deiss.

Experts see the G-4 to appeal for negotiations to re-inter-governmental, in which Italy / Pakistan led Uniting for Consensus (UFC) is a major player, proof that their campaign to give the membership Permanent Council, at least for now.

Although their (G-4) action, they created an impasse for four months.

“It’s like going back to the procedure they had killed,” said one analyst. Thus, India and other group members were isolated.

The letter G-4, said: “We reiterate our full support to the process of intergovernmental negotiations. We hope to work constructively and in a spirit of flexibility with the other Member States to realize that an urgent reform of the Security Council.”

Shortly before the June 23 letter, a major Japanese newspaper also reported that the G-4 draft resolution did not “have made much progress in support of the votes.”

Therefore, the lines of division G-4 is still present, India is trying to lead the group.

An article published in Japanese newspapers Manicichi Shinbun note that the G-4 has started to abandon its initiative to bring resolution to a vote in the Assembly, because the chances of getting 128 votes is slim.

The article says that the UFC was held in Rome, where 120 different countries, while countries that support the current G-4 proposal for a number of 70-80.

According to Latest BBC News reports the Government officials said that at the meeting of June 6 G-4 New Delhi, Japan and Germany wanted to discuss the next steps appear to compromise, but India and Brazil would continue to press for resolution.

UFC group supports the consensus on the reform of the Council voting instead of division. The group also opposes the permanent members, but seeks the enlargement to 10 non-permanent categories, in which new members are elected for two years at a time, as well as the possibility of immediate re-election.
 
.
I'm just saying that complaining about the P5, after trying and failing to join them... it just seems like sour grapes.

And if you think the UNSC should be scrapped, remember that the UN charter cannot be modified without unanimous approval from all the P5 members.

You might interpret that as 'sour grapes'. I interpret that free view which comes with living in a democracy, something you won't understand. dig out my past posts from any UNSC thread, you will find my views the same as above even when india was high on this UNSC thing.

Coming back to your point about P5 can't be scrapped without the consenses of P5, you think rest of the world will just sit back & let this bully boys just bully around because of a single clause in a charter?
 
.
You might interpret that as 'sour grapes'. I interpret that free view which comes with living in a democracy, something you won't understand.

Umm... I live in Hong Kong, which ranks #2 in Asia, on the Press Freedom Index.

Whereas great India, is not even ranked in the top 100... :P
 
.
What's the use of running behind a Permanent Council seat when we are actually getting our job done staying outside it? I was always wondering what would that seat do? We got exempted from the most sensitive of bans, we got friends in the P5 and even potential adversary(s) from the group came for diplomatic expansion with us last year in quick succession.

No point of joining the P5. We might as well stay out and command our current respect.

India may actually have less room for action inside the P5 than outside it at this moment in time.

As India is very heavily dependent on foreign weapons(lots of joint development with Israel on radar/missiles) India may come under much more pressure to side with Israel if there was a war in lebanon for example. Now if India got in after 2020, then the level of support that the Indians would need from the Israelis would have dimished greatly than it is now.

It is better for India to have patience, grow it's economy and it's military strength and then frankly other countries will be pushing it to join the P5. It would be absurd to have one of the world's top powers not be inside the permanent council from say around 2020 onwards.
 
.
Umm... I live in Hong Kong, which ranks #2 in Asia, on the Press Freedom Index.

Whereas great India, is not even ranked in the top 100... :P

good for you. I live in england & enjoy best of both worlds!:P
 
.
Coming back to your point about P5 can't be scrapped without the consenses of P5, you think rest of the world will just sit back & let this bully boys just bully around because of a single clause in a charter?

Yes, because the P5 represent the so-called "great powers" of the world.

Great power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The P5 and their "allies", make up most of the political/economic power in the world.
 
. . . .
Oh guys let the goi say something on this dont go crazy over it
 
. .
lets see,to how much extent india can stretch them??
we dont need them..vice versa is not true..
 
.
Ha- Tall claims- Loud mouths- Finally shown where they belong- Its a really shameful defeat for the Indians-
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom