Pakistan opposes new permanent members to UNSC

[ito]

Pakistan has made so many flipflops on UN resolutions that it has no locus standi on Kashmir. It has changed it stand on UN resolutions so many times in recent times.

As on India's veto powers on UNSC, Pakistan has no business poking its nose where it is not welcome.

pursuing UNSC membership is a total waste of time. India better use it's political capital somewhere else.

It is not a waste of time. Keeping pressure on UN is a constant reminder to UN members about India's deservability to UNSC.

 

[Ankit Kumar]

India should simply leave this matter for now. Unnecessary with no benefits.

But those 5 members should either give India some kind of authority in decision making in deployment of peace missions or India should simply call back its white caps. We should not put them for someone else.

MTCR is far more important.

 

[dadeechi]

Pakistan has made so many flipflops on UN resolutions that it has no locus standi on Kashmir. It has changed it stand on UN resolutions so many times in recent times.

As on India's veto powers on UNSC, Pakistan has no business poking its nose where it is not welcome.



It is not a waste of time. Keeping pressure on UN is a constant reminder to UN members about India's deservability to UNSC.

But what is the use of the UNSC seat without any veto?

India should simply leave this matter for now. Unnecessary with no benefits.

But those 5 members should either give India some kind of authority in decision making in deployment of peace missions or India should simply call back its white caps. We should not put them for someone else.

MTCR is far more important.

I am not sure about MTCR either. There was a time in early 90s when India needed MTCR. Now India has made so much progress on the satellite and missile tech, MTCR would just be an impediment for any sales that India plans in these areas.

 

[Endeavour]

Beghani shadi mein abdullah deewana.

 

[ito]

But what is the use of the UNSC seat without any veto?

I guess India says that if there is a seat in UNSC for India, it has to be with veto.

 

[Khafee]

@waz What happened? You're on a roll

 

[dadeechi]

I guess India says that if there is a seat in UNSC for India, it has to be with veto.

Forget about that. UNSC and NPT are cozy clubs.

No new UNSC veto members or NPTmembers as nuclear HAVEs would be added unless and until there is WW3 resulting in replacing these forums.

 

[ito]

Forget about that. UNSC and NPT are cozy clubs.

No new UNSC veto members or NPTmembers as nuclear HAVEs would be added unless and until there is WW3 resulting in replacing these forums.

Then it is fine.Without veto India might not accept UNSC membership.

 

[Armstrong]

Then it is fine.Without veto India might not accept UNSC membership.

Can I get UNSC membership as well ?

 

[ito]

Can I get UNSC membership as well ?

You can, I guess Indians will not have problem in you being a UNSC member

 

[Abingdonboy]

IMO India should wait and be invited automatically rather than claiming for a permanent membership. Lets concentrate on own diplomacy and economic development with enhancing R&D in nuclear fission tech as all P5 nuclear fission tech.

Seconded. As much as I loathe to quote Gandhi:

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

In time the prospect of keeping India out will become so absurd so as to make its inclusion mandatory or risk comprimising the entire credibility of the UNSC. So as to balance out the quote from above

"no power on earth can stop an idea whose time has come" and India's time is coming (to quote Dr MMS).

 

[cloud4000]

IMO India should wait and be invited automatically rather than claiming for a permanent membership. Lets concentrate on own diplomacy and economic development with enhancing R&D in nuclear fission tech as all P5 nuclear fission tech.

Don't hold your breath. No invitation is forthcoming to India to join the club. I've seen this game played for years. US says it supports India's joining the P5, but we all know this will never, ever happen.

Even if the UNSC is expanded to include new permanent members, what is the criteria for membership? Nobody seems to know.

But if India wants to up its game it needs contribute more to the UN budget wise.

According to the latest UN Assessment report:

United Nations Official Document

Inia will contribute a paltry $19,900,386 to the 2016-2017 general budget, which accounts for a pathetic .67% of the UN's budget.

Countries who contribute more:
Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Korea, Russia, Saudia Arabia, Spain, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, Turkey, UAE and UK.

 

[randomradio]

Kashmir will take a backseat forever once India reaches that point.

Kashmir is already on the backseat. It's been so for a long time now.

The only issue is that of terrorism. Once that's taken care of, Kashmir's non-negotiable status will just get more cemented. The current stance of the Indian govt is only Pak occupied Kashmir is disputed.

 

[RazorMC]

 

[Mr.Nair]

A decade back- If india is going to become permanent member, then we also want to become a permanent member

Now- We will object for india's permanent membership

After a decade- We can't do any thing as India is a permanent member

@ranjeet @Great Sachin @Ammara Chaudhry @Zarvan @A.P. Richelieu @sarjenprabhu @SarthakGanguly @HariPrasad @Soulspeek @MilSpec @Parul @Roybot @Indos @EAK @xyxmt