Pakistan opposes new permanent members to UNSC

[Abingdonboy]

I remember Indian posts from ten years back, outlining how they would be a permanent member of the UNSC. Ten years from now, we'll see the same posts, and the mention of another ten year time frame.

The longer India is denied it, the more compelling the case for its candidacy becomes. Aside from Pakistan's objections- what legitimate reason is there for India not being a permenant member of the UNSC ten years from now sir?

 

[waz]

The longer India is denied it, the more compelling the case for its candidacy becomes. Aside from Pakistan's objections- what legitimate reason is there for India not being a permenant member of the UNSC ten years from now sir?

The permanent 5 don't care about anyone's compelling case, and other nations are not bothered. The Japanese and Germans also asked once upon a time. As for the reasons, these posts have been done to death. In a nutshell it's about power, and none of these five states are willing to share that.

 

[Abingdonboy]

The permanent 5 don't care about anyone's compelling case, and other nations are not bothered. The Japanese and Germans also asked once upon a time. As for the reasons, these posts have been done to death. In a nutshell it's about power, and none of these five states are willing to share that.

I'm not saying it will happen soon but the status quo will be challenged at some point or risk being sidelined all together- at that point they will roll out the red carpet to India- but India alone.

+ Germany and Japan's claims to a permenant seat were strong but never as strong as India's.

 

[kublaiyuan]

no need for pakistan to oppose no single permanent member actually want to share power with any new country, UN will never include new veto members, its like a carrot shown to India by US and euro powers to calm the good hearten elephant fellow down.
only way the structure will change if UN is shut down because of waning power of west and new international structure is created, but seems like west will remain supreme for next 30-40 years atleast.

 

[Nilgiri]

In a nutshell it's about power, and none of these five states are willing to share that.

Russia, UK, France, US are all on board in getting India into the Permanent UNSC with veto.

Only one country is still reluctant to let India in (but even their position is more amenable than before).

We might have to wait till India is the 3rd largest economy worldwide by nominal measure and has developed a full nuclear triad with megaton H-bombs and enough significant military cooperation worldwide and in the immediate neighbourhood of the reluctant country to make them finally acquiesce (for their benefit).

But in any case its a matter of time. India has plenty of that. If it comes earlier than expected... that is just icing on the cake.

 

[waz]

Russia, UK, France, US are all on board in getting India into the Permanent UNSC with veto.

Only one country is still reluctant to let India in (but even their position is more amenable than before).

We might have to wait till India is the 3rd largest economy worldwide by nominal measure and has developed a full nuclear triad with megaton H-bombs and enough significant military cooperation worldwide and in the immediate neighbourhood of the reluctant country to make them finally acquiesce (for their benefit).

But in any case its a matter of time. India has plenty of that. If it comes earlier than expected... that is just icing on the cake.

They're not on board with anything...It's called lip service. The proof is in the pudding. It's more than just an issue to do with time, the quicker folks realise that the better.

I'm not saying it will happen soon but the status quo will be challenged at some point or risk being sidelined all together- at that point they will roll out the red carpet to India- but India alone.

+ Germany and Japan's claims to a permenant seat were strong but never as strong as India's.

Who will challenge the status quo? No one mate. No one has a care for the issue anyway bar India and it's posters. Countries worldwide are fine with how things are, and they are usually allied or work with their nation of choice. India has no role to fill that can't be done by the permeant five.
As for the red carpet, like I said before ten years from now someone will say the very same thing......

 

[Abingdonboy]

Who will challenge the status quo? No one mate. No one has a care for the issue anyway bar India and it's posters. Countries worldwide are fine with how things are, and they are usually allied or work with their nation of choice. India has no role to fill that can't be done by the permeant five..

Sheer pragmatism will drive through the reforms. Look at any projection you like, ten years from now India will be the 3rd largest economy in nominal terms (it is already in PPP terms), 30 years from now it will overtake the US in nominal GDP and the gap between the top 3 (China, India and US) and the 4th largest economy (and thus the rest of the world) is going to grow massively in our lifetimes. In 2014, the gap between the 3rd largest and 4th largest economies (India and Japan respectively) was 50%, by 2050 the gap between the 3rd largest economy (US) and 4th (Indonesia) will be 240%. Ie the "big three" are going to be the powers of this centuary. Any sense that India is somehow kept out of this arbitary club is entirely illogical and becomes less and less feasible as time goes on.

As for the red carpet, like I said before ten years from now someone will say the very same thing......

That was rather optimistic from those parties I suppose but it is more than reasonable to expect India to have a permenant seat 10 years from now. The idea it won't is rather unthinkable to be honest considering the respective power of India vis a vis some of the permenant members (Russia,UK and France). 10 years from now, a case against India's candidacy will be untenable.

Russia, UK, France, US are all on board in getting India into the Permanent UNSC with veto.

Only one country is still reluctant to let India in (but even their position is more amenable than before).

We might have to wait till India is the 3rd largest economy worldwide by nominal measure and has developed a full nuclear triad with megaton H-bombs and enough significant military cooperation worldwide and in the immediate neighbourhood of the reluctant country to make them finally acquiesce (for their benefit).

But in any case its a matter of time. India has plenty of that. If it comes earlier than expected... that is just icing on the cake.

Well said, as I have stated- India should just bide its time and the seat will be made available to it one way or another in the coming years. It's a case of when and not if now.

for you @waz sir:

In 2050 the cumlative GDP (PPP)of the big three (China, India and US) is predicted to be more than the cumlative GDPs of the next 29 nations (4th-32nd).

Again, it is unthinkable that India doesn't get its rightful position.

 

[wiseone2]

When was the last time, Pakistan moved any resolution at UNSC, if ever.

How will India getting UNSC seat right now, effect the 70 year old UNSC resolution? India can not undo the old, already passed resolution, all it can do, is block anymore UNSC resolutions that are tabled by Pakistan. But then so can Russia on India's behalf. And when has Pakistan ever tabled a UNSC resolution on Kashmir.

Pakistan is just insecure, because it imagines itself as India's equal can not tolerate India rising to higher echelons.

Indian UNSC seat is not a zero sum game for Pakistanis.

Pakistan tried in the early 1990s

Sheer pragmatism will drive through the reforms. Look at any projection you like, ten years from now India will be the 3rd largest economy in nominal terms (it is already in PPP terms), 30 years from now it will overtake the US in nominal GDP and the gap between the top 3 (China, India and US) and the 4th largest economy (and thus the rest of the world) is going to grow massively in our lifetimes. In 2014, the gap between the 3rd largest and 4th largest economies (India and Japan respectively) was 50%, by 2050 the gap between the 3rd largest economy (US) and 4th (Indonesia) will be 240%. Ie the "big three" are going to be the powers of this centuary. Any sense that India is somehow kept out of this arbitary club is entirely illogical and becomes less and less feasible as time goes on.



That was rather optimistic from those parties I suppose but it is more than reasonable to expect India to have a permenant seat 10 years from now. The idea it won't is rather unthinkable to be honest considering the respective power of India vis a vis some of the permenant members (Russia,UK and France). 10 years from now, a case against India's candidacy will be untenable.


Well said, as I have stated- India should just bide its time and the seat will be made available to it one way or another in the coming years. It's a case of when and not if now.

for you @waz sir:

In 2050 the cumlative GDP (PPP)of the big three (China, India and US) is predicted to be more than the cumlative GDPs of the next 29 nations (4th-32nd).

Again, it is unthinkable that India doesn't get its rightful position.

I would agree around 2050 India would be head and shoulders ahead of everyone except China and USA

India got 66b and Pakistan got 44b. Now compare the size and population of both countries. Moreover, these so called aid caused more problems than solving, via NGOs.

The numbers are bogus. I question the numbers when someone puts India ahead of Israel. Israel gets $3 billion every year since 1980. India gets around 100-200 million dollars.

Any aid given through World Bank or IMF does not count

 

[Dragon4]

India is trying to win the race of being the first third world country with permanent status and VETO.Out of curiosity if they give Kashmir to PAK will PAK oppose them at the UN high table.

Thanx but no thanx. Kashmir aint going anywhere.

 

[Immanuel]

Sometimes u have to give something to get something ...Indians may as well give Kashmir (it costs a lot to keep it )and it is not some great status symbol as VETO which u guys fancy.

Won't happen simply because we can't rely on anybody else controlling our assured fresh water supply. With nearly 1.4 billion people, majority of the Himalayas are a biosphere/ grand eco system we will always have in our control, giving this up is riciculous. Chasing permanant UN membership is hogwash, US is impotent and adds no value.

 

[Dragon4]

Sometimes u have to give something to get something ...Indians may as well give Kashmir (it costs a lot to keep it )and it is not some great status symbol as VETO which u guys fancy.

We will give Kashmir as a gift to Pakistan for a symbolic status. Heck we may gift all other states too.
Sure sir, in your dreams. Keep dreaming.

 

[Pulsar]

By Web Desk
March 10, 2016
NEW YORK: Pakistan has said use of the veto in the United Nation’s Security Council prevented a resolution of the longstanding dispute of Kashmir and hindered implementation of UN Resolutions on the issue, says a press release received on Thursday.

Firstly, the only outstanding issue is the return by Pakistan of P0K and GB illegally occupied by it after invading Kashmir by Pakistani forces under the command of Brig Akbar Khan in Operation Gulmarg in 1947.

Secondly, Part 2 of the UN Resolutions of 1948 very clearly state that Pakistan must withdraw ALL its forces from Kashmir including its tribals used for the purpose of fighting which would be authenticated by the UN before a plebiscite is held. Pakistan till this day has failed to comply with the Resolution.

Instead of bellyaching and shouting from the rooftops like a broken record at every international forum, Pakistan needs to first withdraw all its forces from P0K and GB for the UN Resolutions to take affect. And that they will never ever do. Thus the UN Resolution is as dead as a dodo. Period!

And by the way, the Resolution was signed under Chapter VI of the UN Charter which makes the Resolution non-enforceable, veto or no veto!

 

[Lonely Hermit]

India is trying to win the race of being the first third world country with permanent status and VETO

It seems you do not understand the meaning of the word third world country, if you meant a developing country then might I remind you China wasn't a utopia when it got admitted as a permanent veto carrying UNSC member in 1971.

Out of curiosity if they give Kashmir to PAK will PAK oppose them at the UN high table.

The sovereignty and integrity of indian union is much higher than worth less UNSC seat, UNSC is already compromised like the league of nation. A non democratic institution set up to serve nefarious purpose of few nation. When the next geopolitical realignment will happen there won't be any UNSC and we will extract our pound of flesh in that new order .