Permanent UNSC Seat for India

[roadrunner]

That's the first part of the of the resolution you quoted. It says that the commission must notify the Indian Government of the withdrawal of troops and tribesmen... which clearly you never withdrew, and hence, the rest of the resolution could never go ahead...

This has been discussed before on the UN resolution thread of Kashmir.

It's very clear there.

I'll repeat for you.

The Commision (UNCIP) was notified that Pakistani troops were being withdrawn. How do I know this, you ask? Well, India was asked to withdraw its troops down to 18,000, but it refused. It said it needed 24,000 troops to maintain order. This is where the process broke down. There is a resolution stating this.

Therefore UNCIP were notified, since India was asked to agree to withdraw. a had to happen before b, it's a process that is one way.

Now, if you interpret that as a mistake on India's part, you are either very deluded or don't know English... considering you are Pakistani, I think it is the former rather than the latter....

It's not just me. It's me and everyone who can speak English. It's even the head of UNCIP, the UN chief that stated it was India that halted the process of demilitarization in Kashmir.

“None of these suggestions commended themselves to the Prime Minister of India. In the end, I became convinced that India’s agreement would never be obtained to demilitarization in any such form, or to provisions governing the period of the plebiscite of any such character, as would in my opinion permit the plebiscite being conducted in conditions sufficiently guarding against intimidation and other forms of influence and abuse by which the freedom and fairness of the plebiscite might be imperiled.”[ - Sir Owen Dixon, head of UNCIP.

The head of the UN team overlooking the Kashmir issue stated it was your fault. Here it is for you again?

"“None of these suggestions commended themselves to the Prime Minister of India. In the end, I became convinced that India’s agreement would never be obtained to demilitarization in any such form, or to provisions governing the period of the plebiscite of any such character, as would in my opinion permit the plebiscite being conducted in conditions sufficiently guarding against intimidation and other forms of influence and abuse by which the freedom and fairness of the plebiscite might be imperiled.”[

Now was Sir Owen Dixon also deluded?

Before all of this, Pakistan was supposed to remove the tribesmen it had ILLEGALLY planted into Kashmir, which it did not do... so this stage of the process was never reached...

Pakistan was not supposed to remove ALL the tribesmen. The phrase used in the UN resolution (you've quoted it above) is:

"The Government of Pakistan will use its best endeavour to secure the withdrawal from theState of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistan nationals not normally resident thereinwho have entered the State for the purpose of fighting."

-Best endeavour. And the UN agreed it was a best endeavour since the process fo demilitarization was continued and India asked to withdraw its troops.

Who the heck is this "WE" ??? You and your band of self-styled, half-frenzied crony merry-men ???

If I, or we, are so crazy, why hasn't a single Indian been able to answer why India refused to reduce its troop numbers down to 18,000?

If it's so crazy, why did the head of UNCIP blame India for the failure of the demilitarization process?

 

[ever4244]

And, do you also want the list of all the Resolutions that your good friend China has chosen to ignore in the issues of Tibet and Taiwan ???

I'm sure that I would require more than 2 posts to list all their "August Achievements at the Council"

Please, I beg for the list of UN resolution on Tibet and Taiwan not in our favor. For it is a great news for me, truely`````````````

 

[ever4244]

ha ha...

as for taiwan, it would depend on which way the veto is going.

Are you kidding? Do you know why we have a deplomatic relationship in the first place? As if you are big enough to toy with the Taiwan issue.

Nay, even if we veto every single resolution in the favour of india, your gov would not dare say otherwise about Taiwan, that's all.

 

[rahgup]

How is India in a better situation than the US or UK anyway, please do explain why you think this. It should be interesting reading.

A few points about Britain:

Its a tiny island in some corner of the world with wealth looted from its former colonies like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Africa. Infact if you were forced to return all our money you'll be paying us for the next 10 generations!

I ask what has Britain done to deserve a permanent seat and veto? 60 years ago maybe, now you are just the 51st sate of USA and laughing stock of the world.

 

[duhastmish]

Are you kidding? Do you know why we have a deplomatic relationship in the first place? As if you are big enough to toy with the Taiwan issue.

Nay, even if we veto every single resolution in the favour of india, your gov would not dare say otherwise about Taiwan, that's all.

SIR,
some sever Misconception you have there. remember how India always shelter Tibet rebels. India is not a country like congo or belarus ( where ever they are) . its a big democracy with big population. times are changing - just blindly looking at world bank figure and making judgment will be a big mistake. here you have many a times more money which is unregistered in government account called black money. the day that money will be in play - Many will be in a shock.
Where as for unsc seat- Like it or not. India will get it. by hook or crook

 

[badguy2000]

the current veto-holders,big 5, in fact all would not give up Vested interests.

if some of the big 5 sometimes say to India "I support your to get veto" bah bla......, such "support" are actually just Perfunctory or civilities to India.

if India were powerful enough , India would have two options :

1. run for a seat among Veto-holders of UN as now ,to give UN more credit.
For example, German joined the League of Nations in mid 1920s and get a senior seat there.

2. throw "UN" out of windows and found anthoer international organize to take the place of UN.
For example, USA threw "League of Nations" out of the windows and let UN take the place of " League of Nations" .


but now,obviously India were not power enough to do with UN as USA did with" League of Nations" ,so opt 2 is not available to India.

 

[badguy2000]

the status quo is that :

1. if India were to have a Permanent UNSC Seat ,it would give UN more credit of course.

2. If India were not to have a Permanent UNSC Seat , UN would not get more disable and the earth would still turn round and round.
if India were not powerful enough to let UN as " worthless" as "the League of Nations",why big 5 let India join?

Frankly speaking, if UN could really reflect power balance today,then UNSC should have only 4 permanent holders :" USA,EU,Russia and China". One veto is enough for Europeans.


So, UNSC's real problem should be how to decrease European's vetos ,instead of increase vetos. Increase of vetos just means more inefficiency of UN.

 

[zombie]

There is no such thing as deserving a UN permanent seat. You have to force it...either by being beneficial for some party or being a nuisance if kept out.

Currently India is neither that powerful nor that headstrong.

Ocourse it doesnt mean that India can never be or to undermine, just that some changes in thought and actions might be needed. Its better to be pragmatic than emotional about this.

 

[badguy2000]

There is no such thing as deserving a UN permanent seat. You have to force it...either by being beneficial for some party or being a nuisance if kept out.

Currently India is neither that powerful nor that headstrong.

Ocourse it doesnt mean that India can never be or to undermine, just that some changes in thought and actions might be needed. Its better to be pragmatic than emotional about this.

yes.

can you image a UN where USA has no veto? of course not, because if UN did gave veto to USA,USA would found another club to take the place of UN. at that time ,UN would be worthless as "league of Nations" in 1930s.


So,Before a Enthusiastic UN reformer as strong as USA were to appears ,it would be impossible to increase the veto's on UNSC.
However, in forseeable future,none of Japan,India ,German or Brazil could become powerful enough.
Instead, ,current vested-interest-keepers such as USA and China are going to be more and more powerful.None of them is enthusiastic to delute their vested privileges.


Fact is that None of Big 5 is enthusiastic to delute their vested privileges,Italy,Pakistan,Mexico are just the proxies of big 5.

 

[Vinod2070]

The current UN structure is skewed towards the winners of a war 65 years back.

It has to adapt to the new realities or become even more irrelevant than it is now.

 

[badguy2000]

The current UN structure is skewed towards the winners of a war 65 years back.

It has to adapt to the new realities or become even more irrelevant than it is now.

yes,The current UN structure is skewed towards the winners of a war 65 years back.

But the current "the new realities " is that India is still quite weaker than anyone of big 4 ( USA,EU,Russia and China ),so is Brazil.
As for German, Europeans have already too many vetos. Japan....it is too close to China.

Just as I posted :
UNSC should have only 4 permanent holders :" USA,EU,Russia and China". One veto is enough for Europeans.

UNSC's real problem should be how to decrease European's vetos ,instead of increase vetos

 

[Vinod2070]

yes,The current UN structure is skewed towards the winners of a war 65 years back.

but the current "the new realities " is that India is still quite weaker than anyone of big 4 ( USA,EU,Russia and China ),so is Brazil.

Just as I posted :
UNSC should have only 4 permanent holders :" USA,EU,Russia and China". One veto is enough for Europeans.

UNSC's real problem should be how to decrease European's vetos ,instead of increase vetos

How strong was China in 1945? Heck I guess the UN wanted Taiwan as a member and not the PRC initially.

Second, it is not just about hard power (even though India is not "still quite weaker") there. It is about representing a sixth of humanity. What is UN'r credibility when it doesn't represent that?

I know China wants a unipolar Asia. It is going to fail in that goal.

There should be at least 3-4 permanent members from Asia to maintain balance.

 

[rahgup]

But the current "the new realities " is that India is still quite weaker than anyone of big 4 ( USA,EU,Russia and China ),so is Brazil.
UNSC should have only 4 permanent holders :" USA,EU,Russia and China". One veto is enough for Europeans.

Totally agree about booting both UK and France from the UN permanent membership and instead having 1 EU membership which will also take care of Germany and Italy.

Second is the question of power...is the UNSC a place to represent hard power so that their writ can rule over the world? You can see how USA (and also others) misuse their veto for selfish purposes. I would suggest doing away with the veto altogether.

Next, India has the 2nd largest population (soon to be 1) and 4th largest economy on PPP basis. Is it justified to deny such a large portion their right to representation. Frankly, as you suggested if the present members fail to see the emerging reality and do not reform the UN would automatically become irrelevant just like the League of Nations

 

[zombie]

ROC WAS the permanent member. In fact it did even use the veto in 1955.

It was only in 1971, the People's Republic of China was awarded China's seat in the United Nations by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758...more because of PRC-Soviet rivalry and Nixon involvement. It was not on account of love for a billion chinese. Just confirms that even in China's case it was about interests.

And permanent member is different from permanent security council member. It just happens that its the same countries but not mandatory. And power does have a lot to do with security council. Without ability or attitude to influence change through raw power(if need be), like a police or army, that membership is a waste..both for India and for others...and no we arent talking about a few army folks in africa.

 

[pama]

India, a nuclear power, has the world's second largest population and is the world's largest liberal democracy. It is also the world's twelfth largest economy and fourth largest in terms of purchasing power parity. Currently, India maintains the world's third largest armed force. India is one of the largest contributor of troops to UN-mandated peace-keeping missions.

India's bid is unequivocally backed by permanent members France, Russia[14] and the United Kingdom[15]. The Chinese government in Beijing has recently advocated the candidacy.[16] Though several countries like Brazil,[17] Australia,[18] and African Union[19] support India's candidature, popular belief expressed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is that certain "Major Powers are hindering India's Candidacy[citation needed]".

Though initially opposed by the Chinese due to geo-political reasons (China being an ally of India's arch-rival Pakistan and the country also having fought a brief war with India in 1962), recent history has turned China's official support for India's candidature from negative to neutral to positive, in correlation with stronger economic ties.[citation needed] On 11 April 2005 China announced it would support India's bid for a permanent seat, but without a veto. Although the U.S. officially does not back India's bid — for various reasons, some of which remain decidedly unclear — it has privately been eager to work with India and to support the nation (which translates to not using a veto).[citation needed] However Indo-American relations are currently improving from the Cold War levels of de facto derision, marked by an alliance of mutuality, recently, in March 2006, by the US President George W. Bush making a visit to India, signing a civilian nuclear power sharing programme.

Taking into account its huge population and growing economic and political clout, India is a strong contender to clinch a permanent seat. Another factor which bolsters India's candidature is the fact it has participated in several of its activities, including UN operations in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Cyprus, Cambodia, Yemen, Somalia, Rwanda , Namibia, Sinai peninsula, among others.