There will be NO expansion of the exclusive club

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Why does UNSC need China today?

China is already part of the UNSC, so it is an irrelevant point.

Now flash forward 15 years, replace the word 'China' with 'India' and Bingo! you have your answer.

I cannot comment about other countries honestly.

You cannot just replace the word China with India since the circumstances and dynamics in which the UNSC and the P5 came about in the aftermath of World War 2 do not exist currently.

It changes in that the nations who are the biggest supporters of UN efforts (India etc.) worldwide get a voice on the biggest international platform available.

Those nations still have a voice through rotating membership and direct diplomatic contacts with other nations, and are obligated to implement binding UNSC resolutions regardless of whether they are on the UNSC or not.

This is not an example of a tangible benefit, by virtue of having India as a permanent member, for the UNSC.

I myself do not think India needs veto power. It is a 'bekaar ka sardard' anyways. India's prime concern is to be heard at the international stage and to be recognised as an international power in accordance with its status.

India herself is insistent upon permanent membership with veto.

 

[gubbi]

wont it be better to leave just China and US with veto power and kick the other three with Britain as powerless as anything already.

According to your own logic, Countries which have not/cannot fight wars outside their own "home theaters" should be kicked out of UNSC. Lets see who has not or cannot sustain a conflict outside their own theaters?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

wont it be better to leave just China and US with veto power and kick the other three with Britain as powerless as anything already.

Theoretically the UK and France are redundant on the UNSC, since they are a part of NATO and more often than not vote in a bloc anyway, though France did oppose the US decision to go to war in Iraq, while the UK continued to act as the US lackey in chief. The UK then certainly is a redundant member.

Russia not so much. Russian interests diverge from Western and Chinese interests on several issues, and they remain a major military and natural resource based economic power, so they do have clout.

 

[Spring Onion]

According to your own logic, Countries which have not/cannot fight wars outside their own "home theaters" should be kicked out of UNSC. Lets see who has not or cannot sustain a conflict outside their own theaters?

where this notion comes from in my post ?

UK lately been as powerless as anything viz a viz influence, shaping things. its not about fighting wars outside their own theater as by that logic China has not invaded any country so far in real sense

 

[Developereo]

Britain, France support India's UNSC seat bid - Hindustan Times

Google is thy friend. You are wrong.

You guys clearly missed my point.
Sigh.

 

[Spring Onion]

Theoretically the UK and France are redundant on the UNSC, since they are a part of NATO and more often than not vote in a bloc anyway, though France did oppose the US decision to go to war in Iraq, while the UK continued to act as the US lackey in chief. The UK then certainly is a redundant member.

Russia not so much. Russian interests diverge from Western and Chinese interests on several issues, and they remain a major military and natural resource based economic power, so they do have clout.

Could not said it better. Thats what i meant.

France, UK or even Germany was seen proving not acting affectingly to shape a balanced or non-damaging scenario for the world.

Since US, China and Russia are three countries that do use veto power keeping in view their interests so its better to just keep them with the power atleast by that way we might have less ill-planned wars like Iraq and Afghanistan

 

[JamesBond]

China is already part of the UNSC, so it is an irrelevant point.


You cannot just replace the word China with India since the circumstances and dynamics in which the UNSC and the P5 came about in the aftermath of World War 2 do not exist currently.
Those nations still have a voice through rotating membership and direct diplomatic contacts with other nations, and are obligated to implement binding UNSC resolutions regardless of whether they are on the UNSC or not.

You completely missed my point.

Ok let me try again.

Imagine a hypothetical scenario in which you are assembling a group of the most powerful and influential nations/blocks in the world today.

Which ones will you go for? Let me answer this:

1. US (no explanation required)
2. China (no explanation required)
3. Russia (by virtue of their huge military power and being 'the biggest country on earth')
4. EU (as a whole by virtue of both their economic and military strangth)
5. Muslim nations (one block for obvious nations)


Now flash forward 15 years. This is 2015 now. India has become what China was in 2010 both economically and militarily.

Now answer me, will it be prudent to ignore India at that time?

As far as rotating membership is concerned, you seriously cannot club a giant like India with smaller and much less influential countries (I'm talking keeping the 2015 scenario in mind)

India herself is insistent upon permanent membership with veto.

My personal take on this, we are aiming above the target to hit the target.

 

[gubbi]

where this notion comes from in my post ?

UK lately been as powerless as anything viz a viz influence, shaping things. its not about fighting wars outside their own theater as by that logic China has not invaded any country so far in real sense

The role of UNSC is to impose unanimous decisions on unwilling or rogue nations, either militarily or diplomatically - usually the former. All the UNSC members are military powers and have throughout its existence used military might to impose certain UN decisions, except for China.

Dont write off the Brits. Thats very immature to say at the very least. Them Brits are pretty damn smart people and know how to turn situations to their own advantage. A people who coined the phrase "white man's burden" cannot be so easily written off.

Have you ever wondered that the reason why UK tags along with US in most cases is because those cases also happen to be in UK's interests? Simple logic.

 

[Honor]

point is not what new permanent members will bring to the table! whole p5 thing is flawed in the first place anyway. How can just five nations can decide the fate of rest of the countries? if you ask me, none of them should have the veto power anyway & the majority's openion should count.

Power counts! P5 were all nuclear powers. They used to control world fate.

However, some of the P5 members are losing their revelant now.

 

[JamesBond]

Power counts! P5 were all nuclear powers. They used to control world fate.

However, some of the P5 members are losing their revelant now....

...and some of non-P5 members are gaining relevance now. Time to let this fact be reflected in the UNSC.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

You completely missed my point.

Ok let me try again.

Imagine a hypothetical scenario in which you are assembling a group of the most powerful and influential nations/blocks in the world today.

Which ones will you go for? Let me answer this:

1. US (no explanation required)
2. China (no explanation required)
3. Russia (by virtue of their huge military power and being 'the biggest country on earth')
4. EU (as a whole by virtue of both their economic and military strangth)
5. Muslim nations (one block for obvious nations)

Reform on the UNSC in terms of non veto wielding permanent members representing various communities of the world will not find many opponents. But that in itself is not a tangible benefit for the UNSC, compared to its composition currently. What you have pointed out, having more representative membership on the UNSC (without veto), is good for the world in general in that there are more nations voting on issues, but it is not a tangible benefit for the institution of the UNSC as it stands today, and certainly not a benefit for the current P5, who will have less ability to control the direction of votes on issues brought before the UNSC.

Now flash forward 15 years. This is 2015 now. India has become what China was in 2010 both economically and militarily.

Now answer me, will it be prudent to ignore India at that time?

Why not? From a cost benefit POV, given the current UNSC power structure, why would they wish to include any nation that will dilute their power?

As far as rotating membership is concerned, you seriously cannot club a giant like India with smaller and much less influential countries (I'm talking keeping the 2015 scenario in mind)

The benefit to the global community, which is the premise behind UNSC reform, is to have more communities represented on the UNSC in order for their voice to be heard. India would deserve a (non veto) permanent membership by virtue of representing over a billion people, and not because of being influential, if we are to look at the pure motivations behind UNSC reform.

My personal take on this, we are aiming above the target to hit the target.

India is officially refusing the idea of permanent membership without veto, and that is a position that India needs to change, since it is regressive.

 

[gubbi]

India is officially refusing the idea of permanent membership without veto, and that is a position that India needs to change, since it is regressive.

Isnt that the demand of the G-4? Its not only India.

 

[luckyyy]

Reform on the UNSC in terms of non veto wielding permanent members representing various communities of the world will not find many opponents. But that in itself is not a tangible benefit for the UNSC, compared to its composition currently. What you have pointed out, having more representative membership on the UNSC (without veto), is good for the world in general in that there are more nations voting on issues, but it is not a tangible benefit for the institution of the UNSC as it stands today, and certainly not a benefit for the current P5, who will have less ability to control the direction of votes on issues brought before the UNSC.

Why not? From a cost benefit POV, given the current UNSC power structure, why would they wish to include any nation that will dilute their power?

The benefit to the global community, which is the premise behind UNSC reform, is to have more communities represented on the UNSC in order for their voice to be heard. India would deserve a (non veto) permanent membership by virtue of representing over a billion people, and not because of being influential, if we are to look at the pure motivations behind UNSC reform.

India is officially refusing the idea of permanent membership without veto, and that is a position that India needs to change, since it is regressive.

their should not be a veto power......bring more members on the permanent seat and take decissions on majority votes..

 

[gubbi]

their should not be a veto power......bring more members on the permanent seat and take decissions on majority votes..

You have the UNGA for that. UNSC has its own mandate or "job profile" if you may.

 

[JanjaWeed]

Power counts! P5 were all nuclear powers. They used to control world fate.

However, some of the P5 members are losing their revelant now.

that's the whole point. what a flawed justification to be elevated as permanent members on the first place? world has moved on since 2nd world war, so should the structure of UNSC.