US does not want India in Security Council

[joekrish]

India wont get UNSC permanent membership by begging and display of soft power.All it will g

et lipservice for support.World repect powerful and untill india displays it hard power it will only get lipservice.

Are you trying to be different coz your views always tend to flow on the opposite direction and now it's getting to be a little boring.

I just responded to your post to let you know.

 

[ajtr]

Are you trying to be different coz your views always tend to flow on the opposite direction and now it's getting to be a little boarding.

I just responded to your post to let you know.

Let me tell you all PDF Indians that i dont post for you people i post for myself what i feel like posting.If you guys have problem you have ignore button provided to you guys by pdf admin. feel free to make proper use of it.

A replied to your post to remind about the ignore button..

 

[joekrish]

Let me tell you all PDF Indians that i dont post for you people i post for myself what i feel like posting.If you guys have problem you have ignore button provided to you guys by pdf admin. feel free to make proper use of it.

A replied to your post to remind about the ignore button..

I'm not talking from an Indian POv but in general.

 

[Srinivas]

UNSC is a body which do not represent the actual world and its share of population. This is an entity formed after world war 2 and todays world has changed completely different in Geopolitics, economy and Military power.

If UN wants to be relevant and work for the betterment of the globe it should allow UNSC to expand and consider other rising powers not only India but there are other powers from Asia and South America as well.

How can they ignore India which is having almost 1/6 th population and rising economy which is going to be in top 5 in the next decade??
Where is the representation of South America in it??

If there are no reforms in UNSC the organization itself is going to loose its relevance in the next decade. India do not need to worry about the permanent seat in UNSC.

 

[Yeti]

UNSC is a body which is do not represent the actual world and its share of population. This is an entity formed after world war 2 and todays world has changed completely different in Geopoliticas, economy and Military power.

If UN wants to be relevant and work for the betterment of the globe it should allow UNSC to expand and consider other rising powers not only India but there are other powers from South America as well.

How can they ignore India which is having alomost 1/6 th population and rising economy which is going to be in top 5 in the next decade??
Where is the representation of South America in it??

If there are no reforms in UNSC the organisation itself is going to loose its relevance in the next decade. India do not need to worry about this permanent seat in UNSC.

That's a good post and sums it up for me that the UNSC will only be relevant if it represents the modern world in 2012 and not some bygone era. My choices would be Brazil, India and South Africa to join the party that seems fair to me.

 

[Death Rattle]

She is right partly,she was in DoS till 2005 and till that time US Gov had several apprehensions about India but it changed after 2005 when GWB visited India.
In 2010 this was confirmed by Obama:
Obama endorses India for U.N. Security Council seat

 

[Srinivas]

That's a good post and sums it up for me that the UNSC will only be relevant if it represents the modern world in 2012 and not some bygone era. My choices would be Brazil, India and South Africa to join the party that seems fair to me.

very true mate
if the attitude of the UNSC powers continue like this there will be a rise in the regional blocks such as SCO which will become far more powerful than UNSC.

 

[Yeti]

very true mate
if the attitude of the UNSC powers continue like this there will be a rise in the regional blocks such as SCO which will become far more powerful than UNSC.

Exactly and we are already seeing India play a bigger role in the UN anyway where it matters such as a Indian Hardeep Singh Puri being elected chairman of UN Security Council counter-terrorism committee.

 

[illusion8]

There's hardly any unanimity in decisions in the UNSC, its already become a defunct organisation. The US already has to move heaven and earth to get anything through. Big countries dont even bother taking them seriously.

 

[djsjs]

US does not want India in Security Council
it seems more people get close to the truth.what US want is only an attendant.
Only the UK is a qualified attendant of US in the 5 countries,France is a reliable partner,China and Russia are the opponents.
India has its own ideas,she would not be an attendant or a reliable partner but an uncertainty factor.

 

[ajtr]

I'm not talking from an Indian POv but in general.

Try not to equate pdf indian pov with general pov.coz pdf indians are not the only members on this site.

 

[Shimly]

Kashmir in the United Nations

Resolution 38 (1948) adopted by the Security Council at its 229th Meeting held on 17 January 1948
Resolution 39 (1948) adopted by the Security Council at its 230th Meeting held on 20 January 1948
Draft Resolution presented by the President of the Security Council and the Rapporteur on 6 February 1948
Resolution 47 (1948) adopted by the Security Council at its 286th Meeting held on 21 April 1948
Resolution 51 (1948) adopted by the Security Council at its 312th Meeting held on 3 June 1948
Resolution adopted by the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan on 13 August 1948
Resolution adopted by the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan on 5 January 1949
Proposal in respect of Jammu and Kashmir made by General A.G.L. McNaughton, President of the Security Council of the United Nations on 22 December 1949
Resolution 80 (1950) adopted by the Security Council at its 470th Meeting held on 14 March 1950
Resolution 91 (1951) adopted by the Security Council at its 539th Meeting held on 30 March 1951
Resolution 96 (1951) adopted by the Security Council al its 566th Meeting held on 10 November 1951
Resolution 98 (1952) adopted by the Security Council at its 611th Meeting held on 23 December 1952
Resolution 122 (1957) adopted by the Security Council at its 765th Meeting held on 24 January 1957
Draft Resolution presented by Australia, Cuba, U.K. and U.S.A. on 14 February 1957
Resolution 123 (1957) adopted by the Security Council at its 774th Meeting held on 21 February 1957
Draft Resolution presented by Australia, Columbia,Philippines on 16 November 1957
Resolution 126 (1957) adopted by the Security Council at its 808th Meeting held on 2 December 1957
Draft Resolution submitted by Ireland to the Security Council on June 22, 1962
Statement of the President of the Security Council (French Representative) made on the 18 May 1964 at the 1117th Meeting of the Council (Document No. S/PV. 1117, dated the 18 May l964) summarizing the conclusion of the debate on Kashmir
Resolution 209 (1965) adopted by the Security Council at its 1237th Meeting held on 4 September 1965
Resolution 210 (1965) adopted by the Security Council at its 1238th Meeting held on 6 September 1965
Resolution 211 (1965) adopted by the Security Council at its 1242nd Meeting held on 20 September 1965
Resolution 214 (1965) adopted by the Security Council at its 1245th Meeting held on 27 September 1965
Resolution 215 (1965) adopted by the Security Council at its1251st Meeting held on 5 November 1965
Resolution 303 (1971) adopted by the Security Council at its1606th Meeting held on 6 December 1971
Question considered by the Security Council at its 1606th, 1607th and 1608th Meetings held on 4,5 and 6 December 1971
Resolution 307 (1971) adopted by the Security Council at its 1616th Meeting held on 21 December 1971

I could not understand that if a country ( India ) does not accepts so many resolutions of UNSC on Kashmir ( detail given above ) how could world give it the chance to get the membership of UNSC, i think if India enforce the UNSC then world should think about its aim otherwise

 

[shuttler]

if india is to get awarded a permanent seat, then there will be 6 members and the possibility of a "hung" veto stalemate on the council's decisions.

not to take sides as they always champion a "non-alliance" foreign policy means indian delegates will be the "abstention queen" of the council! Does the council need one?

so regardless of us' inclination nor that of the other 4, india is never fit to be a member!

Permanent seat and veto power go hand-in-hand I think!

 

[Windjammer]

Even as far back as 2009, Hilary Clinton depicted India as "One of the self-appointed frontrunners for permanent UNSC membership". A disclosure made by Wikileaks.

Well it doesn't get any more obvious as what America thinks of India in this regard. !!

 

[rockstarIN]

Even as far back as 2009, Hilary Clinton depicted India as "One of the self-appointed frontrunners for permanent UNSC membership". A disclosure made by Wikileaks.

Well it doesn't get any more obvious as what America thinks of India in this regard. !!

IF you go by what they say inside, you wont reach anywhere. What they say in front is what matters. Any except Pakistan, everybody pledged support.