US does not want India in Security Council

[Hello_10]

number of veto
Russia：128
US：83（59 Individual Combat, in which 42 of them for Israel）
England:32(22 times with US)
France:18(13 times with US and England)
China:9(1971-1978:one for Pak, one for Palestine;2001-2012:4times with Russia for Myanmar, Zimbabwe and Syria )

and thats simply because China is a peaceful nation

India has nothing to do with major issues like taliban and Alqaeda and Nuclear Iran, India should solve its own issues first.

sir neither India nor even Indonesia, Brazil have much to say in many of the war conflicts related to Taliban, Al Qaeda, Iran etc, most of the time we find Indian foreign policy is very happy while being as it is. but here we are discussing the case, "how Veto holding of UK, France is justified whose population is hardly around 60mil, very small countries as compare to Indonesia. and in case of an 'expected' economic fall of these two and likely 'high' growth of Indonesia during this decade which would make its economic size well above these two European countries, then from here, why a four times bigger country like Indonesia won't get Veto which may use its Veto in the cases to defend interests of Muslims? even if we don't find India, Brazil, Indonesia to be active in any of the war politics......"

India is very happy while being with russia, many of Russian/SU's Veto were used in favor of India itself. but if there will be any expansion of UN's security council, if, and if we know that Indonesia is going to be a dominant economy by 2020 while Japan has a heavy resistance from CHina also then how expansion of UN's security council may be done without offering Veto to Indonesia, Brazil, India even if these 3 are not very active in war politics? and also we do keep a space for Turkey for its claim, as we do know that this world will have been dramatically changed by next 7-8 years

 

[my2cents]

let me be blunt... we could not make a stand on Myanmar a minnow in our neighborhood yet we deserve veto power which involves taking stand against likes of Iran,Israel, Palestine etc. We do not take principled stand on anything just dally around not to upset anyone..... we are insular not grand standing which is required on the world stage.

 

[Bobby]

US need puppets in UN......Us has already done a mistake adding China who later proved to be not US puppet.....US can not repeat same mistake adding India.

I dont know why India wants to be added in UN.....we have much more important work to do before thinking UN seat......

 

[Abingdonboy]

So what? The US isn't some supreme authority-there is a genuine call by many larger and emerging nations for UNSC reform which includes a permenant seat for nations including India with Veto power. The longer this is denied the less authority the UNSC can act with. As it stands the make up of the UNSC permant seats is a joke and harks back to a long-since passed time where France and UK were powerhouses. The world is so very different today.

 

[rockinghealer]

Lets forget the UN seat issue and start working on important and urgent problems back home.

Yes totally agree with you. We should stop asking for unsc seat again and again. We have even more important works to do we should built our economy and reform it again .. Corruption and decision making is costing our nation badly. And let the diplomacy going. coz in future no usa no russia no france,uk only country who would have good economy and power would only be welcomed for UNSC.

 

[Icewolf]

India will never get into SC until it's opressive regime doesnt stop murdering Kashmiris

 

[Mirza Jatt]

India will never get into SC until it's opressive regime doesnt stop murdering Kashmiris

Your views on the subject will be conveyed to the GoI. Thank you.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

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.

India need not be thinking about UNSC membership. As it is, the UN with a system born out of a Cold War world set-up is becoming less relevant than it ought to be. And the concept of Permanent Members with Veto powers is completely archaic as to be Jurassic. How on earth does that gell with all the 'high-falutin' western talk of democracy, arab spring blah..blah...blah....
Even China is piggy-backing on all that 'double-speak'.
Its just a power and pressure game; hark back to how India got treated wrt NPT, NSG and all that jazz earlier. Why did that change?

India will do well to concentrate on building up economic power. That is the only thing that matters. The rest will follow.

 

[Zabaniyah]

sir, few things we both understand so its no need to mention. that is, just after an economic fall of UK, France etc, very likely by this decade, there will be less to ask, why India is not on this top post and why any of these two would keep permanent seat with Veto?

from here, as we all have different political background due to our nationalities, i do understand that an Indian member won't consider permanent seat without Veto while you would think that Veto is not possible for India, as per your political background. due to our political background, an Indian member would say that negotiation on Veto may be delayed for few years while you would not accept, why India would ever get Veto with permanent seat in UN? but few things I would tell you short, even the African candidates won't accept permanent seat in UN without Veto.

either the concept of Veto has to be taken out from UN or India would simply remain happy with the current form of UN, until a power balance is reach when it will become 'obvious', why India/Brazil/Indonesia type very big countries must get Veto or there won't be any Veto type things in UN

Da faq did i just read?

 

[PakShah]

India will never get into SC until it's opressive regime doesnt stop murdering Kashmiris

Don't worry, India won't get into the Permanent UNSC anytime soon.

Be realistic, why would USA want India in the UNSC?

 

[Hello_10]

So what? The US isn't some supreme authority-there is a genuine call by many larger and emerging nations for UNSC reform which includes a permenant seat for nations including India with Veto power. The longer this is denied the less authority the UNSC can act with. As it stands the make up of the UNSC permant seats is a joke and harks back to a long-since passed time where France and UK were powerhouses. The world is so very different today.

Sir, Im basically supportive of emerging economies with the bottomline facts that the power balance made by P5s, the winners of WW2, won't continue for longer.

Nigeria GDP Annual Growth Rate

here I would like to mention about candidature of Nigeria for UNSC seat. Nigeria is now the African Tiger, had around 7% growth rate for last 7-8 years and with around four times population than South Africa, its highly likely that there will not be much to ask about the candidature of Nigeria as compare to South Africa by 2020. we find Nigeria and Indonesia, very favorites for permanent seat of UN by 2020, as compare to Japan, South Africa. its likely that even Egypt may become the second preferred candidate from Africa by 2020, but less likely about South Africa if this process is delayed till 2020. as, South Africa is also not going to get the type of progress like Nigeria, and would become a second tire African economy by 2020, after Nigeria, Egypt type African countries.

NEW DELHI: Nigeria has supported India’s candidature for a permanent member of the UN Security Council by the virtue of it being the largest democracy in the world. It has also claimed that as the largest democracy in Africa it too deserves to be a permanent member of the UNSC. Nigeria is slated to complete its two-year term as a non-permanent member of UNSC in December 2011 while India has begun its two-year tenure from January 1, 2011.

The visiting Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nigeria, H Odein Ajumogobia called for utilizing the period of joint presence of the two countries in the UNSC for working together for effecting reforms in the United Nations and the Security Council.

The Abuja Declaration on Strategic Partnership concluded in October 2007 will be the driving force for India-Nigeria relationship.

Speaking at a function organized jointly by the JNU’s Centre for African Studies, African Studies Association of India and India International Centre on Thursday, he strongly put forth the reasons for both the countries to be permanent members of UNSC. He said that India and Nigeria were the third and the fourth largest troop contributors to UN peace keeping operations.

“India as the largest democracy in Asia and indeed the world, an emerging market and growing world power, clearly ought to have a permanent seat in an expanded UNSC. Its enviable credentials in upholding and promoting the fundamental tenents and purposes of the United Nations are impressive and exemplary,” he said and also qualified India’s role in the immediate neighbourhood by saying : “Furthermore, India’s restraint with regards to its hostile neighbours is widely acknowledged.”

Nigeria for India

 

[fallstuff]

Nobody wants India in the (UN) Security Council with veto powers. Not even the Russians.

 

[NirmalKrish]

whts new? its only indians who think tht india should be in SC otherwise india doesnt have anything to give them SC membership.

As if Pakistan has something to give them also, don't speak as if your the voice of the international community. you people have given nothing to give grief and terrorism to this world and everybody is getting quiet sick and tired of your cheap gimmicks. This is why no one respects either the Government of Pakistan or the people of Pakistan.

Quiet frankly speaking the P5 and the UN security council is a toothless tight anyway, cant do $hit all for this world, it will prove to be fruitless for India and furthermore makes no difference when we should have out own international policy.

 

[Azazel]

Nobody wants India in the (UN) Security Council with veto powers. Not even the Russians.

And,Who might you be???
New official spokesperson of Russian Govt???

 

[RKhan]

Lol India doesn't deserve to be on the SC at all. Look at the condition of the country.