US sets condition for India’s UNSC seat

[Chinese-Dragon]

One step at a time. Secure the seat. Can always get veto later

And how do you imagine that will happen, considering what even Nikki Haley said herself, that none of the P5 will be willing to dilute their own veto power.

Hell, even a UNSC permanent seat without veto power will be impossible to get for India, unless they are willing to give up more territory to China like they just did with Donglang.

 

[The Eagle]

Where did she say any conditions?
All she said is that none of the P5 want to give up Veto & blamed Russia& China to be against USA reforms.

And on the same time, news mentions as, India will be useful to keep an Eye on Pakistan. While reading the lines, one can pick US or Nikki's ambition that how India is being portrayed widely before other Nations. At least, that was the time that Indian representative should have raised voice against the same as such but as seeing the so-called promise, seems it was avoided or ignored deliberately. It is clear that US Official is promising in manner whereby accusing Russia or China for what India cannot have but from Indian Diplomatic point of view, while agreeing to US Offical's approach like this, wouldn't same alarm a situation in Moscow as such. Also, remember that India signed LEMOA with US that contains a lot of information as such the same angered Russia but still, following the blames like this for UNSC Seat will dent further the trust between Delhi and Moscow.

Russia & China have been against one sided reforms that may have suggested only for the benefit of one or A party alone. Adding a member that will be used as to keep an eye on behalf of US, will act as what US Says in lieu of the seat, doesn't make sense at all for others to accept. Such bargaining and horse trading needs to be stop right at this point or in my opinion, soon Russia & China will be trading for other countries that that will not set a good trend of such a powerful body. US is actually preparing a vote in its favour to take a lead against Russia & China, by adding India that Delhi will never vote against D.C. Veto remains with the existing members and everyone will be seeing a balanced opposition in UNSC that currently reading US Official's statement actually proves that D.C don't want to see any opposition for whatever it say or do.

 

[Thəorətic Muslim]

As long as 5 of the greatest powers are content with the current UN security council system there will not be a change to it. India/Brazil/Japan/S. Africa can press for change but these countries are weak even when united against the united 5 powers, even if you remove the US. UK,France,Russia,China have enough political clout to keep out any additions.

Rising powers such as India and Brazil will have to contend with established powers in Germany, Canada, Australia, perhaps even the EU, Sweden/Norway/Denmark/Finland/Iceland, Nigeria/Egypt, Mexico.

Drastically India, Japan, South Africa, and Brazil can withdraw from the UN to show solidarity in demanding a reformation.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Adding a member that will be used as to keep an eye on behalf of US, will act as what US Says in lieu of the seat, doesn't make sense at all for others to accept.

Exactly. The US already has veto power, what's the point in adding India too.

 

[VCheng]

As long as 5 of the greatest powers are content with the current UN security council system there will not be a change to it. India/Brazil/Japan/S. Africa can press for change but these countries are weak even when united against the united 5 powers, even if you remove the US. UK,France,Russia,China have enough political clout to keep out any additions.

Rising powers such as India and Brazil will have to contend with established powers in Germany, Canada, Australia, perhaps even the EU, Sweden/Norway/Denmark/Finland/Iceland, Nigeria/Egypt, Mexico.

Drastically India, Japan, South Africa, and Brazil can withdraw from the UN to show solidarity in demanding a reformation.

Any nation desirous of joining the group will find that it has to conform to certain obligations that come with it, regardless of which country it is.

 

[beijingwalker]

Drastically India, Japan, South Africa, and Brazil can withdraw from the UN to show solidarity in demanding a reformation.

Good suggestion, let them go and they could form a new organization to enjoy their veto power there.

 

[Muthanna]

Good suggestion, let them go and they could form a new organization to enjoy their veto power there.

Bro.
As per title US is laying condition why china is worrying.

 

[Cookie Monster]

UN was from the very start set up heavily in favor of certain nations...and that's why it remains ineffective mostly. It only acts at the whims of the nations controlling it when the interests of the five UNSC members align. Otherwise it just sits idly by even when needed just bcuz one or more of those five members used its veto according to their own interests.

With out veto UNSC permanent seat is not at all worthy.

UNSC is like an aristocracy , what is the use of yelling democracy and freedom if you cannot change the UNSC structure.

Majority of nations in this world support India for UNSC permanent seat and NSG membership. Both these memberships are denied based on the reservations of some countries like china. This is a shame.

It is also a shame for US to utter the above statement.

US and other permanent members should decide if they want to keep the relevancy of UN by introducing reforms and including India in UNSC or make UN an irrelevant organisation.

So u want to change the structure of UNSC bcuz u think it's an aristocracy? They should let India in? How does that change it from being that aristocracy? India would become just another member with the big 5 leaving the rest of the world out. The only way to make UN an organization it was meant to be is by giving all member countries equal voice/power...as long as some countries retain more power than others UN will remain in a tug of war. The current tug of war between US and China regarding India is evident. Even if India somehow manages to get in then it will just add one more player to the 5 already there(UNSC) and UN will continue to remain a puppet.

 

[Thəorətic Muslim]

Exactly. The US already has veto power, what's the point in adding India too.

Careful what you wish for. While UNSC Reformers may not have comparable political clout to the P5, the potential for countries to resign from the UN can cause a complete collapse.

The P5 may be able to dangle a few $$$ to sway-able countries, but even they know that there will be resentment towards the establishment. Why do you think the P5 dangled a few incentives to keep Cuba, Venezuela, & Iran in the UN?

UNSC reformation can be saved off by reforms in veto.

 

[Gibbs]

Majority of nations in this world support India for UNSC permanent seat and NSG membership.

Like who ? Name them.. Except for pacifying statements made to the Indian media when they push the diplomats on the issue no one really does, While the likes of Japan, Germany and Brazil are on the line, India is in fact are at the end of it

Stop posting cock dude

 

[Gibbs]

Just a memory came across mind that lastly it was India that denied UNHRC access to IoK so wouldn't opposition use the same as an objection w.r.t. India obeying UN fully. On one hand our Indian friends here says, in UNHRC episode, that UN is useless while on other hand India itself is striving day & night for subjected seat but not complying where it doesn't serve the purpose. In my opinion alone, I can be wrong on this point, this objection as well can be raised during session for voting.

Sounds like a story of sour grapes

If that is your concern then what about US?

The US is already a P5, Doesn't matter their record, Nor does the record of the other 4.. India is not and wont be included either certainly not on equal terms.. That's the way the cookie crumbles

Well the Muslim nations should also get a permanent seat at the UNSC,why arent we represented?
Indonesia should be it,to avoid tension.

Religion should never be a criteria

I dont know why yanks are talking about matters which are beyond their reach and scope. Indians should have known before sucking on this lollipop.

Successive US administrations have been using these pacifying statements from time to time, Look at the context it has been made.. At the "US India friendship Council".. Infact US will never allow the UNSC to be diluted

 

[EpiiC]

Well the Muslim nations should also get a permanent seat at the UNSC,why arent we represented?
Indonesia should be it,to avoid tension.

Indonesia back in 1940's was not a global power, neither is it now!

 

[T-123456]

Religion should never be a criteria

In this case it is Gibbs,there is only one other way for Muslim countries to respect and accept the UN,make the UN democratic and get rid of the UNSC,it almost never works when there is a veto right.

Indonesia back in 1940's was not a global power, neither is it now!

Its not about Indonesia being a global power,Indonesia could represent the Muslim countries,together they are a global power but none is a global power on its own.

 

[Srinivas]

Like who ? Name them.. Except for pacifying statements made to the Indian media when they push the diplomats on the issue no one really does, While the likes of Japan, Germany and Brazil are on the line, India is in fact are at the end of it

Stop posting cock dude

You should read , understand and think before writing a reply to me.

UN was from the very start set up heavily in favor of certain nations...and that's why it remains ineffective mostly. It only acts at the whims of the nations controlling it when the interests of the five UNSC members align. Otherwise it just sits idly by even when needed just bcuz one or more of those five members used its veto according to their own interests.

So u want to change the structure of UNSC bcuz u think it's an aristocracy? They should let India in? How does that change it from being that aristocracy? India would become just another member with the big 5 leaving the rest of the world out. The only way to make UN an organization it was meant to be is by giving all member countries equal voice/power...as long as some countries retain more power than others UN will remain in a tug of war. The current tug of war between US and China regarding India is evident. Even if India somehow manages to get in then it will just add one more player to the 5 already there(UNSC) and UN will continue to remain a puppet.

I said , let's vote in the UN for reforms.

Regarding UNSC membership , India has the backing from majority nations.

They dont give a toss about india

India demands that when they get to the end of the rainbow they csn keep the pot of gold, they smile, pat india on your head and say "sure sure when we get to the end of the rainbow you can keep the pot of gold"



The U.N security council wont reform they have no reason to they are simply diluting their own influence and power if they do


They are all content blaming each other on why they won't allow a country with rampant hunger, poverty and open defecation into their elite group

The U.S simply wants a lackey in the region and India fits the bill perfectly

They know China is THE rising power of the world and they want a block

Kings and emperors have always sought out ambitious obnoxious twats like india to fo their bidding knowing where and how to pull their strings

Why do you post here dude? Why do you reply if you cannot understand a bit I am posting?

 

[hussain0216]

U.N reform shouldn't simply be an expansion of the security council

Whats the point in that? Instead of having 5 countries lauding it over the planet you will have 10
Utterly pointless


If anything there should be representatives of groups of nations with the representative changing once a term has been completed


Example

African Union
OIC
SAARC (or bimstec or whatever)
ASEAN
EU/NATO
SCO
NAFTA
etc etc

You csn get a representative from each group on a rotational basis WITH VETO power

Instead what you have is dickhead countries like india who feel self important wanting to get into the golf club