US should endorse India's UNSC bid, says McCain

[Von Hölle]

Rubbish! You are thinking like an Indian, that is to say you are thinking without benefit of reason -- sound fair?

Address the issues raised if you can, but if you for the easy out, I can play that as well. And you'll end up regretting not using your head.

Easy way out would have been that US does not care weather Kashmir remains with India or Pakistan, but would not take active part any negotiations, which might alter status quo .

Most of people in US don't even know, what CWG are..so you can throw that out of the window.

Communal strife/riots are a thing of past ..amalgamation of cultures/religions India is only can matched by US in its diversity ...hence they will be understanding towards this(as they too fought wars to preserve their diversity.)

But as I said before these are all points which an average Pakistani will point out..American will more interested in finding out..what good does it (India being on high table) do for them??

 

[muse]

at least at this stage the idea of U.S not backing India because of Pakistani Protests/Objections is faulty

Exactly - in fact it would be absurd - what I am suggesting is that a permanent seat, far from solving problems would exacerbate them - But let me pose this question: is a permanent seat UNSC seat of such importance to solutions for the problems India has to contend with? I mean, is it not really just a bauble? See, friends, the UNSC thing is a emotional or sentimental thing, it's tangible utility is exactly, what??? And so long as India is tied to this emotional or sentimental appeal, it is a potential bargaining chip in the hands of others, is that not so?????

This is not your father's or grand father's world, it's a new world, a similar one may have existed but not like this one, so what I am asking is that if today's problems are unique, and they are (just think it through - even if the labels associated with the problem are old, the details of the problem are unique to today), why seek solutions in instruments that have little relevance to the problems of today?? It's a net negative, isn't it??

 

[Trichy]

not a snow flakes chance in hell of US backing India for a security council permanent seat -- Why not? India are not ready, they have a territorial problem with their nuclear and non-nuclear neighbors, internally, the society remains plagued by communal strife, the recent CWG fiasco only served to highlight internal fissures.

but of course, India does not need a permanent seat on the security council to further the agenda of the Indian state.

by your stance,

* china have border problem(India,Russia,Taiwan, Tibet,Japan)?
* Russia have border problem(Japan, Georgia)??
* UK have problems with Argentina??

So Can their UNSC permanent power is taken back???

Before getting UNSC permanent seat China have problem, even they have not excellent that time???

 

[peaceful]

when india's economy is setting to crash with the current 10% inflation?
when india's public debt is rocket high?
when india's infrastructure never existed in its history?
when half of india's female population can't even read and write?
when india's defense force took days to eliminate those mumbai attacks located in a couple of buildings?

thanks, please keep all these good aspects to india and indians, the civilized world doesn't appreciate a loser country like india.

 

[peaceful]

by your stance,

* china have border problem(India,Russia,Taiwan, Tibet,Japan)?

1. All border dispute with Russia has been solved. Please stop trolling.
2. There is never border dispute with Tibet. Tibet is a part of China like mumbai is a part of india.

please keep in mind: you have freedom fighters fighting hard in your nation to seek independence, it is not in india/indians' interest to say anything regarding tibet. Because you don't want to see Chinese funding flow to those freedom fighters in your nation.

please just imagine, what happens if say China provides 100 million USD to each of those major groups per year.

 

[muse]

Indian friends, think with your heads - the place you want in the world is for you to create - follow the editorial from the NYT below:

November 5, 2010
Working With India

President Obama will spend three days in India beginning on Saturday — the longest foreign stay of his presidency. Indians are still feeling anxious and insufficiently loved. But the trip is a clear a sign of the importance that Mr. Obama places on the relationship. As he should.

The Clinton and Bush administrations talked that way, too. President George W. Bush was so eager to woo New Delhi that he gave away the store in a 2006 nuclear energy deal. It is up to Mr. Obama and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to take this complex relationship to a more sustainable level. Ahead of the trip, much of the focus has been on defense and trade deals that will produce jobs. Those are undeniably important. But the trip will be a failure if it does not also deal with strategic issues.

India is anxious about America’s plans for Afghanistan and Washington’s close ties with Pakistan — base for insurgencies that threaten all three countries. The Indian-Pakistan nuclear rivalry remains dangerous. And so long as Pakistan’s army sees India as its main threat, it will never fully take on the Taliban.

India would gain credibility and make the world safer if it worked harder to reduce tensions with Pakistan.

The Indians have made clear that they don’t want Washington as a mediator. Mr. Obama still needs to nudge India to resume serious talks with Pakistan over Kashmir and take other steps to help calm Pakistan’s fears including pursuing a trade agreement.

Mr. Obama also needs to press Pakistan a lot harder to bring the Mumbai bombers to justice.

New Delhi did not retaliate after the 2008 attack — a testimony to Mr. Singh’s wise leadership. We hope that the president’s top aides have a plan for how they would tamp things down if Pakistani-based terrorists strike India again. There are many other challenges, including managing the rise of China, that can be dealt with more effectively if Washington and New Delhi work together.

The Indians seem conflicted. In recent news reports, some complained that Mr. Obama has not shown India enough attention. Others worried about getting overly entangled with Washington.

There are many positive trends. Military and counterterrorism cooperation are substantial. India holds more defense exercises with the United States than any other country. And it will soon purchase $5.8 billion worth of American-made C-17 military transport planes and more sales are expected.

There are also real differences that need to be addressed. Mr. Obama is pushing New Delhi to lift a cap on foreign investment in the defense sector. India wants more visas so high-tech workers can move to the United States. The two countries need to find ways to cooperate on trade liberalization and climate change.

The Bush administration overturned 30 years of nonproliferation policy when it signed the deal to sell nuclear fuel and reactors to India. A promised benefit — nuclear contracts for American companies that would create jobs at home — never materialized after India adopted a liability law that American firms say exceeds international standards and leaves them too exposed.

It is a grim irony that the nuclear deal, which was sold as essential to removing a serious irritant in Indian-American relations, is now causing new tensions. The two sides must find a way to resolve them.

Now, some of our Indian interlocutors will only get angry with the editorial, but think with your heads - India's attraction and therefore subsequent power, does not come from it's military, it never will, it has always come and will come from the kind of society (ies) it can fashion, that have the strongest appeal to peoples near and far.

You may get angry that Kashmir is still something you cannot escape - but why should you seek to escape a problem, why not seek resolution, it is the path to greatness as yet unimagined, something military power can never bring India.

 

[fallstuff]

Easy way out would have been that US does not care weather Kashmir remains with India or Pakistan, but would not take active part any negotiations, which might alter status quo .

Most of people in US don't even know, what CWG are..so you can throw that out of the window.

Communal strife/riots are a thing of past ..amalgamation of cultures/religions India is only can matched by US in its diversity ...hence they will be understanding towards this(as they too fought wars to preserve their diversity.)

But as I said before these are all points which an average Pakistani will point out..American will more interested in finding out..what good does it (India being on high table) do for them??

Wake up and smell the coffee. Recent history certainly speaks to the contrary.

UP almost went on a lock down to prepare for the Babri verdict.

Mr. Chidambaram said almost 200,000 security forces have been deployed to keep the peace in Uttar Pradesh after the verdict.

This is Obama's statement about India's bid for UNSC,

Ahead of his visit, President Barack Obama had told PTI that the issue of India's permanent membership of the UN Security Council was "very difficult and complicated". Without committing himself to a firmer support for India's bid for permanent seat in UNSC, Obama said, "I do also expect to discuss India's role as an actor on the global stageduring my visit."

link:
Babri Verdict Shouldn’t ‘Derail India Story’ - India Real Time - WSJ

US should endorse India's UNSC bid, says McCain - Rediff.com India News

 

[muse]

Pease don't confuse Von Holle with facts, with reality.

 

[kingofkings]

Wake up and smell the coffee. Recent history certainly speaks to the contrary.

UP almost went on a lock down to prepare for the Babri verdict.

Mr. Chidambaram said almost 200,000 security forces have been deployed to keep the peace in Uttar Pradesh after the verdict.

This is Obama's statement about India's bid for UNSC,



link:
Babri Verdict Shouldn’t ‘Derail India Story’ - India Real Time - WSJ

US should endorse India's UNSC bid, says McCain - Rediff.com India News

We need to splash some water on your face .... The troops were deployed just as a precaution and there was no major voilence registered .... It shows the thinking of people has matured ....

 

[fallstuff]

We need to splash some water on your face .... The troops were deployed just as a precaution and there was no major voilence registered .... It shows the thinking of people has matured ....

Splash all the water you want. The point is that a matured diversified country shouldn't need to deploy 200k security people to hold peace even for a case like Babri Mosque.

I do think India has a case for UNSC permanent seat based on population, and its economical and military potentials. Unfortunately, people in power seldom share it unless they absolutely have to.

 

[The HBS Guy]

WoW! An amazing lack of comprehension skills you seem to have...

not a snow flakes chance in hell of US backing India for a security council permanent seat -- Why not?

Ya Let's see:

India are not ready,

As if China was when it joined UNSC

they have a territorial problem with their nuclear and non-nuclear neighbors,

1. China also has territorial issues to this day.
2. Do you seriously think US cares?

internally, the society remains plagued by communal strife,

1. China also has communal strife (tibet/uighurs etc.)
2. Russia had/has Chechnya problem.
3. UK had IRA problem.
4. Do you seriously think US cares?

the recent CWG fiasco only served to highlight internal fissures.

lol @ 'internal fissures'

a. It was pure mismanagement if anything and could very well be taken as a one odd case.

b. In the end India staged it very well and this was accepted by a majority of media/people the world over. In fact, it's a mark of Indian democracy that Indian media highlighted all the negative aspects before the games.

c. Do you serously think US cares about CWG?

but of course, India does not need a permanent seat on the security council to further the agenda of the Indian state.

Every state has and 'agenda'...doesn't Pakistan? Need etc. is a subjective thing but what is not is the fact that 1.2 billion people living in the world's largest democracy and growing at nearly 10% per annum need to be given a voice at the international stage.


Come up with some better excuses the next time Mr. 'Thinking' tank!

 

[kingofkings]

Splash all the water you want. The point is that a matured diversified country shouldn't need to deploy 200k security people to hold peace even for a case like Babri Mosque.

I do think India has a case for UNSC permanent seat based on population, and its economical and military potentials. Unfortunately, people in power seldom share it unless they absolutely have to.

It may be a big deal to deploy 200k for country like BD but it's not a big deal to deploy 200k for world's second largest populated country.

It doesn't matter how much you deploy bro, the only thing that matter's is at the end of the day the country's "PEACEFUL".

You think India is not capable with world's 2nd populated, fastest growing economy and it's major defense background.

Okk let us consider what you said is true. Do you know what was the condition of China while it was offered permanent UNSC it was more miserable while considering today's India. But see them now they have evolved, Same will be the case with India.

 

[LaBong]

Not Kashmir but the only reason US not supporting India's bid for permanent seat because of her non-aligned past. US or rest of the world give two hoots for Kashmir and I really don't understand how India's internal matters like Maoists and Hindu-Muslim tensions should bother rest of the World as long as Indians not blowing themselves up all over the world.

Anyway for majority of Indians permanent seat means a ****, as long as we are getting business from rest of the world and not being hyphenated with Pakistan, it's all the same anyway.

 

[LaBong]

And fellow Indians stop blabbering about permanent seat, it gets annoying after a while. It will come eventually like NSG waiver came, we just need to smell money and business to them.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Do you know what was the condition of China while it was offered permanent UNSC it was more miserable while considering today's India. But see them now they have evolved, Same will be the case with India.

That is true.

China received a permanent UNSC seat in 1945. At that time, our country was in a mess. Not only because of the Japanese genocide against us in WW2, but also because of the Chinese civil war which was still ongoing.

I think any reform of the UNSC must be more representative of humanity as a whole. Out of the G4, India has by far the best chance, due to its population and economic potential.

Japan's bid for a permanent seat will be shut down by China... no question. And there are already two European seats, so Germany won't get it either. Germany will probably end up sharing a seat with France.