Why India Should be a permanent member in UN security council?

[genetic_nomad]

rollingstone & freezing, interesting points guys. thanks for sharing. it is indeed very interesting to watch the development and see how nations align on this matter. may the best nation win on UNSC

 

[xuxu1457]

Ok,back to the topic~it is a long race for India,India can get the seat if :
1.her GDP step in the top 5
2.solve the problem with Pakstan
3.have a good relationship with P5

 

[Tiger Prowling]

@Parashuram1

you are a retard at best mister ...1.2 billion people have no representation ...this is plain b u l l s h i t

1.4 billion muslim also dont have representation in UN security council, that's bullshit also. :cheers:

 

[RollingStones]

Don't think so. In the fight for controlling global resources the only powerful competitors are USA, China and India (Russia is a net resource exporter). USA is an obvious competitor but so is India. In fact, india is a much tougher competitor. americans can't get much fatter, but india has very high potential.

In fact the fight for resources such as water and land bring into conflict our 2 nations. Other than fighting for resources we do not share any similar problems. We don't have armed insurgencies, we don't have starvation, and we don't have epidemic fatal diseases.

Nice for you to mention healthcare. Malaria has been eliminated in China; not in India. TB has been almost eliminated in China; not in India. Our infectious disease profile in almost every area except Hepatitis B is close to developed countries.healthcare is not a non-renewable resource. It is in fact a highly renewable resource limited only by artificial restraints such as price (as long as the technology is there; and we do have the technology), and not by inability to extract resources.

Actually thanks for explaining in detail. This is precisely why China would want India in the UNSC. Control for resources means the only people who will be laughing their way to the bank are the resource owners such as the African countries. Imagine you are in a bidding war with each other. China or India can increase the bid price on a fairly valued resource several times if they do not cooperate with each other. Oil will be several times higher in cost if China and India decide to outbid each other for the same oil fields. Neither China nor India can afford higher raw material input costs and frankly it would be extremely stupid for both countries to outbid each other, be it energy or health care related resources. The ONLY option is to cooperate and be careful partners in global forum such as the UNSC, where both countries can preempt others from increasing the cost for either of these countries. The US would certainly want to get in between India and China and drive up the costs. My 2 cents is that both India and China know this and will form cartels on exploiting global resources. If they dont do this, both countries will lose heavily. Such is how the times have changed. The results of such India and China cooperation can already be seen with both countries having already signed agreements not to intrude into each other's oil fields bidding. Countries are cleverer than you think they are. Neither China nor India nor the US are stupid, like you may think.

 

[below_freezing]

Actually thanks for explaining in detail. This is precisely why China would want India in the UNSC. Control for resources means the only people who will be laughing their way to the bank are the resource owners such as the African countries. Imagine you are in a bidding war with each other. China or India can increase the bid price on a fairly valued resource several times if they do not cooperate with each other. Oil will be several times higher in cost if China and India decide to outbid each other for the same oil fields. Neither China nor India can afford higher raw material input costs and frankly it would be extremely stupid for both countries to outbid each other, be it energy or health care related resources. The ONLY option is to cooperate and be careful partners in global forum such as the UNSC, where both countries can preempt others from increasing the cost for either of these countries. The US would certainly want to get in between India and China and drive up the costs. My 2 cents is that both India and China know this and will form cartels on exploiting global resources. If they dont do this, both countries will lose heavily. Such is how the times have changed. The results of such India and China cooperation can already be seen with both countries having already signed agreements not to intrude into each other's oil fields bidding. Countries are cleverer than you think they are. Neither China nor India nor the US are stupid, like you may think.

The problem is, some of these limited resources are located right between us like land. Land issues are very difficult to solve, and always carry the risk of war.

 

[RollingStones]

I am not sure what land issues you are talking about. As far as I know worthless mountainous Himalayan terrain devoid of any natural resources lies between India and China. Why would these countries go to war over that and increase their military costs? Wouldnt make any sense when both countries are trying to be the cheapest producers of goods and services. I do not see any war between India and China at all. It just doesnt make economic sense. The US drove up China's military costs by aggressively arming Taiwan. China knows who wins when it adopts a confrontational posture. And India knows that too - arms suppliers. Again, these countries are smart countries. Otherwise, they would have gone to a full scale war a long time ago. The very fact that India and China signed energy agreements and backed each other in WTO and Climate Change talks (arguably the most important global issues right now) clearly points to the fact that CHina and India are 95% aligned on most issues. Even the US understands this. To make a contrary argument is just ignoring what these two countries are doing in reality.

 

[below_freezing]

I am not sure what land issues you are talking about. As far as I know worthless mountainous Himalayan terrain devoid of any natural resources lies between India and China. Why would these countries go to war over that and increase their military costs? Wouldnt make any sense when both countries are trying to be the cheapest producers of goods and services. I do not see any war between India and China at all. It just doesnt make economic sense. The US drove up China's military costs by aggressively arming Taiwan. China knows who wins when it adopts a confrontational posture. And India knows that too - arms suppliers. Again, these countries are smart countries. Otherwise, they would have gone to a full scale war a long time ago. The very fact that India and China signed energy agreements and backed each other in WTO and Climate Change talks (arguably the most important global issues right now) clearly points to the fact that CHina and India are 95% aligned on most issues. Even the US understands this. To make a contrary argument is just ignoring what these two countries are doing in reality.

Arms suppliers to India win. We instead have accepted having a few slightly inferior weapons (though when averaged out, our air combat SYSTEM capability is far stronger than india's) in return for indigenous production of everything except heavy lift planes so far - but the heavy lift plane is already in flight testing and has already been announced.

This in turn simplifies logistics, streamlines training and makes up for having weapons that are worse on paper. I'd say, it far more than makes up for that. One reason for the weakness of air forces that cannot produce their own planes and use planes from multiple countries is that logistics is a nightmare. We don't have that problem, we make everything ourselves. Arms suppliers are not going to make one cent off China. In fact, China is the 7th largest arms supplier in the world with revenues of 870 million USD in 2009. and thanks to sanctions we were forced to produce everything ourselves.

It would in fact stimulate our economy to fight a short, limited war. This is not currently necessary as non-war economic growth is so high. But when our growth dips below about 5% needed for wages to keep pace with population growth and inflation, we'll be forced to have a stimulus plan.

 

[genetic_nomad]

^^^and how does this relate to UNSC seat?

 

[RollingStones]

Arms suppliers to India win. We instead have accepted having a few slightly inferior weapons (though when averaged out, our air combat SYSTEM capability is far stronger than india's) in return for indigenous production of everything except heavy lift planes so far - but the heavy lift plane is already in flight testing and has already been announced.

This in turn simplifies logistics, streamlines training and makes up for having weapons that are worse on paper. I'd say, it far more than makes up for that. One reason for the weakness of air forces that cannot produce their own planes and use planes from multiple countries is that logistics is a nightmare. We don't have that problem, we make everything ourselves. Arms suppliers are not going to make one cent off China. In fact, China is the 7th largest arms supplier in the world with revenues of 870 million USD in 2009. and thanks to sanctions we were forced to produce everything ourselves.

It would in fact stimulate our economy to fight a short, limited war. This is not currently necessary as non-war economic growth is so high. But when our growth dips below about 5% needed for wages to keep pace with population growth and inflation, we'll be forced to have a stimulus plan.

Not sure about your thesis. Too far out into the future and also begs the question - would it be cheaper for China to trade with India to get that economic rate up to 10% or go to war with India? I'd bet that if you did a mathematical analysis, trading with India would probably keep the GDP growth rates high. The problem for China in going to war with India is it is going to be seen as Communist versus Democracy by the whole world, even though both countries' systems are by and large imperfect. That means the world will think that democracy cannot be allowed to fail, yada, yada and then you have the US, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Australia and perhaps even Russia taking India's side and effectively force the whole situation into a stalemate like it is with Taiwan now. By other extensions, China will alienate Hong Kong, Tibet and Taiwan considerably if it even discussed going to a war with India. These areas, along with Vietnam, Singapore, Malaysia and Australia, despise an aggressive China and China will shoot itself in the foot and make its territorial integrity goals unachievable.

 

[Indian-Devil]

once the responsible and peaceful Communist Party of India (maoist) assumes power, we can consider giving support for India to join UNSC.

I think your government is not foolish like you. You keep dreaming like that. And you guys are only get freedom to comment on government outside ur country. Pls post such comments there and then think of other countries. You cant even raise ur head to ask such questions in ur country, and you are dreaming "we can consider giving support for India to join UNSC"..

 

[Jade]

It would in fact stimulate our economy to fight a short, limited war. This is not currently necessary as non-war economic growth is so high. But when our growth dips below about 5% needed for wages to keep pace with population growth and inflation, we'll be forced to have a stimulus plan.

It is a miss conception that wars are good for economy.

The following are the reasons

1)War means more taxes implies cut in consumer spending, which does not help the economy
2)War means decreased spending on other productive activities of the government implies cut in spending in such important activities in health care, education, social welfare etc…This will effect the economy in the long run
3)War means more government debt again leading to more taxes and more interest payments implies cut in consumer spending
4)War means less trade as more trading partners would stop trading because of uncertainty
5)War means decreased investor confidence implies deceasing foreign reserves, worsening BoP and depreciation of currency
6)War can have longer after effects that are more complicated than the immediate effects.
7)There is no guarantee that wars are going to limited in scale

 

[applesauce]

I mean who cares about the UN. They dont control money. The IMF, ADB and the WB do that. India should be focused on increasing its clout there. More the votes India gets in these bodies, the more the UN will become irrelevant.

well the thing is, if the most powerful countries on earth says its important..well then its important whether you like it or not.

 

[indushek]

Actually thanks for explaining in detail. This is precisely why China would want India in the UNSC. Control for resources means the only people who will be laughing their way to the bank are the resource owners such as the African countries. Imagine you are in a bidding war with each other. China or India can increase the bid price on a fairly valued resource several times if they do not cooperate with each other. Oil will be several times higher in cost if China and India decide to outbid each other for the same oil fields. Neither China nor India can afford higher raw material input costs and frankly it would be extremely stupid for both countries to outbid each other, be it energy or health care related resources. The ONLY option is to cooperate and be careful partners in global forum such as the UNSC, where both countries can preempt others from increasing the cost for either of these countries. The US would certainly want to get in between India and China and drive up the costs. My 2 cents is that both India and China know this and will form cartels on exploiting global resources. If they dont do this, both countries will lose heavily. Such is how the times have changed. The results of such India and China cooperation can already be seen with both countries having already signed agreements not to intrude into each other's oil fields bidding. Countries are cleverer than you think they are. Neither China nor India nor the US are stupid, like you may think.

Rolling Stone i completely agree with you, many people here carried away with national pride avoid to see the true picture. No nation is foolish to go to war even after seeing the effects of two world wars and four regional wars between India and Pakistan. Both China and India understand this perfectly and are co-operating seriously on many issues. As you said better to gain by co-operation than to loose the growth rate by fighting a war.

 

[Parashuram1]

China will definitely vote for india in UNSC....
but the thing that matters are these 5 members are ready to share their powers,,,,
lets start another thread or discuss it here,,,,
Muslim countries should have a member in UNSC as the world biggest religion in terms of population.....

Dear sir, I assure you that United Nations don't have representations on the basis of religion. While religion might be the only thing that is noticed by most of your types, but the world doesn't run on it. It runs on factors like economics, national GDP, military might, strategic influence, political stand etc. Because these are the parameters that tell how prosperous a country is and how much of influence it has globally.

The UNO would become a madhouse if it were to be on the basis of religion. The entire West + some other countries would be representing the Christian world would be seen as one representative (more than 80 countries, which is impractical), 50 countries would represent Islam as one single entity despite no formal Union agreement, Israel would demand a position as the last bastion of Jewish land, India, Nepal, Thailand, Myanmar, Cambodia and territories like Bali of Indonesia would demand UN position as some sort of a Hindu Union.

Therefore, let us keep religion where it is; houses and places of worship and focus on social and economic issues, shall we?

And mind you, the UN is not a toothless organization. Major world decisions are taken by the UNSC and factors like aid, international peace-keeping etc are also overseen by the United Nations. The decision to be supportive of your country in any sense by ISAF and NATO operations was also a UN decision including taking of various militant organizations that have a free reign in the borders between your nation and Afghanistan. Pakistan is a non-permanent member of the UNSC and is one of the largest contributors of peace-keeping forces. You might want to ask your government why they are so keen on retaining their membership in UN if it is a toothless organization.

 

[Parashuram1]

1.4 billion muslim also dont have representation in UN security council, that's bullshit also. :cheers:

UN doesn't decide memberships on the basis of religion. Like it or leave it. See my response to Mr/Ms mikkix.