Implications of India gaining a Parmanent Seat in the Security Council

[Peshwa]

BBC NEWS | Americas | Analysis: India's Security Council seat bid

Hi All,

I was looking through an old news report on BBC on India's chances of making it into Security council as a parmanent memeber.

Obviously the hurdles of getting there are obvious, but with recent developments, recession, and news of the recovery from this depression relying on the economies of China and India may set this fire in the right direction!!

I think what could be the nail in the coffin could be the fact that America, which was undecided as far as its vote for or against India may now be party to this with the right incentives......

I look to you members to help me in debating on:

1) Apart from the obvious, which other hurdles does India need to overcome?
2) Implications to the world scenario, how the geo-political stage of the world would be modified?
3) Implications for China and its existing disputes with India?
4) Implications for Pakistan and its existing disputes with India?
5) Overall Gains for India?

Apology in advance....This is my first thread, if this is the wrong section, or if there is an existing topic, I request the mods to merge....

Also....I haven't read any recent updates on this topic....so any latest news stories would be much appreciated!!!

 

[zombie]

Like it or not Security council was given to folks who could create a major world war. India doesnt have the interest nor the means to force such things through war. There is no such thing as "deserve" a permanent seat. Time people woke up from lala land.

 

[insas91]

^^ Nope. UNSC was a fallout of WW2. It comprised of all major power ruling the world order in the 40s. Today UNSC has lost its relevance. With countries like India and Brazil, the world order has begun to shift. So has the focus from World Wars to Regional Wars.

I believe India deserves a place since it is among the worlds top five largest armed forces, and its commitment to UN has been second to none which marked by India supplying the largest number of troops for peacekeeping missions. After all this, where is the credit?

 

[Kasrkin]

and its commitment to UN has been second to none which marked by India supplying the largest number of troops for peacekeeping missions.

Untrue. On last count, Pakistan was the largest contributor to the UN Peace Keeping missions. Closely followed by both India and Bangladesh.

 

[Peshwa]

Like it or not Security council was given to folks who could create a major world war. India doesnt have the interest nor the means to force such things through war. There is no such thing as "deserve" a permanent seat. Time people woke up from lala land.

Wasn't France runover during WW2? Werent the Chinese massacred mercilessly by the Japanese in the same period??
In the same line of thinking why isnt Germany and Japan part of this group??...werent they the major WW provokers?

I feel you're logic is flawed in thinking that only countries with "world war capabilities" were allowed UNSC seats

If Im not mistaken.... US offered the UNSC seat to India....but under the "Hindi-Chini Bhai bhai" policy....Nehru bent over backwards and allowed China to take this instead...

Im not sure on the details, but I remember reading this....I will try to find the article and post it here.....

 

[zombie]

The purpose of the UNSC is to avoid a world war and at the same time maintain the current power structure. Nitpicking here or there is not going to help nor crying for a seat. People may not accept this but the easiest way would be to create a power block which has potent military capability..not some insipid thing like NAM. All the P5 members have a history of agressively seeking territory. Sad but true.

Germany, Japan were losers of WW2. China was with the allies. India wasnt a free country when ww2 ended . No WW power would have kept quiet after china land grab of 62 in aksai chin. Why didnt India continue the war in 62? China would have continued to fight if India had grabbed land of it and so would Russia or China or the US. UK anounced a war against germany without even being attacked on its own soil. French well they just lucky to have that but most likely got it due to its history of earlier wars with UK but being on the side of the allies. All the P5 produce a major part of their own weaponry. An Indian war can be stopped withing weeks by just stopping spare parts.

What value add or problems does India bring? Nothing.

---------- Post added at 08:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:56 PM ----------

Today UNSC has lost its relevance.

Diplomatic mistake 101. You want to enter a power block but crow that its irrelevent. Have you thought how it sounds to others who are already in it?

 

[aimarraul]

Why didnt India continue the war in 62? China would have continued to fight if India had grabbed land of it and so would Russia or China or the US.

it will seriously hurt the military morale when someone start the war but lost the first round，winner is always the one with enough reason to fight most time.china's in a very tough in the first 30 years,our GDP was much smaller than India before 1980,millions of chinese dead in the three years of natural disasters (1959-19621),soviet betrayed china in the same period.so it will be very hard for china to afford a all out war with india ,you can continue your "forward policy" now if you want, maybe HU don't want that happen,but i think that's what PLA is eager for

 

[applesauce]

The purpose of the UNSC is to avoid a world war and at the same time maintain the current power structure. Nitpicking here or there is not going to help nor crying for a seat. People may not accept this but the easiest way would be to create a power block which has potent military capability..not some insipid thing like NAM. All the P5 members have a history of agressively seeking territory. Sad but true.

Germany, Japan were losers of WW2. China was with the allies. India wasnt a free country when ww2 ended . No WW power would have kept quiet after china land grab of 62 in aksai chin. Why didnt India continue the war in 62? China would have continued to fight if India had grabbed land of it and so would Russia or China or the US. UK anounced a war against germany without even being attacked on its own soil. French well they just lucky to have that but most likely got it due to its history of earlier wars with UK but being on the side of the allies. All the P5 produce a major part of their own weaponry. An Indian war can be stopped withing weeks by just stopping spare parts.

What value add or problems does India bring? Nothing.

---------- Post added at 08:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:56 PM ----------


Diplomatic mistake 101. You want to enter a power block but crow that its irrelevent. Have you thought how it sounds to others who are already in it?

ummm NO after WW2 it was the 5 major power left that were given the pernament seats, china after the war was viewed nominally as a great power not to mention it had the support of the other powers(russia for the commies and the west for the nationalists), however with the resumtion of the civil war that status didn't last long.

"china land grab of 62 in aksai chin. Why didnt India continue the war in 62? China would have continued to fight if India had grabbed land of it"

don't given me this pile of BS, it is well known that the 62 war was due to Indian advancements on china that forced them to launch a preemptive strike. and why didnt India continue to fight? well they underestimated the chinese response to their Aggression and lost terribably and they knew that the root cause was because them so why would they fight on when they provoked it in the first place and are now losing? and as a side note PRC only got into the P5 in the 70's ROC held that seat before then.

"UK anounced a war against germany without even being attacked on its own soil."

Misleading, UK and FRance declared war because of Germany attacked Poland which UK, France had guarantee protection of. but apparently the concept of alliances escapes you.

"All the P5 produce a major part of their own weaponry."

only today, china in 45 till the end of the 20th century relied on first allied aid them russian assitance, russia got alot of western stuff during ww2, even today alot of chinese stuff comes from russia

YOUR post consist of either lies or misleading half truths, the P5 consist of the 5 powers viewed as capable of waging world wars at the time thus having those 5 being able to veto each other means that they can work together toward peace knowing they their own interests are protected.

 

[Joshi]

ummm NO after WW2 it was the 5 major power left that were given the pernament seats, china after the war was viewed nominally as a great power not to mention it had the support of the other powers.

To burst your bloated balloon of Chinese super-power, let me make you know that it was India's then PM Nehru, who gave away UNSC's 5th seat to China. YES. You read it right. UNSC's 5th seat was offered to India. But Nehru was inclined to Non-Aligned Movement, and as a good-will gesture he offered India's seat to China.

If Nehru would have taken the seat that time, then it would have been China out of UNSC till now.

Of course it was a big mistake on Nehru's part.
.
But still you got the deal out of it because of India's good will gesture.

If India really wanted to attack China we would have taken UNSC seat, and would have been in a stronger position to hold China back. But instead India's gesture of giving UNSC's permanent seat to China, and now China putting roadblocks in the path of India to get a permanent seat in UNSC, truly shows CPC's attitude - Ehsaan faramosh.

The Asian-Pacific Century - India Currents(4th para)

 

[insas91]

don't given me this pile of BS, it is well known that the 62 war was due to Indian advancements on china that forced them to launch a preemptive strike. and why didnt India continue to fight?

What BS!. Read up facts. All availible, credible and neutral sources recognize China as the aggressor. Read them up. Feel free to contraict me once uve read them.

well they underestimated the chinese response to their Aggression and lost terribably and they knew that the root cause was because them so why would they fight on when they provoked it in the first place and are now losing?
"UK anounced a war against germany without even being attacked on its own soil."

Did not underestimate but under-emphasised. And that was not done by the army but by Nehru. All in all the truth lies in the fact that Chinese were too scared to continue their campaign, because of fear of IA strike back as well as attack by Soviets and US.

It was a unilateral ceasefire, while Indians were busy regrouping and planning an attack. So the reality is that the Chinese were too of going too far with this war.

"All the P5 produce a major part of their own weaponry."

only today, china in 45 till the end of the 20th century relied on first allied aid them russian assitance, russia got alot of western stuff during ww2, even today alot of chinese stuff comes from russia

It does, but it doesnt mean China-Russia relations aren as good as China-Pakistan one. There is always a thaw. And that makes Russians choose Indians over Chinese.

YOUR post consist of either lies or misleading half truths, the P5 consist of the 5 powers viewed as capable of waging world wars at the time thus having those 5 being able to veto each other means that they can work together toward peace knowing they their own interests are protected.

The main aim was not to 'stop another WW". But not to fail like League of Nations which was estabilished as an aftermath of WWI but was a disaster as it didn't have equal representation of the victorious and the defeated nations.

 

[PeaceForAll]

The reason why UN should be expanded in the first place is to lend a "Balance" and credibility to the organisation. Probably one thing to keep in mind before India is inducted into the UNSC is to have one more nation into the UNSC that can give a credible and rational counter balance to India.

The total exclusion of developing and poor nations from the UNSC is a glaring "imbalace" and no matter how much the talk, the aspirations of these nations is unnoticed! So someone from that block is also necessary.

 

[SandsofTime]

I wonder what impact being a permanent member with veto power would make on India's outstanding disputes and issues with its neighbors. A veto could be used to kill any resolution and stall progress on vital issues . It would have a deleterious effect on the functioning of UNSC.

 

[polyglot]

Untrue. On last count, Pakistan was the largest contributor to the UN Peace Keeping missions. Closely followed by both India and Bangladesh.

Would be glad if you could provide a source for that. Wikipedia entry is for 2007.

 

[Peshwa]

I wonder what impact being a permanent member with veto power would make on India's outstanding disputes and issues with its neighbors. A veto could be used to kill any resolution and stall progress on vital issues . It would have a deleterious effect on the functioning of UNSC.

Disastrous for who?? Certainly not for India......

 

[HK-47]

Probably one thing to keep in mind before India is inducted into the UNSC is to have one more nation into the UNSC that can give a credible and rational counter balance to India.

The total exclusion of developing and poor nations from the UNSC is a glaring "imbalace" and no matter how much the talk, the aspirations of these nations is unnoticed! So someone from that block is also necessary.

completely agree.especially for this:

I wonder what impact being a permanent member with veto power would make on India's outstanding disputes and issues with its neighbors. A veto could be used to kill any resolution and stall progress on vital issues . It would have a deleterious effect on the functioning of UNSC.