What's new

India's Security Council Seat: Don't Hold Your Breath

S_O_C_O_M

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Jun 14, 2010
Messages
2,476
Reaction score
0
India's Security Council Seat: Don't Hold Your Breath

By Tony Karon Wednesday, Nov. 10, 2010

obama_state_dinner_1109.jpg

U.S. President Barack Obama speaks at a state dinner hosted by Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, right, in Jakarta, Nov. 9, 2010 Charles Dharapak / AP


A day after President Barack Obama publicly endorsed India's claim to a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley poured cold water on any expectation of New Delhi's elevation anytime soon. "It is inconceivable that you could contemplate U.N. Security Council reform without considering a country like India," Crowley said Tuesday. "But we have to recognize ... this is a process that has been going on for some time, and it is a process through which we must consult with others within the U.N. and within the Security Council." In other words, India, don't hold your breath.

The five permanent members, or P5, of the Security Council — the U.S., Russia, China, Britain and France — not only get to stay on when the other 10 members are rotated out every two years for replacements elected from their region, they hold the coveted veto power that allows them to nix any decisions on questions of war, peace and security that are not to their liking. That veto power has certainly helped sustain the illusion of superpower relevance for Britain and France, which have long since fallen by the wayside by measure of military strength — indeed, they had better hope nobody noticed their agreement last week to pool much of their defense capability, lest it be suggested that their two permanent Security Council seats be consolidated into one. It has also proven useful to a country like Israel, on whose behalf the U.S. has regularly intervened to block critical U.N. resolutions. Given the power that attaches to a permanent seat on the Security Council, then, it's not hard to see why some of the incumbents are not exactly enthusiastic about sharing their status with anyone but their closest allies.

The P5 attained their status at the U.N.'s creation a half-century ago, on the basis of having been ostensibly the five key nations allied against the Axis powers in World War II. But Britain and France were drastically diminished colonial powers holding desperately to the last remnants of empire in Africa and Asia. Still, within two decades, each of the permanent five had all burnished their veto power in the real world by building nuclear weapons, becoming the original nuclear club years before India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea followed suit.

It's plain to see, though, that the makeup of the permanent five no longer accurately reflects the global balance of power, and the 21st century distribution of responsibility for keeping the peace — which, after all, is the primary function of the U.N. Countries such as India, Brazil and Turkey are emerging as major economic powerhouses with the capacity to play a far larger strategic role in their regions than some of those currently in the P5, while Germany and Japan have long claimed the same status. It has also long been suggested that one of Africa's more powerful countries, such as Nigeria or South Africa, will do the same on the mother continent. So talk of enlarging the P5 has been around for years.

President Obama's nomination of India underscores precisely why Security Council reform may be years away. Washington is making no secret of the fact that it is promoting a greater strategic role for India, a democratic ally, in response to China's growing regional ambitions. China may beg to differ — it is the only permanent member that has not publicly backed India's claim — and it will certainly be encouraged to do so by its long-standing ally, Pakistan, which cites what it says are India's continued violations of U.N. Security Council resolutions over Kashmir as grounds for exclusion. China has also opposed any move to elevate its old enemy, Japan, into permanent membership. Although Brazil's efforts to join the permanent five were thought to have suffered in the U.S. and France as a result of its opposition, along with Turkey's, to sanctions against Iran, Britain on Tuesday reiterated its support for Brazilian membership, expressly talking of strengthening its own ties with Latin America. And France's President Nicolas Sarkozy, for similar reasons, is pressing for an African seat.

Those powers currently holding permanent seats certainly want help in policing the world, but each will be looking to safeguard their own strategic interests in the course of any expansion of the P5. And in a world where geopolitical rivalry is intensifying, that's a recipe for deadlock. Everybody supports reforming the Security Council to expand the P5, but agreeing on a list of new veto wielders will take many years — and a lot of big-ticket horse-trading.

— With reporting by Rania Abouzeid / Islamabad, Hannah Beech / Shanghai and Andrew Downie / Brazil

India's U.N. Security Council Seat: Don't Hold Your Breath - TIME
 
this article should give solace to few people ;)

it does not say, India will not get the seat, just that the process is not easy and it will take a while before that happens...BTW I'll wait for P.J. Crowley's another article on the same topic after chinese premier's India visit, who has agreed to talk on UNSC reforms with india......gosh..I read the whole article :p
 
Not now . but it will happen eventually. my guess is it will take about 10-15 years , maximum 20.

Depends on india's economic growth rate.
 
ya,it will be difficult ,
but the major objective was to get u.s support,which we got

This public statement of support by the USA has many many levels of complexity behind it for actual and eventual implementation.

This process will drag on for several years AT LEAST.
 
This public statement of support by the USA has many many levels of complexity behind it for actual and eventual implementation.

This process will drag on for several years AT LEAST.

Definitely. But not more than 10-12 years at most since by that time India will more or less be where China today is.

In fact, I believe it will be a blessing in disguise if UNSC reform is delayed. It will give us enough time to grow economically/militarily and hence make our case for a seat with veto much stronger.
 
When did any Indian say that this would be done at the snap of a finger?

Though Pakistanis were quick to be offended just as easily at their imaginary idea of "regional power balance" with India being shattered...

Of course us Indians are well aware of the ground realities of the daunting task that reforming the UNSC is....nevertheless, we are glad to climb up the pecking order for now....more than what could be said 2 decades ago when we nearly bankrupted our future....

Congrats to the hard work of all Indians.....
 
The dragging and lagging are issues of the past. Once a momentum is made, we will work over it with the concerned parties and will have a reformed Council representation as per the world order for sure.

Since getting the go ahead from US, which was reluctant in past on agreeing this has agreed now, we may see india doing the frame work and pushing it in nearby UN sessions which are coming soon.

Already we gained momentum in securing the non permanent seat and the recent seat in asian block with amazing majority.

It wont be soon the G-4 Block or India as alone pushing it on to agenda.. It can happen in Geneva meet in December or later..

Lets play the waiting game till then.

:pop::pop:
 
Stop this obsession with India's UNSC seat. So many threads running on the same topic. USA was the only major hindrance in India's path, and now that that is clear the rest is only a waiting game. Whether you like it or not, in Obama's words, "India has emerged".

So get over this obsession and lets not start more threads over the same topic. I haven't read the article but I know what it has to say, "Indians, dont hold your breath. Pakistanis, you can breathe a little easy." :rofl:
 
This public statement of support by the USA has many many levels of complexity behind it for actual and eventual implementation.

This process will drag on for several years AT LEAST.

No doubt about it. However we all know that we need the endorsement of P5 to fulfill our long term desire i.e. Security Council Permanent member. Now if we look at P5 we have

- Russia : Supporting India's candidature
- UK : supporting India's candidature
- France : Supporting India's candidature
- US : Supporting India's candidature
- China : Have not publically supported our candidature neither rejected. If we go by recent news that she has soften her stand on this matter.

So in short we have climbed one ladder up. This is going to make our life easy, no???
 
How can a country like India, where 15% of the population lives under $2 per day, can get a permanent seat?

Pathetic
 
This public statement of support by the USA has many many levels of complexity behind it for actual and eventual implementation.

This process will drag on for several years AT LEAST.

The good things amongst us Asians is we are rarely rushed for time.

We see it in our daily lives where 'dropping by' for a cuppa is not unusual.We see it in our endless phone conversations which are interspersed with ' aur kya ho raha hai?'or 'aur sunao".

So,, we'll wait for the UNSC seat as well . We are in no hurry, the world needs us more than we need the world.
 
How can a country like India, where 15% of the population lives under $2 per day, can get a permanent seat?

Pathetic

you are wrong. $2 means almost Rs100 in India and in that ammount one can live in any Indian non metro city
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom