Spacescreamer
ex-Mod
India elected to UNSC as non-permanent member
- Thread starter Spacescreamer
- Start date
rishabh.asthana
Adept
Spacescreamer
ex-Mod
rishabh.asthana said:the countries who got the nuclear bomb first got the permanent seats
Source: United Nations Security Council - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
rishabh.asthana
Adept
thats why theSpacescreamer said:
^^ agreed. w/o veto power, its just symbolic.
Well for one, you would be high on the kiss-ass list of other nations. Its all about diplomacy and you scratch my back I scratch yours. The security council cannot pass any resolution unless all the permanent members are in consensus. If even one member uses its veto power, the resolution fails. The UN security council is responsible for imposing sanctions on a particular nation and if need be, initiate military action to resolve disputes. It is the only organization in the world which can initiate military action and not be termed as an invading force, rather they are called peacekeeping forces. So if India get a permanent UN security council seat with veto power, it would have considerable clout in global politics which the Pakistanis fear, will be used for the sole purpose of destroying their country (as if we have nothing better to do). All the members except China (for obvious reasons) are supportive of the Indian bid.
gaganjain said:
Well for one, you would be high on the kiss-ass list of other nations. Its all about diplomacy and you scratch my back I scratch yours. The security council cannot pass any resolution unless all the permanent members are in consensus. If even one member uses its veto power, the resolution fails. The UN security council is responsible for imposing sanctions on a particular nation and if need be, initiate military action to resolve disputes. It is the only organization in the world which can initiate military action and not be termed as an invading force, rather they are called peacekeeping forces. So if India get a permanent UN security council seat with veto power, it would have considerable clout in global politics which the Pakistanis fear, will be used for the sole purpose of destroying their country (as if we have nothing better to do). All the members except China (for obvious reasons) are supportive of the Indian bid.
both US and china are not in favor of India joining UNSC permanently with veto power
Well US is not completely averse to India joining the UNSC permanently. It just doesn't want to complicate its already strained relations with Pakistan who, as has been proven in recent events, is an integral part of their campaign in Afghanistan. If you read some of the news snippets though, the US has almost always tried to be diplomatic in its answers regarding Indian's bid for a permanent seat in the UNSC and whatever answers it HAS given have always been more on the positive note than the negative. Obviously like all other US policy decisions, they are waiting for the opportune moment to spring this Ace in the hole when they want India to concede on something of a much greater economic or diplomatic value. A UNSC permanent seat for India is a foregone conclusion and it is generally accepted that if and when the security council will be expanded, India will be among the first to get a permanent seat. When it happens is however another story.
This is an old article and a bit biased but it tells that india is not ready for a leadership role. It shies away from responsibility. It does not take bold decisions for fear that it may become hated. An example is the soft power crap it uses in afghanistan. The people doing the real fighting are being hated while india trolls around in there looking for love.
The Elephant in the Room
The Elephant in the Room
blr_p
Skilled
It isn't old if it dates to this year because international relations do not change overnight at least not in our case. Biased and spun, upto a point, yes so let's get into that.
If true, its depressing as to how successfully we can tackle corruption in this country, if ever and that will limit how quick and far we can grow.
Overall i find this article a bit weak in its moralising attitude. Lot of liberal pap so it comes as no surprise that the probable source for it is the forthcoming book from the Canadian high commisioner.
If the liberals have problems with us today how will it work for the rightwingers ?
Our attitude of trying to please everyone will not work and in fact make things worse. We need to grow a backbone wrt to domestic affairs first, before even thinking about intl ones.
The bolded part is false because we are not alone in our positions here wrt to NPT & climate change so any thing deriving from that stance is also false. Our position wrt to multilateral trade is justified as we do not want to turn this country into Russia, slow & steady is the way to go. I find the term arms race does not exactly apply in our case either because China, India & Pakistan (whether she openly admits it or not) work on the doctrine of minimal deterrence. So its not a race (cf the one between the US & the Soviets in the 60s) but trying to do the job with the least amount of nukes. Neither of the three is looking to target every city of importance in the other country but to show that any attack on one is unacceptable in costs to the other.
I don't have much info about this point, were we sticking up for our rights or just being disruptive. They way she phrases it as if we brought the talks down single-handedly. Given her earlier statements of painting us as the sole instigator in intl affairs does not give me much confidence in what is claimed.
Again, were we the only one that brought about the downfall of Wolfowitz or is the author again being 'liberal' with the facts ?
If true, its depressing as to how successfully we can tackle corruption in this country, if ever and that will limit how quick and far we can grow.
True for better or worse, common knowledge in the country despite our best efforts to pretend they do not exist.
Again true because we cannot throw any stones at others and whilst living in a glass house. I agree we could defnitely do more, tho after a point nobody out there is any different, when they want something they also do exactly the same.
Overall i find this article a bit weak in its moralising attitude. Lot of liberal pap so it comes as no surprise that the probable source for it is the forthcoming book from the Canadian high commisioner.
I think now is not right time for us to have a permanent seat in the UNSC. Maybe in twenty more years when we have more money to throw around.
If the liberals have problems with us today how will it work for the rightwingers ?
Our attitude of trying to please everyone will not work and in fact make things worse. We need to grow a backbone wrt to domestic affairs first, before even thinking about intl ones.
blr_p said:
I don't quite get your analogy linking money to a permanent seat in the UNSC. Could you explain?
As far as the above mentioned article goes, it is actually quite biased and I feel the journalist does not really understand the topics that she is touching and then trying India against. It is no secret that the Indian bureaucracy is riddled with corruption and graft and even after the best efforts of PM Manmohan Singh, it has only gotten worse. But despite this fact, we as a country have grown and prospered phenomenally post-liberalization which proves that somewhere someone is doing something right. In fact, historically, every nation has gone through bouts of rampant corruption and graft which had to worked out over the years (think US and the early 1900s). Still corruption remains in every segment of society all over the world as its more of a human nature issue than anything else. We are just bad at hiding it.
With regards to NPT and CTBT, they are relics of the cold war era which do not apply to current geo-political scenarios. Furthermore, India has proven itself to be a nuclear responsible nation and has a clear and documented no-first use policy. India also has an established nuclear command controlled by the PM and since its test in 1998, has not focused on stockpiling nuclear weapons rather we have concentrated more on the civilian use of this technology, a fact endorsed by the NSG at the time of ratifying the Indo-US nuclear deal. Infact, the Civilian Nuclear deal is the only one of its kind in the world and is proof of India's growing influence in international politics. And all this has been achieved w/o signing the NPT or the CTBT.
With regards to the climate change, its not only India, but other developing nations as well, who are opposed to cut in carbon emissions because it would directly affect our industrial and economic growth especially when the developed nations do not want to share the responsibility of green house gas emissions. She is mentioning Doha but she conveniently forgets mentioning the Kyoto protocol which has been ratified by each and every country except the US, the biggest emitter of green house gases in the world. Same is the case with the WTO. We are not defiant, we simply do not wish to be strong-armed into signing something that goes against our own economic and political interest.
Our country is the largest democracy in the world with more diversity in culture, language and customs than anywhere else in the world. Our problems and challenges are unique and hence our solutions also have to be imaginative. We are by no means perfect but whats being done here cannot be done anywhere else in the world. We have countries within our country where people of the same religion are further divided quite strongly according to our ethnicity. There is a remarkable distinction between the hindus of the north and that of the south. In fact, one could say that the north and the south or the east and west could very well be four distinct countries. Ways of doing business or conducting ourselves is completely different. Cultures and traditions are different heck even the gods we pray to are different. But we still come together as a nation when the time comes. The CWG have shown that and as have many other events of a national nature. The fact that we have managed it so far without tearing each other's throats out is a mean feat in itself and shows our maturity at handling difficult situations. It is not that we don't have a backbone or we shy away from conflict, its that we have matured enough and realized that dialogue and not confrontation is the only way forward and is the only way that can bring about a lasting change. It is this maturity that would make us a very valuable addition to permanent council of the UNSC.
blr_p
Skilled
We're not in the top 5 economies for starters. When we get there we will be more intricately connected with the world economy. This is the big boys club, we're not one as yet. Oh and the P5 wil remain P5, there will be no expanding for more countries to get into it as mentioned in the OP's article. France & the UK will prolly merge as one. Japan may or may not get in, depending on how circumstances change in her region.agupta02 said:
The P5 and getting into it (with veto power) has got nothing to do with democracy and everything to do with power and the ability of its members to project it. How much of our arms are imported vs being indigenous ? Very lopsided balance isn't it. I'm not saying we should not import just that our domestic level isn't really much atm compared to other P5 countries.
I wouldn't say we are bad at hiding it, rather we are bad at addressing it. Your comparison with pre-liberal India does not clarify whether corruption now is worse or better in comparison to that period. I'm unsure myself, and feel it has not changed, the pot has gotten larger so the take is bigger now.agupta02 said:
Then why the brouhaha over Iran ? They're a NPT signatory, this is the main reason why they are being threathened. If Iran gets away with it then the NPT is doomed but that's still a few years away and does not preclude any action against her.agupta02 said:
NPT was started in 1968 with an intial term of 25 years but in 1995, it was decided to extend it indefnitlely.
CTBT was adopted in 1996, well after the cold war ended. 153 countries have ratified it with 29 holding out.
These two treaties are not cold war relics by any stretch of the imagination.
NFU is a political stance rather than a military one and therefore isn't worth the paper its written on so whether it actually stands the test of time remains to be seen. China has one too BTW. However what is clearly stated is doctrine and the relatively low number of nukes possessed which is obvious to remote sensing by sateliites than NFU. As a result of this doctrine, China, India & Pakistan will do everything to avoid a nuke war to begin with.agupta02 said:
There are reactors that are not under the IAEA's watch that are used to stockpile enriched uranium. Note the weapons bit is easy, getting the HEU takes time. We're not in a race to get there but at the same time we're not relinquishing the option either.agupta02 said:
Hmm, I would say had it not been for Bush it would never have happened therefore how is India's growing influence relevant here. He did it for many reasons, i would say our growing economical influence would have played a big role here. There is still a section of ppl that think this deal went through as it allows signing of the NPT & CTBT though the back door, but I do not subscribe to that view.agupta02 said:
CWG was a win by the construction lobby in the country, Delhi won out big time. How many ppl in the country really feel this CWG was 'our' games ?agupta02 said:
No, what i hear more is how much we spent blah blah.and that we can provide 'world class' infrastructure. These are not statements by the common man are they ?
Besides there is a lot of nonsense that went on regarding accountability with the CWG that remains to be answered. Whether we deal with that or not for me will signal whether we have matured or not.
Well there are times when force is required and it takes even more maturity to realise that than peace at any cost. And you can only employ that force when you wield it to begin with, we are not there yet, hence i asked for more time.agupta02 said:
The nuclear deal for India that will be addressed by Obama will be severely crippled and will come with a lot of conditions. The last news I heard is that China has agreed to support India for the UNSC permanent seat. I will try and link a source later. if any one else can, please go ahead.
However, if this is the case, there maybe a bigger game on our hands. As per sources, Obama is ready to back India's bid for a permanent seat, if India makes concessions on Pakistan's demand in Kashmir. With this, we have some serious backing for the UNSC perm seat. But at what price?
The US thinks that till the Pakistan is locked in horns with India over Kashmir, they may not be able to focus on "the war on terror". The US has too much time, money and pride invested in this and to see it fail would not go down too well.
I doubt India will blindly accept any concessions for Pakistan over Kashmir. Any party agreeing to this will have committed political suicide.
As for the current membership, I think Uganda as part of the UNSC had a non permanent seat, that should show what impact does that have. I don't think a non permanent seat is of any value. I also think a permanent seat is not of any value, unless it comes with veto powers. India should just forget that and try to play a much more heavier role in Asia to start off with.
India is making the right moves with it carefully building up relations with all of China's rivals such as Vietnam, Japan and S Korea. I hope, they are able to get some more ground in Sri Lanka so that real geo political clout is established, and maybe then, dream of a meatier role in the UNSC.
However, if this is the case, there maybe a bigger game on our hands. As per sources, Obama is ready to back India's bid for a permanent seat, if India makes concessions on Pakistan's demand in Kashmir. With this, we have some serious backing for the UNSC perm seat. But at what price?
The US thinks that till the Pakistan is locked in horns with India over Kashmir, they may not be able to focus on "the war on terror". The US has too much time, money and pride invested in this and to see it fail would not go down too well.
I doubt India will blindly accept any concessions for Pakistan over Kashmir. Any party agreeing to this will have committed political suicide.
As for the current membership, I think Uganda as part of the UNSC had a non permanent seat, that should show what impact does that have. I don't think a non permanent seat is of any value. I also think a permanent seat is not of any value, unless it comes with veto powers. India should just forget that and try to play a much more heavier role in Asia to start off with.
India is making the right moves with it carefully building up relations with all of China's rivals such as Vietnam, Japan and S Korea. I hope, they are able to get some more ground in Sri Lanka so that real geo political clout is established, and maybe then, dream of a meatier role in the UNSC.
blr_p
Skilled
How can he add more conditions to an already signed deal ?SharekhaN said:
The difficult bit was getting the NSG to agree and that bridge has been crossed already. And he already stated after becoming president that he would not sabotage it.
Exactly, as there is no credible guarantee of things changing positively.SharekhaN said:
They are just playing both sides off each other to extract the most from each, everybody does this. Nepal & Sri Lanka come to mind too.SharekhaN said:
Making friends in the area involves throwing money around and having those countries economically dependent on us, until we manage that its premature to expect more. The last twenty years have seen us go from crawling to walking (just about). It will take another twenty years to go from walking to running. At that point we start to become a contenderSharekhaN said:
^^ true. What I forsee as an issue is time. India while economically progressing, is still neither as rich nor militaristic even as one third of China.
With the scenario in the Indian subcontinent growing increasingly volatile, I fear that the only choice for India is to show "Strategic restraint" ( a term coined by Jaswant Singh"). What it essentially means, is to stay quiet, even when oppressed in the most cruel ways. Why? So that India can buy time to grow economically.
Is this a good idea? Not sure. This would mean sacrifices that the average Indian cannot bear in terms of pride and confidence. A lot of the hard work put in the last decades would be lost.
No amount of scenario building or analysis can ever make you completely ready to bear the issues and problems that a war brings. India just cannot afford one at this stage and India has no real friends left in the subcontinent. If it must stand in some circumstance, it will have to do so alone with only its own citizens left to support itself.
People who think the US will intervene, forget it. never trust them. It has always favored and required Pakistan and never India.
I have been of the opinion that India should build better relations with China on the lines of Nehru, however, with one eye fixed on them. This is a possibility to an extent, given the dependence of trade between both the countries. People on a BRF have an aversion to the PRC and its tactics. I think, China has more to gain from India as a friendly rather than as an enemy. This is being realized slowly by both parties and I hope that there is some progress here.
if this happens, there would be a slow, yet major financial and military power bloc created. India's problem which lies to the west (Pak) will start to quiet down with its father figure now friends with India. This actually means a win win for us.
With this, the UNSC becomes more insignificant for India. In any case India is following an agenda in uniting for consensus which may or may not bear fruits.
With the scenario in the Indian subcontinent growing increasingly volatile, I fear that the only choice for India is to show "Strategic restraint" ( a term coined by Jaswant Singh"). What it essentially means, is to stay quiet, even when oppressed in the most cruel ways. Why? So that India can buy time to grow economically.
Is this a good idea? Not sure. This would mean sacrifices that the average Indian cannot bear in terms of pride and confidence. A lot of the hard work put in the last decades would be lost.
No amount of scenario building or analysis can ever make you completely ready to bear the issues and problems that a war brings. India just cannot afford one at this stage and India has no real friends left in the subcontinent. If it must stand in some circumstance, it will have to do so alone with only its own citizens left to support itself.
People who think the US will intervene, forget it. never trust them. It has always favored and required Pakistan and never India.
I have been of the opinion that India should build better relations with China on the lines of Nehru, however, with one eye fixed on them. This is a possibility to an extent, given the dependence of trade between both the countries. People on a BRF have an aversion to the PRC and its tactics. I think, China has more to gain from India as a friendly rather than as an enemy. This is being realized slowly by both parties and I hope that there is some progress here.
if this happens, there would be a slow, yet major financial and military power bloc created. India's problem which lies to the west (Pak) will start to quiet down with its father figure now friends with India. This actually means a win win for us.
With this, the UNSC becomes more insignificant for India. In any case India is following an agenda in uniting for consensus which may or may not bear fruits.
blr_p
Skilled
How do you really define this restraint more precisely tho ?SharekhaN said:
We have certain red lines which if crossed will force a response as it would be political suicide not to. I view the parliament attack in 2001 & 26/11 as precisely those lines which our neighbour knew could be breached without any adverse response from us. Because it would sabotage operations for the US.
Take the US out of the picture and we are a very different animal and our neighbour knows all too well. In fact i would say this decade has been theirs as far as psychological operations are concerned. It is foolish & irresponsible of us to consider them as a failed state or out of control because in the last twenty years not a single action of theirs has resulted in any adverse effects for the regime. Forget what we did only look and see if it resulted in the army losing power there, not at all. And that's exactly how they want it as they would rather preserve their hold on power over the lives of their own ppl. So consequently they will never do anything that will directly threathen that power.
We have to accept that they will be around for a long time and as most certainly in control and come up with ways to deal with them. Sneaky & cunning ways that talk directly to their people and strengthen the civilian adminstration over the strangehold the army has. Get them to change themselves rather than doing the change ourself
You define it as some sort of doctrine unless there are more concrete examples its difficult to say either way. So take the ones i just mentioned, either of those two happening and no response from us means bad things because we just showed we have a vulnerability, which will cause stakes to be raised the next time around. For the record i do not believe those two events could ever have occurred had the US not been in the neighbourhoodSharekhaN said:
I would consider this an important rite of passage to getting into the P5 as every other member has been through this trial of fire at some point of their history.SharekhaN said:
From a Chinese pov i would agree but its debatable wrt to the US given their recent experiences in the neighbourhood. A Republican administration will view things very differently compared to the present Democrat one in DC which only gives us indigestion but gives the Israelis insomniaSharekhaN said:
Also the US effort in favour of Pakistan is to get at China more than anything. These two are playing the games we are just the observers.
The time is not right for improved relations with China given the tendency of the current adminstration there. Until they start to act less belligerent and more responsive, the best we can do is just deflect and play down any differences. Otherwise we appear only as weak to them.SharekhaN said:
It should be noted that they are like this with pretty much everyone as events have shown over the last few years. Things may or may not change when they have their election in 2012.
Thier bigggest beef with us is Tibet and our continued support for the Dalai Lama, everything should be seen through this prism, forget about border differences they are just trumped charges. Are we going to change our stance here, no.
Looking at the way China is configured, they do not consider us a priority at all, they do not see us as a threat. Their biggest threat is the US which prevents them being more assertive in their backyard. Their earlier threat was the Soviets, and thats why they helped our neighbour with nukes, so they would not be encircled. Course we only tend to look at this as affecting ourselves but it actually was a smart move, they got 3 birds with just that one move, Soviets, India & the US. China will protect Pakistan as much as it protects N.Korea. So the Paks get to play off China against the US and India against China to extract the most and have been very successful at it
If those two conditions come to pass yes things get smoother. But I've no idea how they will transpire as lots of effort has been expended by others to get to the current situation. The only way things improve is if both those countries change their view of us.SharekhaN said: