How long before India has a permanent seat on the Security Council?

[Justinian]

I think that India is the China of the 21st century -- a rapidly growing nation with limitless potential whose economy has, regardless of the recession, been steadily growing. As Jon Stewart put it on his show a few weeks ago, Indians will soon be our overlords. So the question is, will India become the first country granted a permanent seat on the Security Council? (not counting from the Republic of China to the PRC, and the USSR to Russia). If so, when?

[sephodwyrm]

Every member in the UNSC have inclinations to keep it a small and an exclusive club to monopolize the ability to defecate on people's heads.

To understand how this worked, just study why Japan never got in despite tacit US support.

[Zephyrus]

I think that India is the China of the 21st century -- a rapidly growing nation with limitless potential whose economy has, regardless of the recession, been steadily growing. As Jon Stewart put it on his show a few weeks ago, Indians will soon be our overlords. So the question is, will India become the first country granted a permanent seat on the Security Council? (not counting from the Republic of China to the PRC, and the USSR to Russia). If so, when?

If my country's nukes have anything to say about, NEVER!

That's what happens when you with an american's tech support service.

[Arjun]

India, China and Germany ought to have been given seats long ago.
India cos its the worlds largest Democracy , Japan for being one of the worlds largest economies and Germany for being better than France and England..both which hold seats.


But on second thoughts; the big five, because of their adamant refusal to admit any other country (India itself represents 1/6th of Humanity!) have condemned the united nations to a similar fate like that of the league of nations


Ps: india should; however not arm genocidal regimes(eg: the srilankan government) just cos pakistan and China supplies arms to them.

[Mithie]

It's possible - and certainly not far fetched.

[sephodwyrm]

India, China and Germany ought to have been given seats long ago.

China was considered and accepted for candidacy when the UN was established.
India - well, she was British territory when the UN was set up, so no.
Germany - together with Japan - started a war that killed millions of people. It might take a few more decades before these countries can actually be normalized into the world stage. Japan has no political advantage whatsoever beyond her economic power house.

the big five, because of their adamant refusal to admit any other country (India itself represents 1/6th the worlds population!) have condemned the united nations to a similar fate like that of the league of nations

There isn't a battle like WWI or II for 60 years. UN is more potent.

[Justinian]

The excuse for not giving Japan and Germany permanent seats are WWII; there isn't an excuse for India, which is growing to be as powerful as China.

[Arjun]

argh!!! typo..i meant Japan..not china . my bad
as you can see; when i extrapolated on my list i did mention japan instead of chia

Germany - together with Japan - started a war that killed millions of people. It might take a few more decades before these countries can actually be normalized into the world stage. Japan has no political advantage whatsoever beyond her economic power house.

by your same logic; China should have been relieved of its Membership, because Mao's "Cultural revolution" killed dozens of MILLIONS!. more than Hitler's Germany or Japan did

[Ketchup]

by your same logic; China should have been relieved of its Membership, because Mao's "Cultural revolution" killed dozens of MILLIONS!. more than Hitler's Germany or Japan did

Wrong! The Cultural Revolution was responsible for around 500 000 deaths. Read your facts before you spew BS please.

[Arjun]

Wrong! The Cultural Revolution was responsible for around 500 000 deaths. Read your facts before you spew BS please.

OK..lets not play with semantics. how many died in china thanks to the "great leap forward" + the "Cultural revolution"? the general consensus seems be at around 30-50 Million; with some actually going as high as 60-80 million

That brings it to around 15 million, which out of 700 million isn't actually that bad...

i apologize for saying this...but the above comment was one of the most flabbergasting ones ive ever read in this forum . "only" 15 million died...yes....lets tell that to the dead and their relatives.

UNSC seats have been granted to nations that have the ability to demolish a lot of people's arses. India just didn't make the cut.

maybe its now time those countries are re-evaluated on the basis of who can kick who's asses?


Lets not forget; India is the worlds LARGEST democracy AND represents 1/6th of humanity. no other country can make such a claim.

furthermore; even though India might not be economically powerful as China, at least its people do "elect" their government. everything is a trade off in life; and the Indian people chose democracy over a totalitarian regime.

Germany - together with Japan - started a war that killed millions of people. It might take a few more decades before these countries can actually be normalized into the world stage.

Actually, irregardless of the casualty of that horrendous debacle, PRC wasn't a member of the UNSC during the Cultural Revolution. She became a member AFTER the Cultural Revolution ENDED and she chose to OPEN UP her market policies.

^^^^^ Sephodwyrm; have you heard of the term 'shooting ones own foot"?

that's exactly what you did. thanks for disproving your own argument for the non inclusion of Japan and Germany.




PS: Fieldmarshal, very good arguments. + rep

[Ketchup]

OK..lets not play with semantics. how many died in china thanks to the "great leap forward" + the "Cultural revolution"? the general consensus seems be at around 30-50 Million; with some actually going as high as 60-80 million

i apologize for saying this...but the above comment was one of the most flabbergasting ones ive ever read in this forum . "only" 15 million died...yes....lets tell that to the dead and their relatives.

OK, please, please post your reasoning of 30-50 million or even 60-80 million dying. And don't just say "dozens of millions died" in the Cultural Revolution because they didn't, end of! Perhaps mine is slightly conservative but it is nowhere near 50 million!

sephodwyrm: I have read Jung Chang's book and, to be fair, it is an absolute farce... If you want a differing opinion, read Mobo Gao's book. He even devotes a whole chapter to ripping apart Chang's book.

[Viking Prince]

The whole point of expansion of perm. seats on the council is held up by reform of the veto process. Adding seats without veto reform would render the Security Council even more useless than it already is. Since the Russians, Chinese, French, British, and Americans are not lkely to give up the veto -- expansion will not move forward.

[Acco]

So the question is, will India become the first country granted a permanent seat on the Security Council?

Depends. The Peoples' Republic of China has traditionally been opposed to expanding the number of permanent members of the Security Council. Regardless, India isn't really on good terms with China anyway; the two nations fought each other in a war in 1962 and even today a border dispute exists. And it seems quite unlikely that China would be able to give in to extreme lobbying like the U.K., France and Russia did. Other than China, India is having a rough time garnering support in their region, especially from Pakistan, which fears it may lose hold on the issue in Kashmir if India gains the upper-hand in the international stage. Bangladesh has a few ongoing disputes with India, so their decision will come late. India could probably find a friend and an 'aye' in Nepal and Sri Lanka though. The decision rests within China's and the United States' hands, since those two are the only Security Council members who have yet to make public their viewpoints. All in all, I'd say they have a pretty good shot, a more optimistic situation than other nations.

[Arjun]

I wouldn't think so. The Peoples' Republic of China has traditionally been opposed to expanding the number of permanent members of the Security Council. Regardless, India isn't really on good terms with China anyway; the two nations fought each other in a war in 1962 and even today a border dispute exists. And it seems quite unlikely that China would be able to give in to extreme lobbying like the U.K., France and Russia did. Other than China, India is having a rough time garnering support in their region, especially from Pakistan, which fears it may lose hold on the issue in Kashmir if India gains the upper-hand in the international stage. Bangladesh has a few ongoing disputes with India, so their decision will come late. India could probably find a friend and an 'aye' in Nepal and Sri Lanka though. The decision rests within China's and the United States' hands, since those two are the only Security Council members who have yet to make public their viewpoints. All in all, I'd say they have a pretty good shot, a more optimistic situation than other nations.

this just reinforces my argument that the "VETO" system is counterproductive. its a way for huge/powerful countries to override the sihes of smaller ones; EVEN if the veto holder might make a minuscule% of the world's population


Best option would be to just abolish the entire Veto system and the "permanent membership" thingie and have a election/que system. that will be much more democratic

[antares24]

I think that India is the China of the 21st century -- a rapidly growing nation with limitless potential whose economy has, regardless of the recession, been steadily growing. As Jon Stewart put it on his show a few weeks ago, Indians will soon be our overlords. So the question is, will India become the first country granted a permanent seat on the Security Council? (not counting from the Republic of China to the PRC, and the USSR to Russia). If so, when?

it wouldn't happen anytime soon, or more probably it would not happen at all.

The issue of the security council seats is a pretty big one, many countries want to have one, but the ones having the veto power clearly realize that any expansions of it would diminish its effectiveness.
Some time ago (a couple of years) there was actually a lot of talk about new countries getting a seat (Germany and Japan were favourities, as they clearly have more political and economic power than India).

It ended in nothing becouse China didn't wanted to have Japan with a seat, a lot of non European countries were upset that another Euro country will get a seat alongside France and the UK, and so on.

Everyone knows that the today composition of the council doesn't reflect the world power share, but we will probably first get a complete overhaul of the UN system (with an elimination of the Veto power and a big expansion of the council, imagine something similar to the G20) than a simple increase of one of two seats to today security council.

[sephodwyrm]

Peoples' Republic of China has traditionally been opposed to expanding the number of permanent members of the Security Council.

Interestingly, the way that the PRC used to dissuade the German and Japan supporters in the UNSC was to actually introduce Brazil and some African nations.

Everyone in the UNSC is opposed to expanding the number of members in the UNSC that won't vote their way.

[removeduser_052420]

Once India stops trying to intimidate it's neighbors, and try to solve the disputes in the region, only then it will have a permanent seat on the UNSC.

[fieldmarshal]

Once India stops trying to intimidate it's neighbors, and try to solve the disputes in the region, only then it will have a permanent seat on the UNSC.

Yes..i mean the current Permanent members of the UNSC are the most peaceful in the world.

[sephodwyrm]

Once India stops trying to intimidate it's neighbors, and try to solve the disputes in the region, only then it will have a permanent seat on the UNSC.

Well, for now we'd have just to stick with China as the sole UNSC member of Asia.

are the most peaceful in the world.

Compared to some, yes. All the major powers have zero prospect of war against each other.

[fieldmarshal]

All the major powers have zero prospect of war against each other.

India also has zero prospect of war against all current permanent UNSC members.

But its irrelevant, like you said earlier its an exclusive club, and they want to keep it that way.