Obama backs India on permanent UN Security Council seat

[pampango]

Source: BBC

US President Barack Obama has backed India's ambition for permanent membership of the UN Security Council. There are currently five permanent members of the Security Council: the US, China, France, the UK and Russia.

In an address to India's parliament at the end of a three-day visit, Mr Obama lavishly praised India's development.

In his speech, Mr Obama also paid tribute to independence leader Mahatma Gandhi, saying: "I am mindful that I might not be standing before you today, as president of the United States, had it not been for Gandhi."

"As the world's two largest democracies, as large and growing free market economies, as diverse, multi-ethnic societies with strong traditions of pluralism and tolerance, we have not only an opportunity, but also a responsibility to lead."

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11711007

[Newsjock]

1. Think of all the money the UN can save

... when the Security Council is outsourced to Bangalore.

[msongs]

2. is India run by the republicans now? nt

[bikesein]

3. The Way

our country seems to be headed after last week we may need to sell them our spot in the not to distant future. That would work for both nations.

[closeupready]

4. Not good. Who, aside from India, supports that?

:crickets: Frankly, there are other states that should have precedence.

On top of all that, India is regularly ranked as being one of the states where corruption is fairly pervasive.

[nsd]

5. Britain, France, and Russia all support a Security Council seat for India.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3679968.stm

Wait for an answer before you announce "crickets".

[closeupready]

6. "due to intense lobbying" - lol - gotta love that enthusiastic support.

:rofl:

[nsd]

7. So what?

Every nation lobbies for what it wants.

[LanternWaste]

22. your crickets were stroking their legs a little too soon.

Yet it would still appear as though your crickets were stroking their legs a little too soon.

[pampango]

8. Which should have precedence over the second largest country in the world. Should

membership in the Security Council be based on the wealth of a country and the size of its economy (keep poor countries out) or the size of its military (keep peaceable countries out).

In terms of corruption, India has problems, but no moreso than China and nowhere near the level in Russia on any ranking I've ever seen.

[Vehl]

10. well said!

Personally, I believe the UN security council Veto/permanent membership should be abolished. It is nothing but an "old boys club" which lords over the rest of the UN with their Veto power.


However, that is unlikely to happen anytime soon. Thus, yeah, India; which is the largest democracy in the world, and a nation that represents 1/6th of humanity..and also one with considerable military and economic might should Indeed be given a permanent seat in the security council.It also provides the largest number of UN peacekeepers amongst the member nations.

I would also suggest adding Japan and Brazil if that is possible.



Ps: lol its kinda funny(or sad) that My + rec didn't event change the count from 0...apparently people have unrecced this to the deep negative. ;-)

[Posteritatis]

18. It made perfect sense when it was established, but that was awhile ago now

(Apologizing in advance since you kicked off a geeky lecture based on stuff that's been rattling through my head for a few days. ;) )

I heard a description of the various congresses and settlements and so on in history after the great European wars - Westphalia after the Thirty Years' War, Vienna after the Napoleonic Wars, and so on.

Most of them, with the exception of Versailles after WWI, were generally recognized amicably enough (all things considered) by all the parties, including the defeated ones, because they usually didn't radically change things or force anyone to stay down or whatnot, but simply described things: the agreements weren't "it shall be this way" as much as they were "this is the way it is, right now, at the conclusion of this conflict." So you have a system set up in a peace treaty that describes the state of the world as of the peace treaty, and people were generally fine with it - the major powers knew where they stood in regards to each other, the winning ones were obviously winners, the defeated parties knew there wasn't much they could do about it but were also in on the process, and so on. So the ink dries, and people are comfortable because the balance of power is properly laid out and usually holds for the next thirty to sixty years.

WWI and Versailles broke that pattern, and understandably enough given how incomprehensibly savage the war was. People didn't have much experience with truly total war then and were exhausted, frightened and outraged by it, so they went overboard and planted the seeds for the sequel. When that came along it was obviously ended much more decisively, with Germany technically ceasing to exist altogether and Japan being thoroughly crushed, but the allies' victory was strong enough that time that they could State The Way Things Are Now much more comfortably.

The UNSC system is one big reflection of that - when they set up the organization, they needed all the major powers on board because they knew what happened when they weren't last time. The veto was an attempt to, for lack of a more diplomatic term, bribe the great powers into signing onto the system, and it worked. It had all the remaining great powers on board - Germany and Japan having been effectively destroyed, of course - so the end result is that the layout of the Security Council is, like most of the previous big peace agreements, at least in part a description saying "this is the way it is, right now, at the conclusion of this conflict." The P-5 are the victorious powers from the Second World War, and given the situation at the time it made perfect sense politically that they be the ones with a disproportionate say in global affairs.

Of course, from there we go back to my first big paragraph, where I said the solution, once laid out, holds for thirty to sixty years. So a few years ago, more or less right on schedule, people started chafing at the bit about the list of veto-wielders, both for abuses of said vetoes and for the fact that, increasingly, it no longer accurately represents the power structure among the major players in the world. Given that things are a Kumbaya circle now compared to this stage in the process at any of the previous ones, I'm not exactly worried about a major war being needed to reshuffle the deck, but it's going to be jarring to quite a few people no matter how it ends up going (expanding the veto wielders, changing their membership, eliminating it altogether, etc).

Personally I'm a fan of getting rid of the veto, or at least changing how it can be used, though I don't know how one could reform it without potentially threatening the whole system which I still think would do more harm than good at this point. Adding additional vetoes might deadlock some things as well, at least on the security side of things (since they can't veto the Assembly or whatnot), but it also might not, and having some of the up-and-coming major powers in the "South" finally represented might result in some goodwill from a lot of other places.

[Vehl]

21. I agree. It made sense right after ww2, now the (not so)old order changeth

(No apologies needed!, I love discussing/listening to history/geopolitics :) )

I agree with what you posted.

Imho the Allies made a mistake (well it was not a "mistake" per se, as they were the ww2 victors )right after ww2 when they made the UN in the form it is today (at least the big five). Even though I agree with you that at that time it made perfect sense; the Allies should have learned from the mistakes made in the creation/operation of the league of nations.


By establishing yet another body with similar ideas, they set on a course of conflict in the future...albeit half a century or so down the road. The past few decades has seen an increasingly fast erosion of the enforcement powers of the UN. partly because of the arbitrary actions of some of the veto holders themselves.


As you pointed out, changing the current structure of the Permanent members is not going to result in a big hassle or conflict of any kind. However, a seat for Germany might raise some protest because already two seats are occupied by European powers. yet another EU member joining the members might be unpalatable to some..especially when it would give the EU considerable clout. As for Japan and Brazil, I have always advocated for their inclusion along with India.


The best option would be the disbandment of the UN Veto powers, but being the pragmatist I am, I really do not believe that the "big five" are willing to give up those perks yet.They might be more amenable to add new members than give up their power.And yes, representing India and also Japan/Brazil would result in the UN retaining its relevancy into the near future...The last thing we would want to see is disillusioned countries leaving the UN the same way nations left the league nations prior to WW2. The UN should not make the mistake Neville Chamberlain made, when him and his cohorts believed that everything is in fact fine and dandy....when things were not.

The UN needs to be more inclusive and less Exclusive. This would definitely result in a lot of goodwill and cooperation between nations.

[Vehl]

9. And they are?

Frankly, there are other states that should have precedence.

and they are?

[closeupready]

11. Japan, Brazil, Australia, to name three.

n/t

[Vehl]

13. ?

I was hoping that you would add something to that list which would help me understand the reason why they should be given precedence over India.

Btw, if you read my other post to pampango, I do agree that Japan and Brazil should be added. After all Japan is one of the largest economies and also a huge donor to the UN, and Brazil, yet another country that is developing fast and would also serve as a representative of the South American nations.

However, I really do not see why Aus was mentioned? It really does not have anything that approaches the other prospective countries.


having agreed with Japan and Brazil I really do not see why they ought to get precedence over India though. Ill be glad if all three; India, Japan and Brazil get in at the same time.

as for India, one does not have to think hard about the reason why India is a prime candidate.

for starters

# The world's largest democracy (especially one that is far more diverse than any other democracies)
# 1/6th of Humanity!
# One of the largest economic powers and the second fastest growing economy(but the world bank predicts that its growth rate would surpass China's by 2011..)
# Contributes more soldiers to UN peacekeeping missions around the world than any other UN member.

so afaik India tops the list of potential UN security council member



however, its better if the permanent UN security council is disbanded...and the Veto powers abolished. Giving Veto powers to a few nations to lord over the rest of the world is definitely not democratic.

[Posteritatis]

19. I could see Brazil coming in *alongside* India, maybe

It might be a little premature, or it might not, but they're going to be a major player in the world compared to their past in the next few generations.

Japan's a kind of horribly funny thing though - Germany and Japan (Ed - also Hungary and Thailand) are still! classified as "enemy nations" under the UN charter. Technically they can be attacked without consequence under UN regulations, although obviously nobody's interested in that anymore and it's just a bit of embarrassing language that nobody's bothered to amend yet. (There've been attempts, but they're mostly shrugged off.)

Whether they get offered a veto or not, I do sort of think both countries are owed having that fixed, at least.

[closeupready]

12. Further, India refuses to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Until they do, this is a complete non-starter.

[Vehl]

14. is that a requirement?

You do know why India disagreed to sign the NPT and the CTBT right?

this reason is pretty useless, as most of the permanent member nations didn't sign the NPT when they were inducted. And they would not have either, cos some didn't have nukes then

[closeupready]

15. It doesn't matter why. Everyone else has. India should be held to the EXACT SAME STANDARD

as ANYONE else.

[Vehl]

16. Sure, that is exactly what i meant :) use the EXACT SAME STANDARD

None of the permanent members had the NPT as a requirement when they were selected for their seat, thus India need not either.
It can decide to join the NPT AFTER it gets selected; if it wishes to.

After all, as you correctly said, we have to use the EXACT SAME standards :)

[closeupready]

17. Well, suffice it to say, China will never allow India a permanent seat.

:) Cheers.

[Vehl]

20. Well if that is the case, then we will see the League of Nations v 2.0 :)

Already people are pissed at the way the UN is made subservient to the whims of the "veto" holders, If China does manage to do what you suggest it would(over the Opinions of every other Veto Holder, as they all support India's aspirations to be a permanent member ), it will be tolling the death knell of the UN in the future. More and more nations, especially the ones with clout (read japan and India, and other Veto nations which disagree with China's opposition) will find little use for a UN system that is gamed by a single nation.

we all know what happened to the first league of nations don't we?

The world has a choice to make here. Support democratic nations which represent a significant chunk of humanity, or knowtow to a regime that spurns conventional norms at will. I'm sure that the nations of the UN are smart enough to make the correct decision. And personally I believe China is smart enough to realize that it cannot survive by alienating the rest of the developed/developing world. Like the proverbial wolf, they might huff and puff, but will not veto.In the unlikely event they do, just wish the UN, and the 60 years of (relative) stability the world has seen good bye.

after all, even though history does not repeat itself, historical situation reoccur

Cheers :)

[David__77]

23. The permenent "veto" members should be abolished.

Alternatively, more than just India should be brought in.