Should India be given a permanent seat in the SC ?

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

swami RE:Should India be given a permanent seat in the SC ? 11/6/2004 2:03:45 AM

As long as it does not have a veto associated with it, I think it would be a good idea. The Security Council needs to more accurately reflect the powers of the 21st Century instead of the powers of 1945. Japan should also get a permanent seat. And the British and French seats should be consolidated into a EU seat.

Quote Reply

dudley RE:Should India be given a permanent seat in the SC ? 11/11/2004 10:37:18 PM

Yes they should considering their population and rising GDP,If France and England have it India damn well deserves it.

Quote Reply

PeregrinePike RE:Should India be given a permanent seat in the SC ? 3/16/2005 12:39:26 PM

Nope... not until Laloo dies and none remotely blood-connected to him is in any official position. Its not hard to imagine them selling veto to the highest bidder?

Quote Reply

Schackleford RE:Should India be given a permanent seat in the SC ? 6/4/2005 5:33:03 PM

Yes, and so should many others. I agree completely with Samuel P. Huntington on his ideas of reforming the SC. The SC should have a permanent member representing every civilisation (or culture if you prefer that term) in the world. That means the US and one (and only one) European nation, Russia, one key Moslem state, China, India and Japan and finally one African country (South Africa or Nigeria) and one South American country. The UN must reflect the world before it can represent the world. The current SC is way to heavily loaded in favor of the West, as it reflects the Western dominated world of 1945 and not the global village of 2005.

Quote Reply

Mother of Pakistan RE:Should India be given a permanent seat in the SC ? 9/20/2005 2:11:53 PM

even though i am a Pakistani i think it well deserved a damm UN seat.There shud be a second 3rd world representative in UN security council. Anyways Security council cannot do anything. only prestige in the title -MOP

Quote Reply

bennywombat RE:Should India be given a permanent seat in the SC ? 9/21/2005 3:14:32 AM

yes india should have a permanent seat on the un security council and so should a few others. India, Japan, Germany, Oceania, African Union and A South american nation probably argentina or brazil. if the security council does need change is there anywhere on the web where i can get more info on it.

Quote Reply

counterstrike RE:Should India be given a permanent seat in the SC ? 10/9/2005 12:58:48 AM

nileraider, know the statistics India's muslim population almost equals paks popultion of mulsims and u still say India is against muslims. And if pak has a BOOMING economy, then that BOOMING economy still has a lot of stairs to climb to reach the INDIAN ECONOMY. INDIA IS MORE THAN A DESERVING CANDIDATE FOR AN UNPSC, BCOS IT IS A MIGHTY POWER IN ASIA ( no second thoughts abt that). AND COULD DO A GOOD JOB REPRESENTING ASIA & THE MUSLIM POPULATION IN ASIA.

Quote Reply

bennywombat RE:Should India be given a permanent seat in the SC ? 10/9/2005 9:36:59 PM

Here Here

Quote Reply

HoundOfHello RE:Should India be given a permanent seat in the SC ? 10/9/2005 10:12:50 PM

I would say yes. The whole G4 (Germany, Brazil, Japan, India) should get seats on the council IMO. All four of these nations are regional and world powers (or rising powers in India and Brazil's cases) and are poised to shape the military and economic history of this century. The UNSC still reflects the power structure of 1945 (as someone else mentioned) and should be adjusted to today's and tomorrow's world. Side note for NileRaider: What are you smoking? Pakistan in no way, shape, or form is even close to achieving global force projection economically or militarily. As long as you can't even theoretically project your military strength beyond neighboring countries, you will never be a truly global power worthy of a permanent seat on the UNSC. Just look at your list. You took off the UK in favor of Pakistan?!?!?! <>NR ---Wrong! UN and world power is shifting AWAY from Europe. America in the West will soon be balanced by India and China in the East. <>-NR ---Any evidence? Most muslim governments are friendly towards Washington (Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, UAE, PAKISTAN, Indonesia, Turkey, etc.) Only Assad has a problem with the US. Even Ghadafi is warming up to us! <>-NR ---One simple question: Is Pakistan a member and/or capable of influencing the actions of the Arab League and other Muslim nations like Indonesia or even Bangladesh? Strategic location in what sense? Maybe now during the first stages of the WoT, but after Afghanistan is stablized you won't be "strategic" anymore. Even in the Iraq campaign you weren't strategic. Finally, "booming economy" in what sense? Each of the permanent nations on the UNSC and the G4 have much larger and stronger economies than Pakistan. Even by Asian standards Pakistan isn't booming. Maybe that's why when people think of the "Asian Giants", Pakistan's name is never uttered alongside those of China, Japan, and India. Think about it. -HoH

Quote Reply

HoundOfHello RE:Should India be given a permanent seat in the SC ? w/ sidenote for nileraider 10/9/2005 10:17:02 PM

I would say yes. The whole G4 (Germany, Brazil, Japan, India) should get seats on the council IMO. All four of these nations are regional and world powers (or rising powers in India and Brazil's cases) and are poised to shape the military and economic history of this century. The UNSC still reflects the power structure of 1945 (as someone else mentioned) and should be adjusted to today's and tomorrow's world. Side note for NileRaider (I hope it works this time): What are you smoking? Pakistan in no way, shape, or form is even close to achieving global force projection economically or militarily. As long as you can't even theoretically project your military strength beyond neighboring countries, you will never be a truly global power worthy of a permanent seat on the UNSC. Just look at your list. You took off the UK in favor of Pakistan?!?!?! "UN POWER IS TILTING TOWARDS EUROPE AND ASIA"-NR ---Wrong! UN and world power is shifting AWAY from Europe. America in the West will soon be balanced by India and China in the East. "WEST HAS BAD RELATIONS WITH MUSLIMS"-NR ---Any evidence? Most muslim governments are friendly towards Washington (Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, UAE, PAKISTAN, Indonesia, Turkey, etc.) Only Assad has a problem with the US. Even Ghadafi is warming up to us! Only the madrassahs have bad relations with us! "KEY MUSLIM PLAYER.STRAGETIC LOCATION.BOOMING ECONOMY."-NR ---One simple question: Is Pakistan a member and/or capable of influencing the actions of the Arab League and other Muslim nations like Indonesia or even Bangladesh? Strategic location in what sense? Maybe now during the first stages of the WoT, but after Afghanistan is stablized you won't be "strategic" anymore. Even in the Iraq campaign you weren't strategic. Finally, "booming economy" in what sense? Each of the permanent nations on the UNSC and the G4 have much larger and stronger economies than Pakistan. Even by Asian standards Pakistan isn't booming. Maybe that's why when people think of the "Asian Giants", Pakistan's name is never uttered alongside those of China, Japan, and India. Think about it. -HoH

Quote Reply

Genesis RE:Should India be given a permanent seat in the SC ? 10/20/2005 12:17:03 PM

India�s Bid for a Permanent Seat on the UN Security Council by: Mukesh Advani -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There are compelling reasons to consider India?s appointment as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (the ?Council.?) At the present time, the Council does not fully represent the world population, such as developing countries, and anachronistic in character. The impact of actions of the Council is felt, with near total exclusivity by developing countries. Yet they have little influence in its decision-making. This is so despite the fact that more than 150 countries endorsed, at the millennium summit, the need for a reformed council that was more representative. This has in the past and continues to hinder the Council?s ability to tackle threats to international peace and security. In 1965, the membership of the Council was expanded from 11 to 15. There was no change in the number of permanent members. Since then, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of Member States of the UN and considerable change in composition of the General Assembly, where overwhelming majority of members are developing countries. The present composition of the Council, particularly the permanent members� category, is weighted heavily in favor of industrialized countries. This imbalance must be redressed in an expansion of the Council, by enhancing the representation of developing countries. While Britain, France, Russia and many other countries fully support India?s admission to the Council as a permanent member, the U.S. has not yet endorsed India?s request (President Clinton during his visit to India as President indicated that the U.S. would seriously considers supporting India?s claim). There is no question that the support of the U.S. would be necessary for India?s admission as a permanent member. Since India has a very strong case for admission as a permanent member, the lack of support from the U.S. thus far is puzzling at best. India is well qualified by any objective criteria for permanent membership of the Council. Some of the reasons the U.S. should whole-heartedly to support appointment of Indian as a permanent member include: India has more than a billion people, representing about one sixth the population of the whole world, and it is the largest functional and stable democracy in the world. It is a model for the third and post communist worlds. India?s gross domestic product is the 4th highest in the world. It is one of the fastest growing economies in the world as a result of liberalization of trade policies in the last decade. India, with its ancient civilization, rich heritage, deep rooted democratic system and growing economic potential has the credentials to champion the cause of the developing nations which need proper representation in the Council. India had been one of the few countries, which had participated, in all the military operations the Council had undertaken thus far. Presently, India is ranked as the second largest troop contributor to the UN. It shows strong commitment to the UN Charter, international leadership and contribution to the world peace. India had been the bulwark of the Non-Alignment Movement during the cold war years and continues to be a major force in that sphere. India is and will be a major player of the world in helping the UN?s efforts to eliminate nuclear arms from the face of earth. India has a vast pool of Technicians and Scientists. This could make India a frontier country as the world move more and more towards information age. India is one of the few countries which have made huge strides in the Space technologies. India is strategically situated in the Asian continent. The twenty-first century is expected to be a century of Asians. India could emerge as a buffer for market for other countries against the Chinese, if China decides to assert its influence in future as many fear that it would. Indian army is considered one of the most disciplined army in the world. This will become important to the United Nations and Security Council, as it will be called upon to play a major in role in resolving future conflicts. India had always been looked upon by the third world to provide a moral leadership in voicing its views. India could emerge as a model for other countries in establishing a secular order. Further, this could act as model in handling diversity in religion, race, caste, language and culture. India can help the UN to work towards the problems of poverty, illiteracy, urban sprawl, natural calamities etc. India being the sufferers of these evils can contribute a great towards formulating a workable approach at the UN on these issues. In summary, the Council?s expansion is essential to make it more representative. The fact of India with over a billion population, representing about one sixth the population of the whole world, not being a permanent member of the Council, seriously undermines the representative nature of the Council. India is well qualified by any objective criteria for permanent membership of the Council. Indeed, as the world�s largest democracy, ancient civilization, a rapidly growing economic power and a major contributor to peacekeeping operations, India has a natural claim to a permanent seat in the Council.

Quote Reply

PeregrinePike RE:Should India be given a permanent seat in the SC ? 11/10/2005 9:14:40 AM

I have to eat my own words I suppose... ... have seen some of the antics by current members, I really dont think thngs can get any worse. On the other hand it might even get across the message to some of the jokers out there.

Quote Reply

	News As History - November 24, 2009
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us