India Foreign Policy Thread

[peacemaker99]

There are no more permanent members to be added. That ship sailed in the 1940s. The P-5 will never let it happen. Everything else is just attempts to pacify Africans, Indians and Brazilians.

For as long as the UN remains, no further permanent members with veto power will be let into the exclusive club.

P4 has already agreed. Only one country creating problems. Wonder which one it is

 

[Sam6536]

China was piss poor when it got UNSC. Third world has nothing to do with it

UN order is based on the victors of WW2. China was a big proponent on allies side and India was a British colony back then. Being poor has nothing to do with it.

 

[peacemaker99]

UN order is based on the victors of WW2. China was a big proponent on allies side and India was a British colony back then. Being poor has nothing to do with it.

With india unsc represents 70% of world population

 

[Sam6536]

With india unsc represents 70% of world population

UNSC is not a democratic forum. It is a colonial construct created by the victors. They have no obligation to give entry to anyone.

Also they all have vested interests in not allowing another power to have veto in UNSC. They might not say that to your face and hide it with diplomatic courtesies. Veto is the only thing that makes UNSC have any semblance of meaning to the major powers.

 

[Muji.Iqbal]

havent heard of anyone offering

Nor anyone cares about India my friend. lol.

 

[peacemaker99]

UNSC is not a democratic forum. It is a colonial construct created by the victors. They have no obligation to give entry to anyone.

Also they all have vested interests in not allowing another power to have veto in UNSC. They might not say that to your page and hide it with diplomatic courtesies. Veto is the only thing that makes UNSC have any semblance of meaning to the major powers.

Doesnt mater. Without the big players neither does tge organizations decision get followed nor does it get resources

 

[r3alist]

And yes the big boy club

When you start using phrases like that, credibility will always be difficult

India is a status quo nation, as long as the established veto nations feel comfortable this remains true they will not feel the need to accommodate India.

 

[peacemaker99]

When you start using phrases like that, credibility will always be difficult

India is a status quo nation, as long as the established veto nations feel comfortable this remains true they will not feel the need to accommodate India.

If UN wants to sznction russia and infia conyinues buys oil, UN becomes a joke. A 100 other situatikns. Thsts why india has to be accomodated, not because soneone is comfortable, but because india is increasingly powerful.

 

[r3alist]

If UN wants to sznction russia and infia conyinues buys oil, UN becomes a joke. A 100 other situatikns. Thsts why india has to be accomodated, not because soneone is comfortable, but because india is increasingly powerful.

Ok boss, I agree.

 

[Waz]

Oh look the the regular "India will get a UNSC seat" thread which has been ongoing for the last 20 years. In-line with the whole superpower persona.
I guess no is something you don't understand.
There will never be any additional members.

 

[Blain2]

Russian veto is our proxy for now just like it was with the USSR.

And yes the big boy club is already full. Third world approach to international law is not really welcome among the P5, if they give veto to India others will ask for the same.

If they begin giving exclusive right to everyone there would be no exclusivity left. UN just like the League of Nations is a forum for the powerful. Now in the next few decades the inclusion of powers of the past like the UK and Russia is debatable.

Russian veto gives India the ability to say "no" to others just like the Chinese one gives Pakistan some leverage. However, it is still not the same as being able to say no yourself.

Beyond that, UN is losing relevance fast and this is becoming stark with each new war.

While it will be hard to walk away from UNSC and P-5 in the near future, the changing world dynamics will make these groupings irrelevant. There could be a point in not too distant a future where a veto by UK, France, Russia becomes meaningless because they simply don't have the muscle to make their word matter. The same cannot be said about the US and China given their power potential.

 

[delta2]

China was piss poor when it got UNSC. Third world has nothing to do with it

China was at war with Japan since 1930s, and absorbed about 60% of Japanese casualties.

Without China, the Japanese would have beaten the USA and taken the western coast easily.

God created China to help America to survive Imperial Japan and be able to end the WW2.

The P5 are all winners of the WW2. Not sure why France is included, but if anything, Germany is more likely tl get a permanant veto than India. India is basically an underderveloped improvished country.

 

[Blain2]

P4 has already agreed. Only one country creating problems. Wonder which one it is

The 4 have agreed because they know there is a "NO" from the fifth.

"Hum aap k saath hain.."...knowing full well the unanimous decision will never come...but at least they can pacify India by saying "look, we tried our best" and then wink, wink amongst themselves!

 

[atmi_bum]

Here we go again with the drama over India getting a permanent seat, with veto power, at the UNSC.

It's not happening.

There's no structure in place to grant India, or any other country, permanent status. The only way to do that would be to restructure the UNSC to make it completely equitable. This entails answering the following questions.

• What will be the criteria for permanent membership? Simply being a nuclear power seems outdated in this day and age.
• And India is not the only country that deserves a permanent seat; there are other countries, which is why a criterion needs to be established on who can or cannot be a member.
• No more permanent vetoes. It's a system that the P5 has abused to block resolutions that go against their interests. Instead, all resolutions must pass by a 75% or higher vote.
• All permanent members must pay more in UN dues than non-permanent members.

These are just ideas off the top of my head, but nothing can be done unless all members agree that reform is needed. I doubt this will happen since there are vested interests that don't want to see any change.

 

[Muji.Iqbal]

Russian veto gives India the ability to say "no" to others just like the Chinese one gives Pakistan some leverage. However, it is still not the same as being able to say no yourself.

Beyond that, UN is losing relevance fast and this is becoming stark with each new war.

While it will be hard to walk away from UNSC and P-5 in the near future, the changing world dynamics will make these groupings irrelevant. There could be a point in not too distant a future where a veto by UK, France, Russia becomes meaningless because they simply don't have the muscle to make their word matter. The same cannot be said about the US and China given their power potential.

I agree with you United Nations is a failure. Palestine, Kashmir.
None of these problems are solved in a fair manner.

United Nations is just to score Diplomatic victory points, or just to see international opinion on certain issues.