India foreign policy thread

[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 Simply being a nuclear power seems outdated in this day and age.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.

 

[Feroze]

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.

 

[peacemaker99]

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!

Homely logic

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.

Its a 50 year project

 

[peacemaker99]

Ok boss, I agree.

India matters whether you accept it or not

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[MH.Yang]

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

You can guess if this statement is correct:

P4 actually disagrees, they said they agree because they know China will veto.

Just like they know whether Russia will reject Germany or whether the United States will reject Brazil. Germany and Brazil have also obtained P4 approval.

 

[MH.Yang]

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

That's right.

If India can prove that it is the big boy that the UN must respect, then India will also gain veto power.

India can learn from China, which declared war on the United Nations forces in the Korean War and defeated a 24 country United Nations army. China has proven that without China's permission, the UN cannot fulfill its rights in this region, so China can restore its P5 seat.

Similarly, India only needs to declare war on the United Nations, defeat the UN military, and then gain veto power.

 

[MH.Yang]

With india unsc represents 70% of world population

If based on population, countries such as Indonesia and Nigeria are the P5. How about India and these countries establish a new United Nations?

 

[peacemaker99]

If based on population, countries such as Indonesia and Nigeria are the P5. How about India and these countries establish a new United Nations?

India is a peace loving and hjmanity loving country so we will not use your mentioned tactic of let me be a pain in the ass till you give me the seat approach. Instead we will help the world become a better place.

 

[peacemaker99]

If based on population, countries such as Indonesia and Nigeria are the P5. How about India and these countries establish a new United Nations?

Why doesnt china stop being a pain in the ass and allow UN to regorm instead ? Far easier no?

 

[MH.Yang]

India is a peace loving and hjmanity loving country so we will not use your mentioned tactic of let me be a pain in the ass till you give me the seat approach. Instead we will help the world become a better place.

Although Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Nepalese, Sri Lankans, and others may have objections to the statement 'India is a peace loving country', I am not interested in discussing this issue.

The role of P5 is to maintain order, not to love peace. Maintaining order requires strength, not a love for peace.

If we choose P5 according to the criteria of peace loving, there is currently no qualified P5. P5 should be Luxembourg, Monaco, Nauru, Tuvalu, San Marino.

 

[sutton9999]

India is incompetent, therefore it will never happen.

UNSC is to avoid direct fight between great powers, not any fancy illusions.
To prove a missing seat, one must fight the UN army in open field.

UNSC, UN as a subsidiary of UNSC, works just fine.

 

[MH.Yang]

Why doesnt china stop being a pain in the ass and allow UN to regorm instead ? Far easier no?

Let me tell you a political common sense:

the state is a tool for the ruling group to maintain its rule.

Law is the consensus of ruling order reached between ruling groups.

The military is a violent machine used by the ruling group to maintain order.


Similarly, the United Nations is a tool of governance for some countries.

And international law is the consensus reached among these countries on the order of governance.

The United Nations military is a violent tool for maintaining order of governance.



Unless India proves its ability to disrupt the ruling order, the ruling group will not allow an increase in members. Because if one person shares the same cake, everyone will share less.

Come on, India. Declare war on the UN and prove to the world that you deserve a seat on the P5.

 

[peacemaker99]

Although Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Nepalese, Sri Lankans, and others may have objections to the statement 'India is a peace loving country', I am not interested in discussing this issue.

The role of P5 is to maintain order, not to love peace. Maintaining order requires strength, not a love for peace.

If we choose P5 according to the criteria of peace loving, there is currently no qualified P5. P5 should be Luxembourg, Monaco, Nauru, Tuvalu, San Marino.

The world is not CCP and P4 doesnt go around the world wanting to impose ordrer.

 

[peacemaker99]

Let me tell you a political common sense:

the state is a tool for the ruling group to maintain its rule.

Law is the consensus of ruling order reached between ruling groups.

The military is a violent machine used by the ruling group to maintain order.


Similarly, the United Nations is a tool of governance for some countries.

And international law is the consensus reached among these countries on the order of governance.

The United Nations military is a violent tool for maintaining order of governance.



Unless India proves its ability to disrupt the ruling order, the ruling group will not allow an increase in members. Because if one person shares the same cake, everyone will share less.

Come on, India. Declare war on the UN and prove to the world that you deserve a seat on the P5.

Less talkey more doey. Stop being a nuisance and life anti india veto in UNSC

 

[MH.Yang]

The world is not CCP and P4 doesnt go around the world wanting to impose ordrer.

Well, you still can't understand the essence of the United Nations.

You see this world as an ordinary country, and the United Nations is the government of this country. A unipolar world refers to a dictator governing the world alone, while a multipolar world refers to governing the world through parliamentary decision-making. China and the United States are two presidential contenders, while Russia, France, and the United Kingdom are also powerful political families.

As for India, in any country, it requires strength to participate in elections, right? You first need to prove your strength.