When will India get U.N. veto power ?

[EnterTheVoid]

How come India don't have Veto Power at the United Nations ? Aren't we influential enough in world politics to deserve it ? Countries that have veto power are permanent members of the security council. We were offered membership but without veto power, to which we rightfully refused. Only 5 countries have veto power - China, France, Russia, UK and US. France has it but we don't ? (

[Ram]

Not happening in our generation, maybe 2025, 2030, who knows. We may have the numbers in terms of population, but in terms of global trade, security etc, we still play a very minute role. But as our economy expands, as our GDP/PCI grows and we begin to have bigger say in the world forums, it will be hard for them to keep us out. Technically, the reform of the Security Council is overdue. You cannot have a council that claims to face 21st century challenges, but was formed based on post WW II global architecture. If they do expand it, we’ll obviously be the automatic first choice. We’re nearly 1/6th of humanity, a culturally, religiously and linguistically diverse secular democratic republic, all adjectives that world leaders love. We have a rich heritage in civilization as well. And in a region constantly mired in conflict and chaos, we’re a beacon of stability and peace. Russia has and will definitely support our candidature, so will probably Britain. France’s position is unknown but they’re known to be conservative and are loathe to changing the status quo, the US has expressed reservations and China will definitely try to delay it as much as possible. If they do expand, it will almost certainly be the current 5 + 3 new members. The problem is, while our candidature might not be that controversial, they will have huge problems deciding on who the other two should be. Some say Brazil and South Africa, there have been other names as well. This indecision could hurt our induction.

[EnterTheVoid]

Regarding the last part of your response, what I don't understand is why an "ally" like the U.S. has blocked us from getting veto power. Can't help but feel used :(( They also have the ISRO and the DRDO on their blacklist, which India is trying to get removed.

[Lurker]

Russia has and will definitely support our candidature' date=' so will probably Britain. France’s position is unknown but they’re known to be conservative and are loathe to changing the status quo, the US has expressed reservations and China will definitely try to delay it as much as possible. If they do expand, it will almost certainly be the current 5 + 3 new members. The problem is, while our candidature might not be that controversial, they will have huge problems deciding on who the other two should be. [b']Some say Brazil and South Africa, there have been other names as well. This indecision could hurt our induction.

I would support Brazil as well. For the reason that there is none South American country in UNSC. More importantly Brazil seems to be the only (large)country that seems to be staying neutral in world polity. Unlike India, and Indians, who have pretty much joined the cheerleading group of US/West without realizing that we have barely been matched in overtures. Heck USA had downright dismissed the notion(although France, UK and Russia have openly supported it). Come to think of it even Chinese opposition may have something to do with Indian proximity to US. Without doubt China's first issue with India in UNSC would be regional dominance. But even leaving that aside India of today inside UNSC would only help United States pass its resolutions(in most cases anyway). Why would China want that?? xxx

[Ram]

Regarding the last part of your response, what I don't understand is why an "ally" like the U.S. has blocked us from getting veto power. Can't help but feel used :(( They also have the ISRO and the DRDO on their blacklist, which India is trying to get removed.

Its very similar to what happens in politics. Why don’t politicians reform and root-out corruption? Because they personally benefit from it. So why would they change the status quo when they gain from it? The Security Council is pretty similar as well. The US and other countries like it this way because it makes it easier for them to muscle though favorable resolutions. If there were more vetoes, that would mean more votes to buy, more member nations to convince and so more headaches. We maybe a friend and ‘natural ally’ of the United States, but much of the cold war legacy and the decades of mistrust b/w our two countries still linger on, even though the cold war ended two decades ago. At a political level, there might be room for lots of common ground b/w the two countries, but at a military level, there is still deep suspicion as to what the other side is up to. So winning over their vote wont be easy. Reg. ISRO, DRDO etc, even though most of our agencies have an impeccable record of non-proliferation, the State Department still blacklists many of them so they don’t appear partisan. For example, they would have blacklisted some random rubber factor in Iran alleging that it helps produce rubber lining for Iranian missiles, even though they don’t have evidence to back it up. So, when they have these annual review meetings that come up to discuss who’s on the ban and who isn’t, the Iranians will protest saying that many of their Industries are blocked, while similar institutions in countries like India get a free reign. So to avoid looking bad, the US will act extra cautious and ban entities that might not even be remotely connected to proliferation.

[Ram]

Come to think of it even Chinese opposition may have something to do with Indian proximity to US. Without doubt China's first issue with India in UNSC would be regional dominance. But even leaving that aside India of today inside UNSC would only help United States pass its resolutions(in most cases anyway). Why would China want that??

The way I see it, the UNSC veto has always been more an instrument of ‘blocking things’, rather than ‘getting things done’. So apart from the symbolic significance of holding a veto, my understand that is that we wouldn’t be able to get done things, any more than what we manage today. But where will benefit immensely is the part where we simply get to brush aside motions that are tabled against us. Pakistan for example, tables motions against us frequently, accusing us of this and that. Most times, Russia vetoes it and saves our ass, but if we get a vote, we don’t have to depend on anyone else. So India having a veto doesn’t mean more regional dominance or an extra fillip to US foreign policy me thinks. But it will be an important acknowledgement of our regional leadership and global role in the 21st century. Btw, on a related note, as part of UNSC reform, people have suggested that it be mandatory to get TWO vetoes to block a resolution, rather than the current one. The current system of single vote veto, they say, is simply making it impossible to get anything done.

[Clarke]

Whatcha gonna do with veto power ? Prevent cross border terrorism and naxalism ? Or feed the hundreds of millions that suffer from malnutrition on a daily basis ? Lets deal with those first. Veto power is useful if the UN is the ultimate organization above everything else in the world. That title is held by the United States of America as of now. If u have sufficient economic and strategic clout, u can always have one of the current powers to side with u. Thats all u need primarily and if a country achieves substantially on both counts (add some military strength), a veto power is gonna follow.

[THX_1138]

no, and we dont deserve it either. infact, neither does china. one might even reason that united states and russia dont deserve it. infact, this incredible power must rest with the least partisan nations in the united nations: Scandinavian countries, switzerland and canada. all other nations, in particular china and united states put their vested interests ahead of the global good.

[Ram]

Generally, reform of world forums don’t happen until there’s cataclysmic sequence of events that happened. The United Nations was formed after WW II in an desperate effort by the countries to keep the peace, after a brutal and disastrous war. If we are to ever start having significantly more say in world affairs, something significantly serious must happen and the India’s co-operation is crucial to fixing the mess. Could it be another war? Maybe, who knows? If it were, where would it happen? Who would it involve? Would it be in the subcontinent? Back in 2002/03, when the initial stages of the Iraq war had just ended and Baghdad was run over, Bush declared that now ‘mission accomplished’ poster and long before the brutal civil war b/w Shias and Sunnis broke out, the US State department requested the Indian govt. to see if they could send troops to Iraq to secure the situation there. Not many people realize this, but we were THIS close to having a significant troop presence in Iraq, maybe not in the Southern Sunni triangle of Baghdad, Tikrit and Ramadi, but maybe in the Kurdish North. The then US Ambassador to India, Robert Blackwill dangled the prospect of offering ‘India a seat in the highest decision making tables of the world..’, if it were to send troops to India. I am guessing part of the deal offered to India was the prospect of a permanent seat in the UNSC, along with a slew of other goodies. The Indian govt. mulled the offer for weeks, before good sense prevailed under the sanity of Prime Minister Vajpayee, Home Minister Advani and Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh. If we had sent our troops to Iraq, it would have had disastrous consequences within our country, alienating the 150 million Muslims at home and making us an even more obvious terror target for the Jihadis. I have to say that not sending troops to Iraqs one of the best decisions ever made by the BJP govt.

[Guest Gunner]

no, and we dont deserve it either. infact, neither does china. one might even reason that united states and russia dont deserve it. infact, this incredible power must rest with the least partisan nations in the united nations: Scandinavian countries, switzerland and canada. all other nations, in particular china and united states put their vested interests ahead of the global good.

Agreed, further after the US showed up the UN for its true worth in 2003 does it even matter?

[EnterTheVoid]

Back in 2002/03' date=' when the initial stages of the Iraq war had just ended and Baghdad was run over, Bush declared that now ‘mission accomplished’ poster and long before the brutal civil war b/w Shias and Sunnis broke out, the US State department requested the Indian govt. to see if they could send troops to Iraq to secure the situation there. Not many people realize this, but we were THIS close to having a significant troop presence in Iraq, maybe not in the Southern Sunni triangle of Baghdad, Karbala and Basra, but maybe in the Kurdish North. The then US Ambassador to India, Robert Blackwill dangled the prospect of offering ‘India a seat in the highest decision making tables of the world..’, if it were to send troops to India. I am guessing part of the deal offered to India was the prospect of a permanent seat in the UNSC, along with a slew of other goodies. The Indian govt. mulled the offer for weeks, before good sense prevailed under the sanity of Prime Minister Vajpayee, Home Minister Advani and Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh. If we had sent our troops to Iraq, it would have had disastrous consequences within our country, alienating the 150 million Muslims at home and making us an even more obvious terror target for the Jihadis. I have to say that not sending troops to Iraqs one of the best decisions ever made by the BJP govt.[/quote'] Interesting, I was never aware of this. Thank goodness sanity prevailed. Oh btw, welcome back :eyedance:

[seedhi]

Generally, reform of world forums don’t happen until there’s cataclysmic sequence of events that happened. The United Nations was formed after WW II in an desperate effort by the countries to keep the peace, after a brutal and disastrous war. If we are to ever start having significantly more say in world affairs, something significantly serious must happen and the India’s co-operation is crucial to fixing the mess. Could it be another war? Maybe, who knows? If it were, where would it happen? Who would it involve? Would it be in the subcontinent? Back in 2002/03, when the initial stages of the Iraq war had just ended and Baghdad was run over, Bush declared that now ‘mission accomplished’ poster and long before the brutal civil war b/w Shias and Sunnis broke out, the US State department requested the Indian govt. to see if they could send troops to Iraq to secure the situation there. Not many people realize this, but we were THIS close to having a significant troop presence in Iraq, maybe not in the Southern Sunni triangle of Baghdad, Karbala and Basra, but maybe in the Kurdish North. The then US Ambassador to India, Robert Blackwill dangled the prospect of offering ‘India a seat in the highest decision making tables of the world..’, if it were to send troops to India. I am guessing part of the deal offered to India was the prospect of a permanent seat in the UNSC, along with a slew of other goodies. The Indian govt. mulled the offer for weeks, before good sense prevailed under the sanity of Prime Minister Vajpayee, Home Minister Advani and Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh. If we had sent our troops to Iraq, it would have had disastrous consequences within our country, alienating the 150 million Muslims at home and making us an even more obvious terror target for the Jihadis. I have to say that not sending troops to Iraqs one of the best decisions ever made by the BJP govt.

Vinod Mehta (hardly a pro-BJP journo) wrote the following (http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?263160 ) about how Vajpayee managed to deflect the huge American pressure to send Indian troops to Iraq.

... Vajpayee doubtless was a master of realpolitik. No one in India could match him in the statecraft Henry Kissinger passionately espoused. Just after Bush invaded Iraq, the Vajpayee government was under tremendous American pressure to send troops to Iraq. Atalji, an unfailingly polite person, was having difficulty taking George W’s telephone calls. So, he summoned the late H.K.S. Surjeet and A.B. Bardhan, who had launched a nationwide agitation against Indian military involvement, to 7, Race Course Road. How was the agitation going, he asked them. They told him the response had been good. Mr Vajpayee turned towards Surjeet and suggested that the volume of the protest be increased. “I can’t hear anything.†The two comrades understood. They were instructed to step up the agitation so that Bush could be told about the domestic opposition Vajpayee was facing. ...

Much as Vajpayee is criticized for cozying up to the US, India seems more in the US lap under MMS than it was ever during the Vajpayee era. Anyway, Vajpayee was amongst the finest politicians of post independent India.

[Zap_Brannigan]

Generally, reform of world forums don’t happen until there’s cataclysmic sequence of events that happened. The United Nations was formed after WW II in an desperate effort by the countries to keep the peace, after a brutal and disastrous war. If we are to ever start having significantly more say in world affairs, something significantly serious must happen and the India’s co-operation is crucial to fixing the mess. Could it be another war? Maybe, who knows? If it were, where would it happen? Who would it involve? Would it be in the subcontinent? Back in 2002/03, when the initial stages of the Iraq war had just ended and Baghdad was run over, Bush declared that now ‘mission accomplished’ poster and long before the brutal civil war b/w Shias and Sunnis broke out, the US State department requested the Indian govt. to see if they could send troops to Iraq to secure the situation there. Not many people realize this, but we were THIS close to having a significant troop presence in Iraq, maybe not in the Southern Sunni triangle of Baghdad, Karbala and Basra, but maybe in the Kurdish North. The then US Ambassador to India, Robert Blackwill dangled the prospect of offering ‘India a seat in the highest decision making tables of the world..’, if it were to send troops to India. I am guessing part of the deal offered to India was the prospect of a permanent seat in the UNSC, along with a slew of other goodies. The Indian govt. mulled the offer for weeks, before good sense prevailed under the sanity of Prime Minister Vajpayee, Home Minister Advani and Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh. If we had sent our troops to Iraq, it would have had disastrous consequences within our country, alienating the 150 million Muslims at home and making us an even more obvious terror target for the Jihadis. I have to say that not sending troops to Iraqs one of the best decisions ever made by the BJP govt.

I dont know about all the pros and cons of getting the seat, but i suppose one of the big pros would have been increased investment and better trade deals?Isnt that a big enough advantage to have gone with it. I dont think the army would have been as active as the British or US troops but more like S.Koreans troops in Afghanistan, hidden away from conflict. About alienating Muslims, maybe they should worry more about the country first. If they dont, then why should the country worry about the Muslims. The more you cater to the idiots, the more they demand!!

[Clarke]

I dont know about all the pros and cons of getting the seat' date=' but i suppose one of the big pros would have been increased investment and better trade deals?Isnt that a big enough advantage to have gone with it. I dont think the army would have been as active as the British or US troops but more like S.Koreans troops in Afghanistan, hidden away from conflict. [/quote'] The world's second largest army doing just policing in an illegal occupation :nervous: There would not be substantial benefits from those. And doing policing means u have to defend urselves and millions of people in a dense urban environment, which means lots of coffins on the ship back home. India helped in reconstruction of Iraq by means of cheap labor and thats as far as we could go there. The long term implications were once u side with USA on the Iraq war, ur stuck with the big gang of NATO that wants to police the world and will have to forget all ur connections with Russia and many other countries. Is that where we intend to be ?

About alienating Muslims, maybe they should worry more about the country first. If they dont, then why should the country worry about the Muslims. The more you cater to the idiots, the more they demand!!

Too idealistic an argument .. less than a dozen brought the financial capital to a standstill on 26/11/2008. Few dozen are enough to do that across the entire country .. few hundred and we're competing with padosis on exporting terror. It has been a massive achievement that despite the communal issues of India, there has been no export of terrorism. Surely, every administration works hard to maintain that.

[Desi Cartman]

Too idealistic an argument .. less than a dozen brought the financial capital to a standstill on 26/11/2008. Few dozen are enough to do that across the entire country .. few hundred and we're competing with padosis on exporting terror. It has been a massive achievement that despite the communal issues of India, there has been no export of terrorism. Surely, every administration works hard to maintain that.

:WTF: How were Indian muslims part of that attack ? from what I have read they were all pakistanis !

[Zap_Brannigan]

The world's second largest army doing just policing in an illegal occupation :nervous: There would not be substantial benefits from those. And doing policing means u have to defend urselves and millions of people in a dense urban environment, which means lots of coffins on the ship back home. India helped in reconstruction of Iraq by means of cheap labor and thats as far as we could go there. The long term implications were once u side with USA on the Iraq war, ur stuck with the big gang of NATO that wants to police the world and will have to forget all ur connections with Russia and many other countries. Is that where we intend to be ? Too idealistic an argument .. less than a dozen brought the financial capital to a standstill on 26/11/2008. Few dozen are enough to do that across the entire country .. few hundred and we're competing with padosis on exporting terror. It has been a massive achievement that despite the communal issues of India, there has been no export of terrorism. Surely, every administration works hard to maintain that.

Why should we care about whether its illegal occupation or not? Did we take sides when Saddam was killing thousands, Did we take sides in Tibet? It’s not about legality at all. It’s about economical and political power. Both of which could have advanced exponentially with a UN veto seat. You are exaggerating about body bags. There were over 2 dozen countries with troops in Iraq and most of them weren’t involved with any direct conflict. About Russia, do you really think that Russia would mind this but not the nuclear agreement with US? What exactly does NATO have to do with this? We don’t have to join that just because we put troops in Iraq. Take a look at Japan and Korea! From being extremely poor, they have become a giant in less than 2 decades because of economic funds from US. We don’t have to be a Pakistan (i.e. have American troops in our land or let US bomb our land will holding a begging bowl) but we could have easily got a lot of power by helping the Americans out here. Alienating 150 million people!!But what about the 300 million poor people in India of which many millions are muslims themselves. I am sure they would have chosen economic improvement over not siding with US. All you need is a few lunatics to kill dozens but they could come from any demographics. Should India just stop making any policies that might hurt a few but is good for the many?

[Clarke]

:WTF: How were Indian muslims part of that attack ? from what I have read they were all pakistanis !

Ofcourse, the point i wanted to make is it doesnt take too many to bring hell to your home. They could very well have been Indians, i mean all those orphaned kids from the riots, what if some local Indian Mujahideen got hold of those kids and nurtured them to wage war against India ?

Why should we care about whether its illegal occupation or not? Did we take sides when Saddam was killing thousands' date=' Did we take sides in Tibet? It’s not about legality at all. It’s about economical and political power. Both of which could have advanced exponentially with a UN veto seat. You are exaggerating about body bags. There were over 2 dozen countries with troops in Iraq and most of them weren’t involved with any direct conflict. About Russia, do you really think that Russia would mind this but not the nuclear agreement with US? What exactly does NATO have to do with this? We don’t have to join that just because we put troops in Iraq. [/quote'] Firstly, i am not fully convinced that sending troops to Iraq came with a guarantee to a permanent security council seat with veto power. For the sake of argument, lets assume that. Ethics aside, Yes, Russia and a lot of middle eastern and other neutral countries would mind if we sent our armymen in Iraq. Collaborating with USA on such a direct basis (in terms of armed forces) is nullifying the all weather relationship with Russia. Who else do u rely on for all your ties such as defense hardware and international allies ? NATO ofcourse. The 'most other countries' had negligible contributions and the benefits to them would have been negligible as well. USA was looking for a major military power to help with the dirty work. If Missouri were a separate country, it would be the second largest contributor to the military effort, which speaks volumes about the role of 'other nations'. Guess what, a lot of them started chickening out when they came to the realities of an invasion; how well could we have handled it ?

Take a look at Japan and Korea! From being extremely poor, they have become a giant in less than 2 decades because of economic funds from US. We don’t have to be a Pakistan (i.e. have American troops in our land or let US bomb our land will holding a begging bowl) but we could have easily got a lot of power by helping the Americans out here.

I pulled out the case of Japan & South Korea to contrast the case with Pakistan. Essentially, being a US ally does not guarantee economic power or development. The way Pakistan bends over since the Zia regime to US, they should have been a developed country by that logic. Japan & South Korea have been extremely stable & efficient democracies with splendid industrial infrastructure and engineering prowess for starters. Japan for instance was fighting head on against USA & Britain with its own aircraft carriers (something we started to build recently) and fighter aircraft in WW II, it was not some banana republic. Likewise, USA does not have much to do with the success of Hyundai, LG or Samsung. USA may be a big market now but that is the case for corporations 4m all countries and these companies were jolly good before they entered the US market.

Alienating 150 million people!!But what about the 300 million poor people in India of which many millions are muslims themselves. I am sure they would have chosen economic improvement over not siding with US. All you need is a few lunatics to kill dozens but they could come from any demographics. Should India just stop making any policies that might hurt a few but is good for the many?

There's way more poor in India actually, but their suffering is from our own fundamental problems such as overpopulation, corruption, limited (but growing) industry and infrastructure, primitive agricultural techniques trying to meet modern day yields and so on. USA has helped us out for instance with the green revolution decades back. We cant and shouldnt hope that improved ties with USA should fix the problems that we created in the first place. The claim that indulging in Iraq directly would be vastly beneficial is what i have disputed unless it came with direct troops being deployed in the line of fire. You did not indicate India taking such a measure and i have suggested that the benefits of an indirect role were not exceptional at all.

[Ram]

Anyone who thinks India sending 20,000 troops in 2003 to Iraq would have been a good idea is simply outta their minds (or) have been living in a cave in the last 7 years and are totally oblivious to the what has happened since 2003. Rest assured, for every solider we could have sent to Iraq, there would have a dozen brainwashed loonie Jihadi crackpots in Pakistan and Palestine, Chechenya and Somalia, Yemen and Sudan, training and arming to wage war against us in our homeland. Terrorism today in India is an occasional depressing nuisance, but if we had sent troops to Iraq, it would have become a deadly routine. Also, that would have almost certainly led to the first substantial case of homegrown Muslim terrorism in India (outside Kashmir)

[Lurker]

Anyone who thinks India sending 20,000 troops in 2003 to Iraq would have been a good idea is simply outta their minds (or) have been living in a cave in the last 7 years and are totally oblivious to the what has happened since 2003.

I am surprised that people are discussing whether India should have sent troops to Iraq or not? The whole world agrees it was a giant collosus mistake. In US it had tons of victims, political (George Bush, Republicans, Colin Powell), economic (recession/depression) and strategic(thousands killed billions spent). To add to that Al-Qaeda only became powerful in a country whose Dictator was completely anti-Qaeda. Why would anyone even comprehend getting involved in that mess?

[yoda]

Why should we care about whether its illegal occupation or not? Did we take sides when Saddam was killing thousands' date=' Did we take sides in Tibet? It’s not about legality at all. It’s about economical and political power. [/quote'] yea who cares if it is a illegal war or not. let's join it as long as we can get some $$$$$. :giggle: