Don't barter J&K for a UNSC seat

[ravishingravi]

The five permanent members (P5) of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) – the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China – are the victors of World War II. They wrote the United Nations charter, making themselves permanent members of the Security Council – and a powerful veto – to establish the post-1945 world order. This has allowed Britain and France to punch above their geopolitical weight long after the detritus of empire was swept away. Russia and China have used their veto systematically – during the Gulf war, the Balkan conflict and the US-led invasion of Iraq. The US employs its veto to protect its interests globally , especially in West Asia, blocking , for example, every significant UN resolution condemning Israeli military action in the region. If any country merits a permanent seat, it is probably India . Its international record since 1947 has been impeccable. India has never reneged on an international treaty. It has scrupulously respected all international laws. Britain, Russia and France have officially backed India’s candidature . China has given equivocal assent (permanent membership without a veto). Of the five permanent members, the US alone has been publicly non-committal . Privately , it backs India’s membership – but again without a veto. President Barack is expected to make an announcement during his address to a joint session of Indian parliament next month. It’s been reported that it will be about “incremental American support†to India’s candidature , depending on India’s “receptiveness to resolving†the dispute, even though US State Department spokesman P J Crowley denied this on Friday. What does that mean? It means, first, that Washington will back India for permanent membership of the UNSC (without a veto) for an initial period of 15 years followed by a possible granting of the veto after this phase. Second, in order to secure America’s backing for this two-phase plan, India must first “mollify†over Kashmir. Bluntly put, this implies settlement on terms India might, in other circumstances, have rejected . Is this a price worth paying ? Is this in India’s long-term national interest? Will permanent membership without a veto (for at least 15 years) give India the diplomatic heft its economy, democracy , plurality and size merit? If India gives way on Kashmir, the Obama administration has privately promised to twist Islamabad’s arm into abandoning its opposition in the General Assembly to Indian permanent membership of the Security Council. This is the offer President Obama will bring with him next month. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will have to consider the costs and the benefits of this strategic barter very carefully. In an increasingly raucous world with fissures, permanent membership of an expanded P5 (initially even without a veto) has significant advantages. It will enable India to influence world events — in Iran, North Korea, Afghanistan and Iraq — where today its counsel is not widely sought. Ultimately, of course, it is the size of a nation’s economy that delivers global clout, as the rise of China has demonstrated. The four largest economies in the world today by purchasing power parity (PPP) are the US (GDP: $14.25 trillion); China ($8.75 trillion); Japan ($4.10 trillion) and India ($3.65 trillion). Significantly, only the first two are members of the P5. It is time http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/6675815.cms

[Guest Gunner]

I don't think India should be playig this game currently with 500 million people in abject poverty. Let's resolve basic issues first.

[kabira]

WTF does UNSC do anyway? Were they able to stop Big Daddy's move to go for Iraq?