Obama backs India for seat at UN top table

[Setzer]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11711007

President Barack Obama addresses India's parliament in Delhi on 8 November 2010 President Obama's remarks will delight India, which has long lobbied for a seat at the UN's top table

President Barack Obama has backed India's ambition for permanent membership of the UN Security Council.

In an address to India's parliament at the end of a three-day visit, Mr Obama lavishly praised India's development.

His remarks will delight India, which has been lobbying for a seat at the UN's top table for years.

Analysts say it does not mean India will get a seat on the Security Council immediately; the unspecified reforms Mr Obama mentioned could take years.

Mr Obama also said the Washington-Delhi relationship would be one of this century's defining partnerships.

He was applauded as he told dignitaries: "As two global leaders, the United States and India can partner for global security - especially as India serves on the Security Council over the next two years.

"Indeed the just and sustainable international order that America seeks includes a United Nations that is efficient, effective, credible and legitimate.

"And that is why I can say today, in the years ahead, I look forward to a reformed United Nations Security Council that includes India as a permanent member."

The US president is next due to visit Indonesia, South Korea and Japan on a 10-day Asian tour designed to boost US exports.

Frankly, I think the Security Council is a bit too much of an Old Boy's Club. It's far too easy for one powerful member to protect a state it's friendly with. Expanding the size will mitigate that somewhat.

[Norseman]

Honestly the Permanent Members should be replaced with a set of the USA, Brazil, the EU (seriously one seat for each of France and Britain?), Russia (for the nukes), India, China and Japan. That would reflect the actual balance of power, rather than pretending that the balance of power is the same as it was fifty years ago.

[Keevan_Colton]

France, America, Russia, China, Britain and France are the old nuclear powers, that's why they're the permanent members of the security council. That's also why India is even considered, though it would open a can of worms with regards to Pakistan.

[mr friendly guy]

Frankly, I think the Security Council is a bit too much of an Old Boy's Club. It's far too easy for one powerful member to protect a state it's friendly with. Expanding the size will mitigate that somewhat.

How do you propose this would happen unless they get rid of veto power. It would make things more unwieldly because there will be more vetoes, unless those new members see eye to eye with existing members on most issues (since existing members would veto proposals they dislike anyway, so having 2 countries veto makes no difference anyway).

France, America, Russia, China, Britain and France are the old nuclear powers, that's why they're the permanent members of the security council. That's also why India is even considered, though it would open a can of worms with regards to Pakistan.

Someone more versed in history can correct me, but I thought the current membership isn't because they are old nuclear powers (although those countries did have nuclear weapons earlier than those not on it), its because those countries forged a pact to fully persecute WWII and fight the Axis powers.

I remember reading that Winston Churchill thinking its a joke making the Republic of China one of the permanent members (of the yet to be formed UN), however China was backed by the US so it succeeded. After the chinese civil war, Taiwan (ROC) held the seat reserved for China (even though it was not a nuclear power while its rival in the mainland eventually would become a nuclear power) until round about the detente between the PRC and the USA. At that point the PRC took over the seat reserved for China.

The point is, that the ROC held the seat even though it was not a nuclear power while its mainland rival was. Ergo the reason for the five permanent members being who they are is not because they are the old nuclear powers.

[Simon_Jester]

With the notable exception of China (where the civil war caused major political problems), the Security Council members are both the most notable Allied nations of WWII and the old nuclear powers; this is not a coincidence. The nations that came out of WWII as part of the winning coalition were in the best position to develop nuclear weapons in the postwar era, because they were the ones who had money and industrial resources to do it with.

One thing that might have been a good idea for the UN if it was intended to carry out its originally envisioned mission (as 'successor state' to the Grand Alliance that won WWII) would be to make it require two Security Council vetoes, instead of one, to block action... but Russia in particular would probably never have agreed to that.

[Phantasee]

This is just the US doing it's bit to support India as an alternative to China. Same size population, cheap labour, paraphrasing 50 Cent, "this whole [country's] one bug pussy waiting to be fucked". Putting India on the security council is just the wining and dining bit.

[Sarevok]

Uh the UN Security council was established before anyone other than US had nuclear weapons. It was most definitely not a club of first five countries to posses nukes.

[Sea Skimmer]

With the notable exception of China (where the civil war caused major political problems), the Security Council members are both the most notable Allied nations of WWII and the old nuclear powers; this is not a coincidence. The nations that came out of WWII as part of the winning coalition were in the best position to develop nuclear weapons in the postwar era, because they were the ones who had money and industrial resources to do it with.

One thing that might have been a good idea for the UN if it was intended to carry out its originally envisioned mission (as 'successor state' to the Grand Alliance that won WWII) would be to make it require two Security Council vetoes, instead of one, to block action... but Russia in particular would probably never have agreed to that.

Do you realize the implications of that? If one veto does nothing then the UN would quickly fall apart because you cannot force actions onto people with hundreds of nuclear warheads and no expect trouble. That’s a bad fucking idea. In the end the UN is stacked towards inaction because of that. That is the only way to make it work while providing it with any real power at all in the first place. You got to two vetos, and we'll be lucky if China or Russia or the US does just walk out of the organization rather then triggering WW3 after someone does something real dumb.

[mr friendly guy]

With the notable exception of China (where the civil war caused major political problems), the Security Council members are both the most notable Allied nations of WWII and the old nuclear powers; this is not a coincidence. The nations that came out of WWII as part of the winning coalition were in the best position to develop nuclear weapons in the postwar era, because they were the ones who had money and industrial resources to do it with.
.

Of course. That may be the reason why people have this misconception that those five countries are the permanent members because they also were the first to developed nukes, as opposed to because they planned to set up the UN with themselves as holding special powers.