• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

India seeks permanent UN Security Council seat

bossi

Army.ca Veteran
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Figured this deserved its' own thread, due to intriguing irony of contrast between Canada's and India's relative status on the world stage ... due to "clout" (... would love to be a fly on the wall in the Liberal caucus when the party's anti-military psycophants try to explain away the corelation between India's "clout" ... as compared to Canada's ... ha!)

India struggles to carve out new U.N. role
Martin Regg Cohn, Asia Bureau (Toronto Star)
Jan. 18, 2005. 06:39 AM


NEW DELHIâ ”India's self-reliance in the tsunami disaster has shown the new face of an emerging regional power that wants to punch its weight in the United Nations â ” with help from Canada â ” says Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

In an exclusive interview in the historic prime ministerial office here, Singh said the rapid response at home and unprecedented generosity toward hard-hit neighbouring countries showcased Indian expertise in disaster relief â ” and the new resources at its command.

On the eve of his meeting today with visiting Prime Minister Paul Martin, the Indian leader said he is seeking Canadian support for a permanent Indian seat on the U.N. Security Council in keeping with his nation's growing clout.


"We very much hope that Canada will back us up in our quest for a more balanced composition of the Security Council," Singh said pointedly.

Looking relaxed and confident during a broad discussion of India's place in the world â ” and the world's place in India â ” Singh sounded very much like the man in charge of the world's biggest democracy.

He used the occasion to send a clear message that his country's newly assertive posture should not be misread as "chauvinism or isolationism," because Indians are "not turning our back on the world."

Flanked by a portrait of Mahatma Gandhi, the father of Indian independence, Singh rhapsodized about his personal mission to lift rural India out of poverty.

But he also talked about his ambitions to re-energize peace talks with neighbouring Pakistan and to bring stability to restive Kashmir after his recent visit to the Himalayan border area.

Clad in a grey Nehru vest, traditional kurta pyjama garb and his trademark powder blue turban, Singh heralded last year's election victory by his Congress Party as a sign India is turning the page on communal strife that culminated with riots and massacres in Gujarat state three years ago. Singling out India's 150 million Muslims as role models for the world, he said India must return to its roots of tolerance.

And he reached out to Canadians of Indian descent, citing his proposals earlier this month to make dual citizenship a reality and inviting Indo-Canadians to strengthen their cultural and investment links to their ancestral homeland.

But the Indian prime minister used yesterday's interview to put forward his case that the U.N.'s top decision-making body â ” now dominated by the five World War II victors, namely the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia â ” has been overtaken by the resurgence of developing countries like India.

Canada's influence abroad and historic ties to the U.N. place it in a unique position to assist India's cause, Singh asserted.

Senior Canadian officials travelling with Martin said last night that Canada would be supportive of India's quest for a permanent seat at the Security Council table, but that the question of extending the veto to New Delhi â ” now held only by the five current members â ” remains unresolved.

Singh stressed India's rapid response to the tsunami, and its reluctance to let foreign dignitaries such as Martin make inspection tours of devastated areas, were not motivated by image-making concerns. India's actions were dictated by humanitarian considerations and a desire to avoid disarray on the ground.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"By saying we would like to make the maximum possible use of our own resources we were not turning our back on the world," Singh said. "We felt that involving too many (foreign) agencies could become counterproductive."

Now that the emergency phase is winding down â ” more than 10,700 people died and some 6,000 are missing, mostly from Tamil Nadu state and the remote Andaman and Nicobar islands â ” India remains open to outside investment for rebuilding infrastructure in the devastated areas.

Even as the government focuses on rebuilding, Singh remains preoccupied by his larger strategy for re-energizing the economy â ” India's last hope for lifting hundreds of millions of farmers out of poverty.

Sitting back in the historic South Block offices of India's government secretariat, a red sandstone building of vaulted ceilings and high arches, the prime minister stressed that most of India's people desperately need jobs and decent health care that others take for granted.

"Problems of mass poverty cannot be solved overnight. I think what we need to ensure is that the direction is right, that we are sincere," said Singh, a distinguished economist, who is considered the father of India's modern economic reforms.

As finance minister in the early 1990s, he rescued the country from the brink of bankruptcy with pioneering deregulation measures that shook up an ossified economic structure built on protectionism.

Today, nearly 15 years later, Singh believes more than ever that unshackling the economy is the key â ” and that rural masses "in the bottom rung of the social and economic ladder" who make up two-thirds of India's population, cannot be left behind.

He said the country needs to foster a rapidly expanding economy, with robust growth rates of 6 to 8 per cent a year. If not, tensions between rich and poor will become unmanageable.

"We recognize that we are an unequal society. But we also recognize for a functioning democracy we cannot live with these inequalities, and therefore the first and foremost task is that the economy should grow." Barely eight months after his dramatic rise to power â ” when victorious Congress Party president Sonia Gandhi suddenly turned down the prime ministership and handed it to Singh, her trusted adviser â ” the soft-spoken technocrat mused aloud about the delicate political dance he must perform in steering the economy. A scholar who has never won an election, he is now at the helm of an unruly coalition government drawn from 15 parties â ” heavily reliant on Communist ideologues and bare-knuckled regional power brokers â ” that makes Canada's minority Parliament look calm by comparison.

"We need to spend a lot more time in discussion," Singh said philosophically of his mercurial coalition allies.

"Coalition politics is essentially an essay in mutual comprehension."

What keeps the partnership together is a shared distrust of the government they defeated, led by the Bharatiya Janata Party of former prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, now sitting in opposition.

The BJP's agenda of "Hindutva," or Hindu-ness, stoked fundamentalist passions in this majority Hindu nation, unnerving Muslims and other religious minorities.

Singh said the BJP's defeat marked the end of an ugly era of communalism that stoked bloody riots in western Gujarat state in early 2002 that claimed more than 1,000 lives.

"They tried to distort the essence of our civilization and cultural heritage," said Singh.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"What happened in Gujarat was a big shock to our people. I think it's not wrong to say that the May, 2004, elections were a reaffirmation of the hearts and minds of the people of India."

In an era of increasing religious fundamentalism, India's Islamic minority is a model of moderation and integration, he argued.

"We have probably one of the largest Muslim communities in the world and we take pride in the fact that these 150 million Muslims live as peaceful citizens of our country, that there is not a single incident of their being involved in Al Qaeda and other international terrorist groups," he said.

As a practising Sikh, Singh cited his presence in India's highest government office as proof of growing pluralism in the land. India's head of government, President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, is also a Muslim, he noted.

"I am proud to be an Indian and proud to be a Sikh. And the fact that a person of any religion can rise to the highest office ... well that is one indication of the India that we want to build."

Born 72 years ago in pre-partition India â ” in a small, poor, predominantly Sikh village called Gah that is now part of Pakistan â ” Singh said he is hopeful about revitalizing diplomatic negotiations with Islamabad. But the prerequisite to stable relations is an end to cross-border terrorism he blames on Pakistan in the disputed Himalayan territory of Kashmir, claimed by both countries but largely controlled by India.

"We are very sincere, very keen that India-Pakistan relations should make a new beginning," said Singh, whose lack of extensive foreign policy experience has brought his pronouncements on Kashmir under close scrutiny.

But he cautioned that a bilateral dialogue "can proceed only if Pakistan remains firm in its commitment ... that Pakistan territory would not be used to promote terrorism directed against us."

He added, "Let me say there has been some progress, but the overall infrastructure of terrorism has not been dismantled."

Still, Singh said he believes he formed a constructive relationship with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf after their first meeting in New York late last year, and he expects to see him again on the sidelines of a conference of South Asian nations scheduled for next month in Bangladesh.

The prime minister also said he hopes Indo-Canadians will rekindle their links with India by applying for overseas citizenship under a new, streamlined policy he announced this month.

Expanding on a policy introduced by the previous BJP government, Singh has promised a more "user friendly" application process that might use "smart cards" to allow non-resident Indians who migrated after 1950 to reclaim dual citizenship.

"We have a large community of Canadian citizens who are of Indian origin.

"In an increasingly interdependent world that we live in, I think all these Canadian citizens can become major instruments of promoting cordial relations between our two countries," said Singh.

"I very much hope that some of them would find India a very desirable, profitable investment destination.

" But we would like our relations to have a multi-faceted character, and that cultural link should also have a prominent place."
 
They are definitely a regional power, and neither a middle or post-colonial power.  This one will be interesting to watch.  Shades of Tom Clancy?

PS - back to work Bossi!
 
Hmmm, and most of North America uses decayed animal and plant matter to provide the power to that generates the heat that we cook with.  Which requires a huge infrastructure to extract and process.  Not that I'm saying we should go to cow chips for fuel, but if it works, why shouldn't they use them.  Given the price of fossile fuels these days free cow dung looks pretty attractive.
And until North America has no one who needs to gather local fuel I don't think we should be throwing stones.

If the fact that they use a different fuel souce than we do is your only argument and you can only present it in way that mocks them, maybe you keep quiet.

If you don't have something good (or worthwhile) to say, don't say anything.
 
Oh, for Pete's sake ...
Yes, India has a "full spectrum" of social status.  Big deal.
They also deployed 29 warships to aid in tsunami relief, and if I had time to waste I'd look up the size of their armed forces in order to make a more pertinent contrast to how they've bought their seat on the world stage ... "clout".
 
The Chinese may not use cow chips as fuel, but they are not what I would consider to be a modern, well-developed cosmopolitan nation, and they have a permanent UNSC seat.
 
Remember, India has a middle-class larger then the entire population of the United States.

The crux of the matter is that the permanent membership to the UNSC (read - veto) was set in stone in a time when the geopolitical arena was a completely different affair.   The inability to change the current layout really shows how antiquated the edifice of the UN is.

Is a permanent seat determined by the possession of a nuclear arsenals?   Then why are India, Pakistan, and Israel not on the list?   (As well, membership could easily be obtained overnight by many other states, including Canada)

Is a permanent seat determined by economic might?   Then how do France and Britain justify their seat while Germany is left out?   What about China's seat as opposed to the lack of one by India and Japan?

How about population?   Again, Japan, Germany, Indonesia, and India all have claims to a seat.

Clearly, the more out of touch the UN system grows from the international setting, the less and less relevent to international relations it will become....
 
And there's the rub.

If we were to re-design the UNSC from the ground up, what would be the pre-requisites for a permanent seat?

 
Going on the principles of One Seat, One Vote and that the UN is a body above realist power-plays, would we even want any permanent seats?

...and there is the rub, since this utopian goal is so unacceptable to most players that it would never be considered.
 
S_Baker said:
  Infanteer....thats probably a stretch.   Regardless, I don't think India should get a seat, neither should Japan or Germany.   I like it just the way it is ;)

The permanent members of the UN security council were establish because they were the "victors" if you will, of the previous conflict.  You seem to be racting to the question of india's desire in typical american fashion.  The fact that 5 members are there in permanance is an atiquated thing.  Ther is no reason why the US, China, France,Russia and the UK should have veto on whatever else the international community has to say. Tha is in general,what my issue is with american foreign policy, evern though i understand some of its reasoning. Old cold war politics are dead and so is the use of the permanent seats on the council.  If anything they should be done away with and added to the rotation that goes on for the other seats. Look at the problems you had in the council prior to Op IF ! if it hadn't been for the french veto, how do you think things would have gone ? Seems to me that the US retaining veto serves only the interests of the 5 permanent memebrs and not the good of the international comunity as a whole.
 
S_Baker said:
Infanteer....thats probably a stretch.

No, it's not.  I'm looking for the demographic details now, but I distinctly remember looking at a breakdown of India's 1 billion citizens which showed a Middle Class of about 300,000,000 (with most of the other 700,000,000 living in abject poverty).

Sure, in relative terms 30% doesn't compare to a modern, information age society; but in absolute terms, the number has meaning.

Regardless, I don't think India should get a seat, neither should Japan or Germany. I like it just the way it is ;)

Well, if you like France having a Veto, I guess we'll just leave it as is....
 
Sounds a grab for power in the region.  Maybe to throw Pakistan back a few steps.  It would make a difference the next time they "Squabble" over Kasmire.

How did France get a seat?  The Poles provided troops to the Allies, and if memory serves me correctly, they where under "new management" shall we say, for longer than our French friends.
 
Love793 said:
How did France get a seat?  The Poles provided troops to the Allies, and if memory serves me correctly, they where under "new management" shall we say, for longer than our French friends.

And again, we must use WWII for the be all, end all for discussions about French military prowess (and how quickly the world forgets that Britain too, was defeated on land, and was for all intents and purposes, a hair away from having their air power removed)? Come on. In as much as they are definitely not in their golden colonial era, the French have the power to project their forces around the world (behind Germany, are the strongest armed forces in Europe...that includes you Britain!), have a definite positive economic impact, are tied in quite tightly with many operations in the African region, etc. I can suggest that Russia, by the logic put forth by many here, does not deserve to be on the Security Council either. Diminishing populations (rapidly), failure to contain the Chechens, deteriorating military abilities, loss of spheres of influence, all put Russia in a spot that would be too weak to contribute significantly.
 
S_Baker said:
 

So I wonder is it the American blood running through my veins or the CDN that blinds me to the plight of the world's poor and opressed?    ;)

As much as i understand american foreign policy ( and beleive me i do), i have strong doubts about the benevolance of US actions abroad. You want to tell me about, the poor, about the opreseed, please do not insult me with that sanctamonious cry.  Where was the US in Rawanda ? Do you mean to tell me that all the US intevemntions in south america were done for benevolent reasons ?  Simple fact is, IMHO, that the current configuration of the security council serves only its permanent members becasue of the veto granted to them. Why is it that 5 countries in this world have the power to tell the rest of the world where to go and how to get there ? If you are so benevolent, why won't you sign the International convetion on anti-pers land mines ?

If the UN and the SC is to stay relevant, ALL seats on the SC should be alocated on a rotational basis and no one country should have veto, So by extension i guess i beleive that india should not get a permanent seat, but no other country should either.  And it is certainly not up to the US to decide.
 
S_Baker said:
Sounds good, but with that seat comes great responsibilities and then Canada's politicians and people would get an eyeful.....sometimes one must make unpopular decisions for the greater benefit of mankind.

Trying to quote Spider Man?   ;D

"With great power comes great responsibility"   -   Uncle Ben

"He's a thief!  A menace!"   -   Jona Jamison
 
S_Baker said:
I think they were right behind the 50K troops Canada deployed.....Listen I don't want to get into a wizzing contest with you.   You and I know full well that Canada and other countries have had the opportunity (several times to include Ruwanda, Sudan, Zimbabwe, etc) to make a difference in the world, and not be a lackey to US or other countries policies but, chose to sit on the sidelines and snipe.

I have said it before, Canada should take the lead, spend more money on their military, be capable of deploying 10s of thousands of troops into the world's hotspots.   be more assertive in its goals of a. b. and c (whatever they might be) and make a difference.   Should Canada have a permanent seat on the UN security council?   Sounds good, but with that seat comes great responsibilities and then Canada's politicians and people would get an eyeful.....sometimes one must make unpopular decisions for the greater benefit of mankind.   Say isn't Chretien available, maybe he could be the secretary general?   Hows that for a utopian vision of the world?    

I wasn't trying to get into a pissing match, sorry if it comes across that way but american " self-interest" never ceases to amaze me.  The US didn't intervene in Rawanda because they had no interest there. The canadian mission to Zaire in 97 crumbled due to the complete lack of american support. the american government is notoriously abcent from the sceen when it comes to Sudan........... Why did the US have to be dragged ass-backwards into interening in the Balkans ? Granted that we need to spend more on our military, you and i can agree on that, so that we can stop requiring US help,if the US is such the champion of the poor or the opressed, why is your government only acting when it has something to gain ?

sorry, maybe i'm just ranting.....

As for the security council........who are you to say that india is not capable of shouldering the responsabilities ? What makes them so different than you ? On this point, don't get me wrong, i don't wish to argue, just looking for you view on this.

Cheers
 
Going on the principles of One Seat, One Vote and that the UN is a body above realist power-plays, would we even want any permanent seats?

...and there is the rub, since this utopian goal is so unacceptable to most players that it would never be considered.

Reforming the security council would be very difficult, nobody would give up their veto power. I don't think that the Americans would go for a veto-less council. They contribute 25% of the UN's funding. There would be a complaint that such a powerful country would have the same vote as some poor south-pacific island.
Figures from:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1084935.stm
 
S_Baker said:
Interesting response from the Indian Judge on the WWII Japanese War Crimes trials....seems he shifted the blame for the entire pacific war to the US.   Seems we forced the Japanese to cross an ocean to attack without a formal declaration of war and it was entirely the US' fault....now thats some interesting spin.    Yes, a long time ago, but the same crap is taught in their schools and institutions of higher learning.

Um ... if I didn't know better, I'd actually suspect you've been doing some reading ...
(i.e. yup - in fact, way back when ... this was actually the perception of Japan, and American-controlled access to oil was the reason they attacked the U.S. ... hmmmm ...)
However, getting back on topic ... once in a while, it might even be useful to have an "intermediary" on the Security Council who can see both sides of the fence ... ?
 
S_Baker said:
Well this is getting rediculous, I know I can't convince someone that has grown up with watching CBC's objective reporting :blotto:...so I guess I will quit trying....at least most of the time :-*

<dripping sarcasm mode on>   Oh how I wish that I had access to real news like FOX and CNN, and unbiased commentators like Rush Limbaugh...

 
India's seat on the Council is probably the price it is asking for coming off the sidelines, taking a strong regional position and aligning itself with some group of countries or other.  It has always been courted by Britain, the US and Russia, now the EU and China are making plays for its favours.

Be interesting to see if the US ends up supporting the bid.
 
Back
Top