US to back India for permanent UN Security Council seat (!!)

[Bacon King]

"China... will be pleased to see India become a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council."

[angus]

As for the precedent, you haven't really provided one.  it was after Ukraine declared its independence that it applied for membership.  The analogy would be that if the European Union was a member state, then suddenly Spain declared its independence and wanted to become a member.  That is not the same at all. 

In any case, only sovereign states cam become members.  I don't think that this means subdivisions (e.g., California now, or Ukraine when it was part of the USSR), or unions of sovereign states.

Go back and read your history.  The Ukrainian SSR and the Belorussian SSR were founding members of the UN back in 1945 despite being part of the USSR.  Basically it was a way to give Uncle Joe two extra seats in the General Assembly at a time when we were still under the illusion that Eastern Europe would not become Soviet puppet states.

ah, well, since you want to put it like that...

Okay, fair enough.  I see now that there's no shortage of the "Ukraine's 65th year in the UN" articles.  I guess if I'd only done a little research before posting presumptuously...

I guess we're done here.

Except that we're not!  My credibility aside, it's not quite the same thing.  Uncle Joe and Uncle Herman Van Rumpuy may both want the same thing, but Angela Merckel, unlike What's his name (whomever was the Angela Merckel of Ukraine in 1945), willingly got on Uncle Herman's lap and said "is that a roll of dimes in your pocket, or are you just glad to see me?"  Anyway, giving Joe three votes in 1945 doesn't make giving Germany two votes in 2010 right.

Actually, while we're at it, I'll say again what I said earlier:  I wouldn't give any members permanent veto-power seats (see my posts in the Israel thread).  If you really want to have reasonable world governing body, then give them membership proportional to their population, give no member any permanent membership on any councils, and let each nation appoint its ambassadors to vote in its own interests and let the chips fall where they may.  But, given the situation as it exists, and if we're going to go on Roosevelt's founding principles, then India deserves the seat more than either the UK or France (or Germany).  If we're going to switch to aggregate GDP instead of population, the it is still true that India deserves the seat more than the UK or France (or Germany).

[Bacon King]

"China... will be pleased to see India become a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council."

Reposting this because it seems like it went unnoticed. Although a few years old, this comment seemed to have represented an alteration in Chinese policy towards India. In the context it seems sort of like an empty statement, kind of like Obama's was, but regardless it shows that this isn't something China would take offense at.

The big issue here is how Pakistan will take this. And they will take it, at best, with a good bit of vitriolic anger.

[Јas]

"China... will be pleased to see India become a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council."

Reposting this because it seems like it went unnoticed. Although a few years old, this comment seemed to have represented an alteration in Chinese policy towards India. In the context it seems sort of like an empty statement, kind of like Obama's was, but regardless it shows that this isn't something China would take offense at.

Well, you'l find that that secondhand remark is as good as it gets for India on a Chinese statement on Indian Security Council hopes. It's unclear though whether or not it was actually said, or whether that's what the Indians took as the Chinese saying, or whether that's the spin India put on it. You'll not find any public declaration by a senior Chinese figure that says anything much like this then, now or inbetween. Colour me skeptical.

You're right that Pakistan (and the voting bloc that Pakistan can sway) are the bigger problem - but China is at best far from a given for supporting India.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Seriously, men, the Security Council is like the rest of the U.N., a big old wanker with no viagra in sight.......limp and worthless.

No that's just the General Assembly. People need to realize the UN isn't just the General Assembly and does more than just pass unenforceable and ultimately pointless resolutions.

[k-onmmunist]

I'd be in favor of transferring Britain's veto seat to India

No.

Why not?  India is the largest and most important fragment of the British Empire as it existed in 1945.  However, as I stated, I can't see this happening until the EU takes a stronger grip on foreign policy than it does now.

The EU isn't going to a lot stronger. Not with Britain involved anyway.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

having another permanent seat on the Security Council would just make it harder to do anything, because of the unilateral veto power.

[Јas]

WikiLeaked: China warns U.S. not to expand Security Council - Foreign Policy

You must be logged in to read this quote.