President Obama, in his address to the Indian Parliament, announced that the US would support India's bid for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. This represents a significant public recognition by the world's only superpower that India -- not only as the globe's largest democracy, but also a military power which has supplied troops to UN peacekeeping missions and also an emerging economic power -- should now be accorded a perch on the Council which decides all on war and peace matters for the planet.
The only other nation which the US has backed for such an honor is Japan. But the American advocacy really is only symbolic. For India to achieve this long-sought goal, just like Japan, it must pass through a series of formidable hurdles.
First, it must gain the approval of the other four nations (China, Russia, France and Great Britain) that currently have permanent seats on the Council, any of whom can cast a veto against status changes on the Council. And it is well-known that China, the only Asian nation with permanent standing, has reservations about its neighboring Asian states gaining a presence on the Council and would likely at this time block the entries of both India and Japan.
Second, even the US backing has its own hedge. Obama, in his speech, said that he first wanted a "reformed" Security Council that includes India. But what does Washington mean by "reformed." Probably it means that, before India's request should be acted upon, the Council's membership must be expanded to at least 21 or 22 countries. And there also may be other changes that the US will insist on.
In addition, there is the question of whether India, if it does get voted onto the Security Council, gets the seat with a veto or without one. The five permanent members will have a say in that decision -- and the issue will be whether India would accept a spot sans the veto.
Finally, the newest criteria for permanent membership is whether a country can, as Obama stated in his speech, show that "with increased power comes with increased responsibility." In other words, a nation must be able to look beyond its own narrow interests to the broader needs of the world if it wants to serve on the Council.
For India, that test actually comes right now because it is just beginning a term on the Council as one of the ten rotating two-year members. Its participation for the next 24 months could be a trial run for whether it can perform as a "responsible" party. But, meantime, India's dreams of an early promotion to "superpower" status on the Council remain just that for the moment -- dreams.
Whether India will get a permanent seat on the UN Security Council is murky. The current group becomes more archaic all the time. France and the UK were great powers in 1945, but are now more on the periphery, having fallen back to earth after punching above their geopolitical weight for centuries (though France appears to be seeking more of a military leadership role in Europe now, and continues its interventionist foreign policy in Africa). Russia bears no resemblance to the Soviet juggernaut that emerged from WWII. China in its PRC incarnation would never have been given a seat in good faith, having instead usurped it from Taiwan (admittedly, a silly original choice due to its size). Japan and Germany were excluded for contextual purposes that no longer apply. And India was, by an accident of history, part of the UK at the time.
The Council needs to be larger, basically. India, Germany, and Japan all deserve seats.
The relationship with India is only natural. A strong democratic India would be a positive counter to the increasingly assertive authoritarian China. India would also be a gateway to the Middle East and key player in fighting terrorism. India has one of the largest muslim populations in the world and they tend to be moderate; this would give them an enormous cultural advantage in dealing with the Middle East and North Africa and, perhaps through trade and cultural exchanges they could destroy the extremist movement using soft power alone.
First, the comment is a recognition of India's growing global clout.
Second, any significant change takes time. As Obama said in his speech (with some exaggeration) ( http://www.deccanherald.com/content/111081/text-president-barack-obamas-address.html)
"despite the skeptics who said that this country [India] was simply too poor, too vast, too diverse to succeed, you surmounted overwhelming odds ... Instead of slipping into starvation, you launched a Green Revolution that fed millions. Instead of becoming dependent on commodities and exports, you invested in science and technology...Instead of succumbing to division, you have shown that the strength of India-the very idea of India-is its embrace of all colors, castes and creeds...And instead of being lured by the false notion that progress must come at the expense of freedom, you built the institutions upon which true democracy depends"
The achievements above took 60 years. If we look at India's engagement with Southeast Asia (http://www.servinghistory.com/topics/Foreign_relations_of_India::sub::Look_East_Policy) we see that it took 10 years
"Look-east policy was launched in 1992...India has given a big push to this policy by becoming a summit level partner of ASEAN 2002 "
So, before writing off Obama's comments, let's see what happens in the next 20 years.
Wait a second, I didn't see China recognizing any such thing.
http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/International/09-Nov-2010/China-says-understands-India-SC-seat-desire
"China said on Tuesday it understood India's desire to gain a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council, where China is the only Asian member."
China for Consultation with India Over UNSC Reform K J M VARMA/BEIJING | NOV 09, 2010
http://news.outlookindia.com/item.aspx?700535
Sounding positive to US President Barack Obama's endorsement of India's bid for permanent seat in the UNSC, China today said it understands New Delhi's "aspirations" to play a bigger role in the UN and is ready for consultations with it over reform of the the world body.
"China values India's status in the international affairs and understands India's aspirations to play a greater role in the United Nations and is ready to keep contact and consultations with India and other member states on the issues of Security Council reform," Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesman, Hong Lei said during a media briefing.
"China has also voted for India's candidature to the non-permanent seat at the UNSC."
"Obama's endorsement of India's membership leaves only China to take a stand on the issue as the other four of the five permanent members - US, Russia, Britain and France - have already conveyed their support for New Delhi's elevation to the top organ of the world body."
By that, I know, Mr. SS, that the current SC members will set the bar so high that India will be excluded.
The bar was set pretty Sweet & Low for France, that two time loser nation that ran away from the Germans
twice and had to be rescued twice from Teutonic slavery by USA.
Yes, Mr. SS, we know that SC sets its rules in a very just manner.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/09/opinion/09roy.html?ref=opinion
India is the only country that defeated the empire of the arrogant british without firing a single shot. The brits are still cringing from the humiliation. For this reason alone it needs to have a seat there as it can probably show a way out of world militarism.
No we're not, we weren't even "cringing" at the time, we left India because we could no longer afford it, post wwII, sadly it had little to do with the Indians.
What we need is a more democratic representation of the global population in the UN. India, with 1 billion+ people will have a significant say in whatever happens. This is why it is imperative for the US to cultivate good ties with India. And Obama has been immensely successful in that endeavor.
It is not about immediate gains for India with a membership in the council. Nobody in India is under any illusions that it will happen.
The perfectly secular, anti-terrorist and democratic republic of pakistan and
The perfectly democratic, prosperous, peaceful and egalitarian republic of china.
Then Indians will take away all the jobs!
Now you know why US finances rogue nations of pakistan and china!
LOL.
The USA, most western european countries, India, Canada, Australia, South Korea, Japan, Israel, Brazil etc. should withraw completely from the UN and create a purer institution that excludes ALL dictatorships and communist states like China, North Korea, Syria, Russia, all the terrorist arab states, etc..
All funding and foreign aid will used ONLY for western leaning states that are democratic, ban and actively battle terrorist activities.
Spain surrendered to terrorism after the Madrid train attacks and France....well, is just being France and is always on the fence of indecision. France never supported NATO but did not mind the NATO umbrella protecting them in West Germany.
The new name of the organization will be simply be the "Free World" or the FW.
Do we wish to erect greater political walls between US & China & Russia?
Fanned
and
Faved!