India and UN: better off out or in

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 26 Sep 2015 20:35

Link: https://www.readability.com/articles/svpwgpgv

Powerful statement by PM at the start of G4 Summit in NY ..

Prime Minister Narendra Modi is hosting a special summit alongside German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff. This will be Modi's last engagement in New York.

Here's the text of his speech in full:

Your Excellency President Dilma Rousseff,

Your Excellency Chancellor Angela Merkel,

Your Excellency Prime Minister Shinzo Abe,

Distinguished delegation members,

I am delighted to welcome you all. Thank you for attending this meeting early on a Saturday morning. I want to especially thank Prime Minister Abe, who has just arrived in New York.

The subject of reforms in the United Nations Security Council has been the focus of global attention for decades - unfortunately, without progress so far.

Our Group of four countries, G-4, came together in 2004, bound by our shared commitment to global peace and prosperity, our faith in multilateralism and our willingness to assume our global responsibilities that the world expects from us.

I am delighted that we are meeting again as Heads of Government after ten years.

As I had reflected in my letter on the 70th anniversary of the United Nations, we live in a fundamentally different world from the time the UN was born. The number of Member States has grown four-fold. Threats to peace and security have become more complex, unpredictable and undefined. In many ways, our lives are becoming globalized, but fault-lines around our identities are growing.

We live in a digital age. The global economy is changed, with new engines of growth, more widely dispersed economic power and widening wealth gap.

Trends in demography, urbanization and migrations are posing new challenges. Climate change and terrorism are new concerns. Cyber and Space are entirely new frontiers of opportunities and challenges.

Yet, our institutions, approaches, and often mindsets, reflect the wisdom of the century we have left behind, not the century we live in. This is especially true of the United Nations Security Council.

The reform of the Security Council within a fixed time frame has become an urgent and important task. The Security Council must include the world's largest democracies, major locomotives of the global economy, and voices from all the major continents. It will carry greater credibility and legitimacy and will be more representative and effective in addressing the challenges of the 21st century.

After decades, we finally see some movement. The 69th Session of the General Assembly has taken a significant step forward to commence text-based negotiations. This would not have been possible but for the dynamic leadership of H.E. Mr. Sam Kutesa and Ambassador Courtney Rattray.

However, this is just the first step. We should aim to take this process to its logical conclusion during the 70th session. I am confident that our meeting today will give a big impetus to our efforts in this direction.

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 26 Sep 2015 22:38

Liu wrote:So, it is just because india is not powerful enough to challeng UN that P5 does not take india too seriouly. Indians had better concetrate developing homeland and make it richer and more mighty,instead of complaining about P5 and UN.

Setting up alternatives is a long term effort. China of all countries should know that. SCO and Boao Forum have been up for a long time, and only today are beginning to become major power blocs.

The UNSC functionally has only two major powers: US and Russia. Two more are 'me too!' powers of the US and not independent. China's record is one of choosing to abstain rather than cast a veto unless it impacts China's interests, and even then it's actions are characteristic of someone who doesn't get which way the wind is blowing - PRC's first veto as new UNSC permanent member in 1971 (replacing ROC) was to get egg on its face by vetoing the admission of Bangladesh.

In 45 years, China has cast only 9 vetoes and abstained most other times. A Chinese veto against India is certain, and therefore our imperative is to make the UNSC powerless through internal strife between its own members: attack the weak, make the strong question the weak, make the weak respond angrily, sit back and watch.

Therefore, it is important for India to continuously question the legitimacy of the UNSC P5 regardless of how much they think they're legitimate. Already two of the five are past their expiry dates, and the remaining three are in a power struggle. Lots of opportunity to play them against easy other.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 26 Sep 2015 23:22

I see huge potential for an Indo-Japanese alliance which has the potential to rope in Buddhist countries like Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam, etc. Imagine a huge Pacific rim and Indian subcontinental free trade zone benefiting from Japanese high technology and an Indian nuclear security blanket. Myanmar if it plays its cards right can be a huge player and benefit from the huge volume of trade.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 26 Sep 2015 23:48

Who is the person between PM Rao & PM Vajpayee? Just kidding, just kidding.....he is the PM who reduced the "assets" in Pakistan.

What Modi is doing is simply mindboggling. Hats off to him for making this attempt. He has truly gone where no other Indian has gone before. Wow, does he even sleep? Only Siddhars exhibited extra ordinary energy, he is one such Siddhar.

Liu · Post by **Liu** » 26 Sep 2015 23:55

Suraj wrote:
Liu wrote:So, it is just because india is not powerful enough to challeng UN that P5 does not take india too seriouly. Indians had better concetrate developing homeland and make it richer and more mighty,instead of complaining about P5 and UN.
Setting up alternatives is a long term effort. China of all people should know that. SCO and Boao Forum have been up for a long time, and only today are beginning to become major power blocs.

The UNSC functionally has only two major powers: US and Russia. Two more are 'me too!' powers of the US and not independent. China's record is one of choosing to abstain rather than cast a veto unless it impacts China's interests, and even then it's actions are characteristic of someone who doesn't get which way the wind is blowing - PRC's first veto as new UNSC permanent member in 1971 (replacing ROC) was to get egg on its face by vetoing the admission of Bangladesh.

In 45 years, China has cast 9 vetoes and abstained most other times. A Chinese veto against India is certain, and therefore our imperative is to make the UNSC powerless through internal strife between its own members: attack the weak, make the strong question the weak, make the weak respond angrily, sit back and watch.

Therefore, it is important for India to continuously question the legitimacy of the UNSC P5 regardless of how much they think they're legitimate. Already two of the five are past their expiry dates, and the remaining three are in a power struggle. Lots of opportunity to play them against easy other.

p5's legitimation is never 'fairness',but 'power~balance of WWII and today.
1. Soviet,UK,USA were superpower when WWII ended. China/france were ones of main independent winners and can help maintain the power balance among UK,USA and soviets.
India was still the colony and not a independent state,thus it could not be one of P5.

2.today, USA,EU,CHINA and russia are the only 4 major powers on the earth,which have complete industry base to arm themseves and sustain long~term all~full world war independently.
Other countries,including india,japan and brazil,can not arm themselves indepndently and would have to depend on USA/eu/russia/china for weapon resupply during long term wars.
In fact,6 monthly after wars were to last,their weapons stock would wear out.

3.Thus, USA/EU/china/russia are still on a position far superior to india,japan and brazil.
German itself is a part of EU, while EU has 2 vetos already. usa/china/russia would never give EU 1 more veto to harm power balance.

So,G4 can hardly have chance to get vetos,simply because none of G4 is a real big boss who can arm themseves and friends.

3. IMHO, UNSC should have had only 4 vetos todays,because EU as a whole deserves only one.
Either UK or france should have given up vetos while EU has one.
4 vetos is enough to reflect power balance today and can run UNSC more efficiently than 5 vetos.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 27 Sep 2015 00:03

RoyG wrote:I see huge potential for an Indo-Japanese alliance which has the potential to rope in Buddhist countries like Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam, etc. Imagine a huge Pacific rim and Indian subcontinental free trade zone benefiting from Japanese high technology and an Indian nuclear security blanket. Myanmar if it plays its cards right can be a huge player and benefit from the huge volume of trade.

Sorry for the OT. Ahem ahem.....you must have read that Vivekanda International Foundation (VIF) had arranged the first Hindu Buddhist Conclave in Gaya. 47 countries sent their delegates. And you know who came from VIF, don't you

Intellectuals like S.Gurumurthy already like and appreciate what Modi is doing. In fact they are pleasantly surprised.

RoyG · Post by **RoyG** » 27 Sep 2015 01:37

Thanks for the post. It was a great program. Balu was also there. He is a key player in deconstructing Westernism. As far as the VIF attendees go, are you referring to Gen Vij?

A lot of churning happening in the background. Before any formal alliance takes place, we need a proper philosophical foundation as you rightly put it. The next one is happening in Japan.

This could also explain why we are coordinating our actions with the Japanese. If India and/or Japan get a UNSC seat, the entire economic weight of the S and SE will be represented.

Boy, what a difference 1 year of Modi made. The effects will be felt for generations.

I am also seeing moves to isolate Pakistan in SAARC.

KrishnaK · Post by **KrishnaK** » 27 Sep 2015 01:38

Liu wrote:2.today, USA,EU,CHINA and russia are the only 4 major powers on the earth,which have complete industry base to arm themseves and sustain long~term all~full world war independently.
Other countries,including india,japan and brazil,can not arm themselves indepndently and would have to depend on USA/eu/russia/china for weapon resupply during long term wars.
In fact,6 monthly after wars were to last,their weapons stock would wear out.

The US can and will quite easily choke you for oil and trade. So no, China or for that matter the EU are mostly certainly not on the list.

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 27 Sep 2015 02:25

Liu wrote:2.today, USA,EU,CHINA and russia are the only 4 major powers on the earth,which have complete industry base to arm themseves and sustain long~term all~full world war independently.

EU is not a UNSC member. In fact, the strongest country in EU - Germany - is not a UNSC permanent member at all. Japan has greater world influence than China today, though that will change. China does not fight long wars outside. Your weapons are posturing. Chinese doctrine has always focused on defense of homeland, and ALL major Chinese wars were civil wars, or an outsider walking in and capturing territory in the middle of a civil war, because China is not very united and frequently falls into internal warfare.

China is a country that repeatedly switches between great central power and completely falling apart. Happans all the time, and will happen again - your biggest enemy is you. Historically, every major period of Chinese outward threatening posturing is an effort to conceal weakening internal cohesion. Same as what is happening now.

China as an independent power has credibility on the world stage today, but China as a UNSC P5 member is still not a strong influence. The price of always abstaining from a vote is that you have no influence . Everyone just dismisses you as 'they will abstain anyway' and don't bother to seek your influence. Influence comes from picking sides, not from staying away.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 27 Sep 2015 02:53

Liu wrote:Unless india were powerful enough to set up one alternative challenging UN, P5 would never take india's apply of veto seriously.
BTW,USA did not take the reform of WB/IMF seriously ,either.so CHina just lead to set up AIIB/silk road fund to challenge/replace WB/IMF.
Thus,now if USA want to keep WB/IMF useful toolsand avoided be replaced by china~led AIIB/silk road fund,USA had to respect china's advice to reform WB/Imf.
So, it is just because india is not powerful enough to challeng UN that P5 does not take india too seriouly. Indians had better concetrate developing homeland and make it richer and more mighty,instead of complaining about P5 and UN.

Liu ji,

You're right that it is a function of a country's standing and approach.

India is testing if we are already too big to be ignored by the world or whether we are not there as yet. The question is not one of if but rather one of when. The approach as such can only determine the timing - whether it is sooner or whether it is later.

It is not China or P5 who would determine whether we get in or not, but only time, when in the foreseeable future.

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 27 Sep 2015 03:40

Chinese posters, who venerate Deng Xiaoping, would do well to remember his words during the first ever speech by a PRC leader at UN, particularly his last paragraph:
Speech By Chairman of the Delegation of the People’s Republic of China, Deng Xiaoping, At the Special Session of the U.N. General Assembly

If one day China should change her colour and turn into a superpower, if she too should play the tyrant in the world, and everywhere subject others to her bullying, aggression and exploitation, the people of the world should identify her as social-imperialism, expose it, oppose it and work together with the Chinese people to overthrow it.

Fast forward to 2015, and China is exactly what Deng warned the world to deal with, and you, Liu, are among those who should overthrow your regime.

Liu · Post by **Liu** » 27 Sep 2015 05:37

KrishnaK wrote:
Liu wrote:2.today, USA,EU,CHINA and russia are the only 4 major powers on the earth,which have complete industry base to arm themseves and sustain long~term all~full world war independently.
Other countries,including india,japan and brazil,can not arm themselves indepndently and would have to depend on USA/eu/russia/china for weapon resupply during long term wars.
In fact,6 monthly after wars were to last,their weapons stock would wear out.
The US can and will quite easily choke you for oil and trade. So no, China or for that matter the EU are mostly certainly not on the list.

1.it would trouble chinesr people daily life,but can not stop china's war machine run.

China is the 5th largest oil producer on the earth and its domestic oil output is enough to keep its war machine run smoothly as long as it contract civilian oil demand such as family cars.

2.so is EU. Its oilfields in north sea is eough to run its war machine if necessory.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 27 Sep 2015 06:43

Agree with Liu regarding EU. EU deserves only 1 seat - this one seat replacing those of UK and France....hopefully that would also satisfy Germany which is anyway the leader within EU.

we should have cutoff of 100 mil population for UNSC seat in any case.

US, Russia, China, EU, India, Japan: a 6-member council to be formed, with promise to add Brazil and Nigeria by 2050 based on track record.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 27 Sep 2015 06:52

^That would be funny, since the EU can't agree on any security matter, is demilitarizing rapidly and is also losing its expensive MIC, which cannot be maintained by just foreign sales. Heck, one cannot even be sure there will be a EU in the future.

A for china's staying power in warfare, they can boast about that after they stop begging from the Russians, stealing form the Americans and covertly buying from the Europeans.

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 27 Sep 2015 07:09

Arun Menon wrote:A for china's staying power in warfare, they can boast about that after they stop begging from the Russians, stealing form the Americans and covertly buying from the Europeans.

Beg, borrow, or steal. It all works for them, in building their military capability. And that capability keeps their seat at the high table.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 27 Sep 2015 07:21

States that have formal alliances with other powers for their own security have no business being in a security council. The security council should be India, China, US, Russia. Brazil, SA in the future hopefully. If Europe cannot get its act together and is dependent on the US for its own security, it has no business, where it has no independence of action.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 27 Sep 2015 07:27

Kakkaji wrote:Beg, borrow, or steal. It all works for them, in building their military capability. And that capability keeps their seat at the high table.

Maybe, but that doesn't mean that they can have pretensions of an independent MIC or the capability to wage indefinite warfare.

Liu · Post by **Liu** » 27 Sep 2015 10:04

Suraj wrote:
Liu wrote:2.today, USA,EU,CHINA and russia are the only 4 major powers on the earth,which have complete industry base to arm themseves and sustain long~term all~full world war independently.
EU is not a UNSC member. In fact, the strongest country in EU - Germany - is not a UNSC permanent member at all. Japan has greater world influence than China today, though that will change. China does not fight long wars outside. Your weapons are posturing. Chinese doctrine has always focused on defense of homeland, and ALL major Chinese wars were civil wars, or an outsider walking in and capturing territory in the middle of a civil war, because China is not very united and frequently falls into internal warfare.

China is a country that repeatedly switches between great central power and completely falling apart. Happans all the time, and will happen again - your biggest enemy is you. Historically, every major period of Chinese outward threatening posturing is an effort to conceal weakening internal cohesion. Same as what is happening now.

China as an independent power has credibility on the world stage today, but China as a UNSC P5 member is still not a strong influence. The price of always abstaining from a vote is that you have no influence . Everyone just dismisses you as 'they will abstain anyway' and don't bother to seek your influence. Influence comes from picking sides, not from staying away.

1.Veto is just a tool for china to defend its own national interest.

2.china had hardly oversea national interest before 1990s,just as USA had hardly national interest outside the new continent in 19th century.
So,both china before 2000 and USA before 1900 hesitated to be involved oversea conflicts.

3. So,china usually abstain in UNSC while USA held isolatism before 1900.

Liu · Post by **Liu** » 27 Sep 2015 10:16

Arjun wrote:Agree with Liu regarding EU. EU deserves only 1 seat - this one seat replacing those of UK and France....hopefully that would also satisfy Germany which is anyway the leader within EU.

we should have cutoff of 100 mil population for UNSC seat in any case.

US, Russia, China, EU, India, Japan: a 6-member council to be formed, with promise to add Brazil and Nigeria by 2050 based on track record.

If someday UNSC were to have 8 vetos,UN would turn the second useless 'league of nations' failing to solve any problem. The Veto of UN itself would devalue much.

At that time,USA,EU,CHINA and russia would have to abondon UN and try setting up a effective exclusive elite club to run global affairs for the 3rd time,after 'the league of nations' and UN.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 27 Sep 2015 10:27

Liu wrote:At that time,USA,EU,CHINA and russia would have to abondon UN and try setting up a effective exclusive elite club to run global affairs for the 3rd time,after 'the league of nations' and UN.

The elite club will have to be led by the elite economies. Russia has already dropped off the charts economically (India overtook it last year) and will go down much further. By 2050, India should be ahead of even the EU combine, and (per PWC projections) ahead of the US as well.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 27 Sep 2015 10:30

G4 leaders seek time-bound U.N. reforms - Varghese K George, The Hindu

In a show of solidarity and as a message to the world community, leaders of Brazil, Germany, India and Japan on Saturday called for urgent reforms of the United Nations “in a fixed time frame”, expressing disappointment that no substantial progress had been made in the past decade on the issue.

The Group of Four, or G4, Summit, taking place after a decade, was hosted by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. In the morning, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe travelled to the Waldorf Astoria Hotel where Mr. Modi is staying. Japan, Germany, India and Brazil are the third, fourth, seventh and eighth biggest economies, respectively. In terms of population, India is the second biggest, Brazil fifth, Japan 10th and Germany 16th biggest in the world.

“The leaders emphasised that the G4 countries are legitimate candidates for permanent membership in an expanded and reformed [Security] Council and supported one another’s candidature. They pledged to work together with all member-states and to accelerate outreach towards achieving an early and meaningful reform of the Security Council,” said a joint statement issued by the leaders after the meeting.

“… the leaders noted with concern that no substantial progress had been made since the 2005 World Summit where all the Heads of State and Government had unanimously supported the ‘early reform’ of the Security Council as an essential element of the overall effort to reform the United Nations.”

The G4 leaders appreciated the fact that the Inter-Governmental Negotiations on UN reforms has come out with a text that will form the basis for further negotiations. The U.S. also reiterated last week its support for India’s claim for a permanent UNSC seat, but it has been calling for consensus before reforms can move ahead. Pakistan is opposed to India, while China has been ambiguous in its approach though not openly opposed to reforms.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 27 Sep 2015 10:37

Liu wrote:If someday UNSC were to have 8 vetos,UN would turn the second useless 'league of nations' failing to solve any problem. The Veto of UN itself would devalue much.

Whether it is 8 or 5, it doesn't make a difference, does it? The veto has already made the UN less effective than the purpose for which it was originally setup. It is already high time that the veto arrogance is re-visited by the UNGA, without the participation of the P-5 in debates and resolutions.

At that time,USA,EU,CHINA and russia would have to abondon UN and try setting up a effective exclusive elite club to run global affairs for the 3rd time,after 'the league of nations' and UN.

Even then, India will have to be there! The world can't run by excluding India.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 27 Sep 2015 10:54

Lieu ji: what is League of Nations? I thought UN is the League of Nations.

Liu · Post by **Liu** » 27 Sep 2015 12:42

Arjun wrote:
Liu wrote:At that time,USA,EU,CHINA and russia would have to abondon UN and try setting up a effective exclusive elite club to run global affairs for the 3rd time,after 'the league of nations' and UN.
The elite club will have to be led by the elite economies. Russia has already dropped off the charts economically (India overtook it last year) and will go down much further. By 2050, India should be ahead of even the EU combine, and (per PWC projections) ahead of the US as well.

1. india relys on foreign weapons so much.
I still remenber that 3 months after conflicts broke out against pakistan several years,india's shell stock wore out.

2. Poverty in india is much than serious than any other country except black african countries.

3. Russia's real economy is more mighty than GDP shows.
As for nation econimic might,service section does matter little while real wealth sections(manufacturing,mining,agricultur and construction)matter much.

Russia might have a larger real wealth sections than UK,france or even JAPAN.

Russia consume/produce more elctricity than UK,france or even JAPAN.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 27 Sep 2015 14:04

Liu wrote:1. india relys on foreign weapons so much.
I still remenber that 3 months after conflicts broke out against pakistan several years,india's shell stock wore out.

2. Poverty in india is much than serious than any other country except black african countries.

3. Russia's real economy is more mighty than GDP shows.
As for nation econimic might,service section does matter little while real wealth sections(manufacturing,mining,agricultur and construction)matter much.

1. What does that have to do with the price of tea in your homeland?

2. Poverty in China is much more serious than that in New Zealand or Sweden. Perhaps the Chinese seat in the UNSC should be transferred to one of them.

3. Indeed. Its the mightiest economy in the world. Miles ahead of even US & Japan. I mean if the actual statistics don't matter, why not?

Russia might have a larger real wealth sections than UK,france or even JAPAN.

Russia consume/produce more elctricity than UK,france or even JAPAN.

Brilliant argument. With just one minor problem - India consumes/produces more electricity than Russia.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 27 Sep 2015 16:25

Viv S wrote:2. Poverty in China is much more serious than that in New Zealand or Sweden. Perhaps the Chinese seat in the UNSC should be transferred to one of them.

In fact, poverty in China is one of the worst in the whole world including sub-Saharan Africa. Let the Chinese not get away with lies as they usually do. The Chinese carefully masquerade that and because of access restrictions, such facts are not coming out as they do in open societies. The New Left within China estimates that nearly one-seventh of the Chinese population earns less than a dollar a day. There are thousands of protests all over China due to the most skewed income disparities in the whole world.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 27 Sep 2015 16:32

Liu wrote:3. Russia's real economy is more mighty than GDP shows.
As for nation econimic might,service section does matter little while real wealth sections(manufacturing,mining,agricultur and construction)matter much.

Russia might have a larger real wealth sections than UK,france or even JAPAN.

Russia consume/produce more elctricity than UK,france or even JAPAN.

Comrade Liu, I do understand your new found enthusiasm for Russia. However, I suggest that you take a look at the CINC rankings of nations, a measure more accepted worldwide than your list of assumed reasons.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 27 Sep 2015 18:09

If there is genuine reform a UNSC seat is fine,but the UN itself is so bankrupt of action,unable to do anything about the MEast crisis,etc.and other hotspots around the world,thanks to independent mil action from the US/West,who care a hoot about world opinion,that expanding the UNSC would only add to the verbiage/garbage of the Council,extra speakers who have to make their point with the same end result.

One sure-fire way in which India could add even more pressure is to threaten to withdraw from intl. peacekeeping and even the UN,if we do not get a UNSC seat and to hell with the selfishness of the Chinese scumbags,who sit at the UNSC tx to Chacha Nehru's moral stand that China should replace Formosa/Taiwan when the US offered it to India. He was morally right in doing so but should've also demanded a seat for India too In retrospect his generosity then has resulted in India being sidelined by the P-5 for decades. Mr.Modi and co. should gang up on the P-5 and make them relent.

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 28 Sep 2015 05:56

The real test of the UNSC now is if it can come up with a way to defeat and destroy ISIS. If it can't, then what good is it?

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 28 Sep 2015 23:39

I liked Obama's speech in UN today. Very powerful and inspiring...

And to put icing on the cake: (NaMo is good)!
(Obama warmly received Modi by hugging him before their meeting)

Modi thanks Obama on support for UNSC permanent membership

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 29 Sep 2015 04:09

Liu wrote:1.Veto is just a tool for china to defend its own national interest.

Country A
* Has UNSC veto
* Practically never uses it except where it is directly impacted
* Abstains in UNSC votes as a general rule.

Country B
* Has no UNSC veto
* Has multiple UNSC resolutions against it, but UNSC has never been able to compel it to do anything about resolutions

Which one do you think is nominally stronger ? A or B ? India is B. China is A. Anyone would agree B is stronger - it can stand up to the entire UNSC and repeatedly get away with it. A sits inside UNSC and does practically nothing.

China, despite its UNSC power, got sanctioned after Tiananmen, India got sanctioned after the nuclear tests and had a UNSC resolution against us. Everyone still comes running to us for business today.

India in the UNSC isn't about the validity of India's claim. It's about the validity of the UNSC itself. Only US and Russia matter in UNSC today. Not China, not UK and France who are simply +1 and +2 for US votes. China is usually not a vote at all, but an '-' in the result, i.e. abstain. Japan and Germany have much more power in the UN in general, than China does.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 29 Sep 2015 06:55

x-post (Difference between Confidence of Modi and Nawaz Sharif during speech in UN)

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 29 Sep 2015 10:24

If and when the time comes, China will vote in favour of India joining the PS5 with veto power. But they will do their utmost to ensure that the time does not come. This fits in perfectly with our own approach, which I believe to be that we will try our utmost to enter, and at the same time do our best to reduce the PS5 and the UN in general to a meaningless instrument to channel aid and redistribute member contributions. We are going to get stronger and not just us; it is up to the PS5 to decide whether the UN should have meaning going forward. We are fine either way.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 Sep 2015 22:11

India in UNSC is mow being used as bargaining chip by US visavis China.

Despite all that India should keep reminding the UN about its legitimacy when it excludes India in UNSC.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 30 Sep 2015 02:57

Meanwhile

Afghanistan (who recently said.. "Pakis are not their brothers") called on Pakistan to stop terror attacks against Afghanistan in UN..

We call on Pakistan to do what its leadership promised to us a few months ago when they agreed to crack down on known terror outfits

http://gadebate.un.org/70/afghanistan

Also NYT story:
Afghan Leader Calls on Pakistan to Stop Attacks

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 01 Oct 2015 22:38

H.E. Mrs. Excellency Sushma Swaraj speaking at present...

Very Nice speech..webtv.un.org..

One of the best speech I ever heard..

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 01 Oct 2015 23:11

Please Check aRainst Delivery.
STATEMENT BY
BY
HON'BLE EXTERNAL AFFAIRS MINISTER,
MRS. SUSHMA SWARAJ
AT THE
GENERAL DEBATE OF THE
70TH SESSION OF THE
UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY
NEW YORK OCTOBER o2, 2o15
Permaÿent Mission of Irÿdia to the United Nations
235 East 43rd Street, New Yorkÿ NY 10017 ° ']el: (212) 4-90-9660 ° [:ax: (2!2) 490.-9656
E-MaiL irÿdia@urÿ.irÿt o indiaun@prodigyorÿet

Mr, President,
The United Nations is completing 7o years this year. Therefore, this
General Assembly is historic. I congratulate you on behalf of the Prime
Minister and people of India as well as on my own behalf for assuming the
responsibilities of the post of the President of this historic General
Assembly. I hope that this year will also be historic for the United Nations
from the perspective of outcomes. I would like to assure you that you will
get India's full support in your efforts°
Mr. President,
7o years ago the foundation of the United Nations was laid on the western
shores of this country through the San Francisco Charter. India was one of
the countries which signed the Charter although we were not independent
at that time. We got our independence two years later. When the United
Nations was established, a rather diminutive looking man with the
powerful weapon of non-violence was writing out the final act in a struggle
that would bee.me a symbol of hope for the colonized and the oppressed
everywhere.
I am grateful that the United Nations has declared the day this
extraordinary man was born as the International Day of Non-Violence. It is
a pleasant coincidence that we will be celebrating this day tomorrow.
Gandhiji had said, "The difference between what we do and what we are
capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world's problems". This
message of his fits most appropriately in the context of the United Nations.
Mr. President,
In the life of any human being the 7oth year is a milestone where one can
look back to reflect as to what one has achieved and what one has lost.
Similarly, for people ass,elated with an institution the 7o± year gives an
opportunity to analyse whether the institution has been able to fulfil the
purpose for which it was formed, and whether it has been able to achieve
the goals for which it was established. Today all of us need to ask ourselves
whether we have been able to fulfil the purpose and achieve the goals for
which the United Nations was established 70 years ago.
When I ask this question to myself, I get an answer in the affirmative for
some questions and in the negative for some. For example, United Nations
has been successful in preventing a third world war, in assisting
decolonization and dismantling apartheid, in combating global epidemics
and reducing global hunger, and in promoting democracy and human
rights.
Yet, when we ask ourselves whether we have been able to prevent conflicts
taking place in several parts of the world, the answer is no. If we ask
whether we were able to find permanent solution to these conflicts, the
answer is no. If we ask whether we were able to show the path of peace to a
world which is going on the way of violence, the answer is no. On these
parameters, the United Nations appears as an ineffective institution in the
area of international peace and security. It has failed to effectively address
the new challenges to international peace and security.
Mr. President,
Today, the world is ravaged by war in three continents with the Security
Council being unable or unwilling to stanch the flow of blood. Traditional
solutions that emphasize force have only proven to exacerbate problems.
We must ask ourselves if we have the political will to craft alternatives to
conflict and to pursue them with commitment and single-minded
dedication.
Nowhere is such a goal more important than in the peacekeeping process.
Under the blue flag, several men and women are constantly working to
prevent conflict, protect civilians and sustain peace processes. With
18o,ooo peacekeepers deployed so far, India has been the largest provider
of international security by the UN. Even today, about 8000 Indian military
and police personnel are participating in lO Missions, operating in highly
challenging environments.
India remains committed to continue supporting the UN Peacekeeping
Operations and even enhance our contributions, as announced by our
Prime Minister at the Leaders' Summit on Peacekeeping. Our new
2
contributions will cover all aspects of peacekeeping - personnel, enablers
and training.
At the same time, it is necessary that there be no dilution of the cardinal
principles of peaeekeeping. It is a matter of concern that there is no role of
troop contributing countries in the formulation of mandates, which are
often amended without consultations. This is a clear violation of Article 44
of the UN Charter. It has also been our view that peaeekeeping operations
cannot substitute for political solutions. This has been underscored by the
Horta Panel as well.
As we mark the 7oth anniversary of the UN, I take the opportunity to pay
tribute to more than 3,3oo peaeekeepers including 161 from India who have
made the ultimate sacrifice. We stand ready to contribute to the
Peaeekeepers Memorial Wall, which has been approved by the 69th General
Assembly.
The safety of our peacekeepers, the security of our nations, indeed the
future of the international community itself is now dependent on how we
respond to the greatest threat that we face today: terrorism. A threat that
India has lived with for more than a quarter of a century was tragically
brought home to this very city in the autumn of 2ool. Since then, the
proliferation of terrorist acts, the rise of extremist ideologies, and the
impunity of states that back it have not been adequately countered.
International terrorism can only be defeated by organized international
action. The world must demonstrate that it has zero tolerance for terrorists
who kill and maim inn.cent civilians with action based on the principle of
prosecute or extradite. Countries that provide financing to terrorists and
safe havens for their training, arming and operations must be made to pay a
heavy price by the international community.
Equally importantly, an international legal regime, under the
Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism can no longer be
held up. 19 years ago, in 1996, India had made this proposal at the United
Nations but we have been unable to adopt it and entangled ourselves in the
issue of definition. We have to understand that there can be no distinction
between good and bad terrorists. Neither can terrorism be linked to any
religion. A terrorist is a terrorist; one who commits crimes against
humanity cannot have any religion. Therefore, my appeal to all of you is
that we should come together in this 7oth anniversary year of the United
Nations and pledge to unanimously adopt the CCIT.
While on the subject of terrorism, I take the opportunity to share the
challenges that we face in our ties with Pakistan. None of us can accept that
terrorism is a legitimate instrument of statecraft. The world shared our
outrage at the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks in which citizens of many
nations were helplessly butchered. That the mastermind behind the attack
is walking free is an affront to the entire international community. Not only
have past assurances in this regard not been honoured but new crossborder
terrorist attacks have taken place recently, in which two terrorists
from across the border have also been captured alive. We all know that
these attacks are meant to destabilize India and legitimize Pakistan's illegal
occupation of parts of the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir and its
claim on the rest of it.
Let me use this occasion to spell out our approach clearly. India remains
open to dialogue. But talks and terror cannot go together. Yesterday the
Prime Minister of Pakistan proposed what he termed as a four-point new
peace initiative. I would like to respond. We do not need four points, we
need just one - give up terrorism and let us sit down and talk. This was
precisely what was discussed and decided by the two Prime Ministers at Ufa
this July. Let us hold talks at the level of NSAs on all issues connected to
terrorism and an early meeting of our Directors General of Military
Operations to address the situation on the border. If the response is serious
and credible, India is prepared to address all outstanding issues through a
bilateral dialogue.
Mr. President,
Even as we counter the menace of terrorism, we must acknowledge that real
social and economic progress remains a critical goal. The elimination of
basic human want leads almost invariably to more peaceful societies, as is
evidenced by a map of the conflicts that engulf parts of the world.
Mro PresidenL
Just a few days ago we adopted the new Development Agenda, with the
Sustainable Development Goals at their core, a blueprint more
comprehensive and holistie than the Millennium Development Goals.
However, their successful implementation will require political resolve and
an inclination to share - both technology and financial resources - while
simultaneously improving our delivery mechanisms°
As a woman and an elected Member of Parliament, it has been my firm
conviction that there is a shortcut to real social change - empowering the
girl child. Our Government's policy of Beti Bachao, Beti Padhao (Educate
the Girl Child to empower her) was conceived with this vision. Similarly,
with the transformative power of technology and the resources available to
the international community, we now have the ability to glimpse a future
which provides basic human dignity for all of the world's people. Whether
we can reach that goal depends on how we act.
Mr. President,
Our future must rest on building a sustainable planet for our children and
our children's ehildreno As we prepare to meet in two months time in Paris,
the world expects us to deliver an ambitious and credible agreement on
climate change. We have a duty for common action but in doing so we must
keep in mind the larger historical contribution of some and the
differentiated responsibility of others.
If today Mahatma Gandhi was among us, he would ask if we have used the
resources of the planet for our needs or for our greed? Also if adapting our
lifestyle choices and reducing extravagant consumption would help us
correct the course. For this reason, the agreement in Paris needs to be
comprehensive and equitable, while delivering concrete action. Developing
countries can do more if they are enabled in their efforts with the provision
of finance, technology transfer and capacity building support from
developed countries. India has always been and is a willing partner in
global efforts towards this goal. We will play our due role in reaching a
meaningful, equitable and effective agreement in Paris°
5
India's reverence for the environment is based on our traditions that have
always held nature as sacred. The health of the planet is tied to our own
well-being and it is this holistic approach that guided us in our call for the
First International Day of Yoga, celebrated with much fervour in 192
countries of the world - indeed in this very hallowed institution. I thank the
international community for their enthusiasm and support for this
occasion. I hope that the seed that has been planted will grow into a
magnificent tree.
I also congratulate the States for their prompt action in tackling the threat
of global epidemics. By linking our efforts, we have managed to eradicate
small pox and, nearly, polio. HIV/AIDS has been controlled and more
recently, Ebola, though not before an unacceptably high price in lives had
been paid. The Ebola crisis is an important example of how national action
and international support can resolve a global crisis. We are proud that
India played its due part in these efforts. But we must be inspired by our
successes and redouble our efforts at eradicating other health crises,
whether it be tuberculosis or malaria.
As with health emergencies, natural disasters and man-made conflicts also
deserve our coordinated response. In recent months, the international
community has been found wanting on the refugee crisis due to the conflict
situations in Syria, Iraq and Libya. A swift response backed by political will
is the need of the hour. Our own response in our neighbourhood to
humanitarian crises has been quick, responsive and holisfic. Whether it was
Nepal or Yemen, India has emerged as a net security provider, assisting not
only our nationals but those of other countries that sought our help. India
would be hosting the first Asian Ministerial Conference on Disaster Risk
Reduction in November 2o16 on Sendai Framework on Disaster Risk
Reduction.
Mr. President,
Like the UN, India too has walked a long way these past 70 years. As 1.25
billion of my countrymen would attest, we have done so under the
rambunctious joy of our deeply embedded democratic traditions. But every
once in a while there is a need for a transformative change - one that can
reinvigorate the nation and redeem its spirit. Ever since the new
6
Government of Prime Minister Modi took office a year and a half ago we
have committed ourselves to this renewal, one that has enabled India to
play its rightful role in international affairs while also becoming the fastest
growing major economy in the world. The driving force of this
comprehensive renewal has been premised on the motto of sabka saath,
sabka vikas, an emphasis on the welfare of all our people.
At the same time, we have initiated an energetic outreach to all our partners
in the international community. Our efforts have focused, first and
foremost, on our immediate neighbourhood and the results have been truly
transformational. We have reached out to our extended neighbourhood as
well, renewing ancient linkages and constructing modern economic
partnerships, including, most recently, a Summit with 14 Pacific Island
nations. The Act East policy has replaced the earlier Look East one, with
more vigorous and proaetive engagement with an economically vibrant
region. This complements our Link West engagement. We remain
committed to the Middle East Peace Process which is the key to prevent
further radiealisation of the region. We have also qualitatively upgraded our
relations with all the major powers.
Africa is a region with which we have historical bonds, a solidarity born out
of a common struggle against colonialism and the belief in a future of
shared prosperity. Later this month, we will host the 3ra India Africa Forum
Summit, the first time that the leaders of all 54 countries of the continent
have been invited.
As a nuclear weapon state, India is aware of its responsibility and its
support for global, non-discriminatory and verifiable nuclear disarmament
has not diminished.
Mr, President,
As with nations, so with institutions. It is only a periodic renovation that
provides an organization with meaning and purpose. In a world that
continues to be dominated by wealthy and influential nations, the notion of
sovereign equality of the UN has permitted the developing world to
question some unfair norms. But it has not permitted a fundamental
challenge to the inequity of a system built for a world that longer exists°
If we are to preserve the centrality and legitimacy of the UN as the
custodian of global peace, security and development, the reform of the
Security Council is its most urgent and pressing need. This is the need of
the hour. How can we have a Security Council in 2o15 which still reflects
the geo-political architecture of 1945? How can we have a Security Council
which still does not give place as a permanent member to Africa and Latin
America?
We have to include more developing nations in the decision making
structures of the Security Council. And we need to change the way it does
business by doing away with outdated and non-transparent working
methods. Imparting more legitimacy and balance to the Council would
restore its credibility and equip it to confront the challenges of our times.
We are happy that during the last one year under the leadership of H.E. Mr.
Sam Kutesa and H.E. Mr. Courtnay Rattray we have achieved what we
could not do so over two decades of discussions - a text to negotiate,
unanimously adopted by consensus in the General Assembly under
Decision 69/56o. This first, but critical step, must be the springboard for
action in this historic 7oth Session of the UNGA.
Mr. President,
For an organization like the United Nations, 70 years has a unique
significance. It is an occasion for revitalization and for renewal. I invite all
of you to contemplate the idea of the United Nations as a Banyan Tree. In
the Eastern tradition, the Banyan is a tree that signifies wisdom, yet is nonjudgemental
and all-encompassing. It has not one trunk, but many,
growing outwards, each connected to the other, and the sky and the earth.
Its expansive branches provide shade and relief, and its base has always
been a place for discussion and debate.
Unlike the men and women who may have planted its seed, the banyan is
still a young tree at 70. But without constant regeneration and expansion, it
withers away. This could be the fate that awaits the UN. We have a historic
opportunity to permit a renewal of this critical institution or we can
condemn it to irrelevance and a tragic withering. We can easily lose
ourselves in a labyrinth of our creation. But if we seize the day, we will see a
United Nations that will grow to its full potential, a United Nations which
8
reduces the deficit between what it does and what it is capable of doing, a
mighty banyan tree providing the canopy for a peaceful and prosperous
humanity, I end my speech with the hope that the United Nations will grow
into such a banyan tree,
Thank you

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 02 Oct 2015 06:34

Amber G. wrote:H.E. Mrs. Excellency Sushma Swaraj speaking at present...

Very Nice speech..webtv.un.org..One of the best speech I ever heard..

http://webtv.un.org/watch/india-general ... 4349160001

rsingh · Post by **rsingh** » 02 Oct 2015 20:08

JE Menon wrote:If and when the time comes, China will vote in favour of India joining the PS5 with veto power. But they will do their utmost to ensure that the time does not come. This fits in perfectly with our own approach, which I believe to be that we will try our utmost to enter, and at the same time do our best to reduce the PS5 and the UN in general to a meaningless instrument to channel aid and redistribute member contributions. We are going to get stronger and not just us; it is up to the PS5 to decide whether the UN should have meaning going forward. We are fine either way.

Pardon. Not agree. What makes you think that they will agree eventually? And what is the use of being member of a club that is useless?

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 03 Oct 2015 00:04

In response to SS -- Pakis use their right of reply... 100000000000 killed in Cashmere.. core issue.. samjota express.. Gujarat 2002..6000 mass graves .. all are there...if there was any doubt Pakis proved that they are still Pakis...

Anyone who really wants to spend some time listening to it can see it at
http://webtv.un.org/search/pakistan-fir ... m=pakistan

But it is not much different from any other reply , year after year... say last year;s
http://webtv.un.org/watch/pakistan-seco ... 0170079001