Makes sense to me. India is at least as important a country as China, now. And it is not even nominally Communist. Since India and China still have some border disputes, etc. – and since both clearly are itching to be hegemons in their respective (and overlapping) regions, the way the U.S. has been in the Western Hemisphere since the early 19th Century – it makes sense both should be on the Security Council; good way to forestall wars, or at least to make sure the UN takes no sides in any Sino-Indian conflict.
The only downside is that the move pisses off Pakistan – whose support we still need, I guess, for the Afghanistan war effort – by, among other things, reminding them that Pakistan is by no means an equal power to its chief rival India, and cannot hope to be considered for a permanent UNSC seat itself.
Is there any other reason why it’s not a good idea?
I don’t see why the 2nd most populous nation on the planet, and a nuclear power to boot, shouldn’t have a permanent seat.
Of course, you could make the case for other nations to have permanent seats. But if they keep adding seats, they’re probably going to have to adjust the veto rules.
I don’t see a really persuasive argument against this. The strongest argument would probably be that having any permanent members on the Security Council, and especially giving them vetoes, is a bad idea that institutionalizes gridlock. And I think there’s something to that - but as you say, there’s also a great deal of value in ensuring that when the Security Council does act, it does so with the consent of the great powers that could act as spoilers if they chose. I come down on the side of expanding the number of permanent members slightly (I’d like to see African and South American members), and I can accept the likely modest increase in gridlock as the price of having a Security Council with increased political legitimacy.
If we accept Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” model, then it would make sense to have at least one representative from each of the world’s (major) existing civilizations, of which India is one, and so is China. That still leaves unrepresented the civilizations of Latin America, Africa, and Islam. However, none of those has a “core state” that can be said to lead or speak for the other states in any sense, nor does any include a state which can be said to rank as a world-power whose inclusion in the UNSC would be appropriate. Perhaps the rules should be amended to give a collective seat to every major regional organization – the European Union, Arab League, Union of South American Nations, Organization for African Union, etc. I mean, it hardly seems to make sense today for two such third-rate powers as France and the UK to have their own UNSC seats – but it would make a lot of sense for both to share in a European Union seat. Or, perhaps, there could be a Commonwealth of Nations seat too.
They are nominated by the regional organizations and confirmed by General Assembly vote. Africa and Asia trade off on picking one Middle Eastern member. 3 for Africa, two each for Asia, South America/Caribbean, and Western Europe*, and one for Eastern Europe. So Asia is clearly underrepresented already.
It’s laughable that the largest democracy in the world does not have a permant UNSC membership, if anyone gets one (not that I think anyone should).
*More accurately, Countries Populated By White People, since this includes Canada, Oz and New Zealand.
Is it diluting your vote if the member you are inviting will more likely side with you than with your adversaries?
Also, if one agrees that having the backing of the world’s great powers is what gives the UNSC any authority at all, then having India as a voice on that council strengthens the value of each seat (because each seat now has a vote in a marginally more influential body).
Adequate according to whom? The current membership of the permanent Security Council reflects a woefully outdated post WW2 world order and is as such in dire need of change if it is to remain relevant in the future.
It seems this fact hasn’t been lost on the rest of the BRIC nations. China has just recently been accorded increased voting power at the IMF giving it more weight than Europe, another tremor in the seismic shift of global power distribution we will see as we inexorable move to a multipolar world.
I don’t believe it’s that outdated. Who, outside of the current permanent members, can be considered significant military powers? Can we count on nations like Brazil to perform some of the international peacekeeping heavy lifting?
Sure, but that would mean China and Russia (and probably the US) would take their ball and go home. I believe all of the above have essentially said as much, when it’s been suggested.
ETA: That’s interesting. I see China has actually veto’d the least amount of propositions, 6, to Russia’s 110 and the US’s 80-something.
Never going to happen. Think the truthers and such are bad now? Wait till the U.S. is in a position where we can’t veto anything the U.N. wants to do military wise. Wouldn’t be pretty.