# Obama backs India for permanent seat on UN Security Council **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 8, 2010, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-backs-india-for-permanent-seat-on-un-security-council/559919 "2010-11-08T16:36:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Apollo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/41988e/32.png) [@Apollo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apollo)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2010, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-backs-india-for-permanent-seat-on-un-security-council/559919/21 "2010-11-08T18:16:33Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > I don’t believe it’s _that_ outdated.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? I believe for starters that India and Brazil would be excellent additions to the Security Council permanent members. Not only are they the most populous democratic nations in their part of the world, but with the 10th and 12th rankings in military expenditure in the world (a number certain to grow along with GDP) would be more than able and willing to carry their own weight. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2010, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-backs-india-for-permanent-seat-on-un-security-council/559919/22 "2010-11-08T18:57:26Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > That includes the U.S., yet Obama, whose call U.S. policy is, is for it. And in two years, Haley Barbour will correct that error. Yup, you heard it here first…Haley Barbour, current governor of Mississippi, will be your next POTUS. Feel free to start weeping now. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2010, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-backs-india-for-permanent-seat-on-un-security-council/559919/23 "2010-11-08T19:00:43Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > This will not happen. Nope. Which is why it’s not a bad idea to propose it. Well played, Mr. Obama. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2010, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-backs-india-for-permanent-seat-on-un-security-council/559919/24 "2010-11-08T19:09:17Z")
> [@furt](#): > > Nope. Which is why it’s not a bad idea to propose it. > > Well played, Mr. Obama. Depends…maybe a good idea diplomacy wise. Not so good politically. Especially after an election that pretty much rejected all the “progress” he claims to have made. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2010, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-backs-india-for-permanent-seat-on-un-security-council/559919/25 "2010-11-08T19:14:27Z")
Do you think it would be a bad idea if it did happen? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2010, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-backs-india-for-permanent-seat-on-un-security-council/559919/26 "2010-11-08T19:16:44Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > Depends…maybe a good idea diplomacy wise. Not so good politically. Especially after an election that pretty much rejected all the “progress” he claims to have made. It’s hard to imagine a Security Council seat for India becoming an issue in the 2012 election. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any Republicans in Congress trying to make an issue of this. I’m sure most Americans don’t care about the matter at all and, if they do, not even conservatives will see any obvious down side. As far as the hard right is concerned, the UN is or should be irrelevant anyway, and giving India a SC seat does not strengthen the UN in any obvious way. And, nobody in America hates or fears India (we only hate the tech-support guys). To the contrary, any thinking person will see India as a bulwark against Muslim domination in South Asia. ---
**Author:** ![Dick\_Dastardly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c4cdca/32.png) [@Dick\_Dastardly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dick_Dastardly)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2010, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-backs-india-for-permanent-seat-on-un-security-council/559919/27 "2010-11-08T19:26:27Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > It’s hard to imagine a Security Council seat for India becoming an issue in the 2012 election. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any Republicans in Congress trying to make an issue of this. I’m sure most Americans don’t care about the matter at all and, if they do, not even conservatives will see any obvious down side. As far as the hard right is concerned, the UN is or should be irrelevant anyway, and giving India a SC seat does not strengthen the UN in any obvious way. And, nobody in America hates or fears India (we only hate the tech-support guys). To the contrary, any thinking person will see India as a bulwark against Muslim domination in South Asia. It weakens America’s position as the pre-eminent power. India is generally the leader of the non-aligned bloc of nations, a bloc that can generally muster over a hundred votes for things it vehemently opposes, like the illegal 2003 invasion of Iraq. Letting India onto the council makes it much more multilateral and much less US-centric. And that’s just the non-insane way of looking at it. The right are going to see this as abject surrender to brown people and proof that Obama is a Kenyan Muslim who is trying to destroy America and far, far crazier stuff than that. Go and look at Drudge – “Obama bows before Indian parliament”. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2010, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-backs-india-for-permanent-seat-on-un-security-council/559919/28 "2010-11-08T19:27:12Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > Depends…maybe a good idea diplomacy wise. Not so good politically. Especially after an election that pretty much rejected all the “progress” he claims to have made. 1. Unless people are dying, foreign policy makes little difference in domestic elections 2. To the extent people do care, I suspect most people regard India more fondly than most of the other permanent 5 3. It won’t happen. 4. Some pub is gonna make a stink in 2012 about some foreign policy Obama _tried_ to do in 2010? That’s their winning issue? Don’t be absurd. To the extent it has \*any \*political impact, it helps him with Indian-Americans, who lean Republican. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2010, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-backs-india-for-permanent-seat-on-un-security-council/559919/29 "2010-11-08T19:28:53Z")
Er, what? That’s not even close to right. Indian Americans lean to the Democratic Party quite strongly. We went almost 3 to 1 for Kerry, for example. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2010, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-backs-india-for-permanent-seat-on-un-security-council/559919/30 "2010-11-08T19:33:49Z")
> [@Dick\_Dastardly](#): > > It weakens America’s position as the pre-eminent power. India is generally the leader of the non-aligned bloc of nations, a bloc that can generally muster over a hundred votes for things it vehemently opposes, like the illegal 2003 invasion of Iraq. Letting India onto the council makes it much more multilateral and much less US-centric. However, by the same token, it also dilutes the votes of our deathly enemies on the UNSC – Russia, China, and France. 😉 > [@Dick\_Dastardly](#): > > And that’s just the non-insane way of looking at it. The right are going to see this as abject surrender to brown people and proof that Obama is a Kenyan Muslim who is trying to destroy America and far, far crazier stuff than that. Go and look at Drudge – “Obama bows before Indian parliament”. 🙂 I wish I could say that surprised me. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2010, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-backs-india-for-permanent-seat-on-un-security-council/559919/31 "2010-11-08T19:35:09Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Er, what? That’s not even close to right. Indian Americans lean to the Democratic Party quite strongly. We went almost 3 to 1 for Kerry, for example. What about Pakistani-Americans? (Please bear in mind that it’s hard for others to tell the difference between Indians and Pakistanis.) I would expect them to be pro-Dem as the Dems are at least less rabidly anti-Muslim then the Pubs, but it’s dangerous to make assumptions. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2010, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-backs-india-for-permanent-seat-on-un-security-council/559919/32 "2010-11-08T19:37:40Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Removing the permanent members’ veto power would help. Or requiring two “no” votes from permanent members to veto a proposition. Though that creates its own can of worms. I don’t think India is a worse choice than China or France. I suggest they take the UK’s permanent seat. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2010, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-backs-india-for-permanent-seat-on-un-security-council/559919/33 "2010-11-08T19:37:50Z")
> [@](#): > > What about Pakistani-Americans? (Please bear in mind that it’s hard for others to tell the difference between them.) That’s not hard. One group is nearly all Muslims and the other is about 15% Muslim. Ah, well, there’s irony. Pakistani-Americans _used to_ lean toward the Republican Party- they went for Bush II nearly 2 to 1 over Kerry, for example- but have totally flipped since then and now mostly favor Democrats. ---
**Author:** ![Apollo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/41988e/32.png) [@Apollo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apollo)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2010, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-backs-india-for-permanent-seat-on-un-security-council/559919/34 "2010-11-08T19:44:01Z")
I’m curious as to what belies this myopic view off the UN often expressed by the right either as some kind of usurpers off national sovereignty or in the case with the Council, an exclusive club that must be guarded with jealous ferocity. Any assertion that the Security Council somehow will be diluted with the addition of India as a member is misguided. Frankly The United States would, on the whole, stand to benefit from their inclusion as will be demonstrated by opposition undoubtedly to come from China. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2010, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-backs-india-for-permanent-seat-on-un-security-council/559919/35 "2010-11-08T19:58:54Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > That includes the U.S., yet Obama, whose call U.S. policy is, is for it. Then Obama is either a) not acting in a self-serving manner, or b) proposing something that is a feel good measure that he knows will never actually happen. ETA: Here’s a winning proposal: India is in and France is out. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2010, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-backs-india-for-permanent-seat-on-un-security-council/559919/36 "2010-11-08T20:22:14Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > ETA: Here’s a winning proposal: India is in and France is out. Seeing as how France is 4th on the military expenditure list, that is perhaps a bad idea… > **[List of countries with highest military expenditures](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures)** > > This is a list of countries with highest military expenditures. > The first list is based on the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) fact sheet, which includes a list of the world's top 40 military spenders as of 2024, based on current market exchange rates. > > The second list is based on the 2025 edition of The Military Balance, published by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) using average market exchange rates. > @media screen and (min-width:640px){.m... I do think that Japan and Germany likely have a greater claim on permanent representation than India. The US has previously supported Japan’s claim, IIRC. I believe the UK and France have supported Brazil, Japan, Germany, and India’s claims to permanent membership. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2010, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-backs-india-for-permanent-seat-on-un-security-council/559919/37 "2010-11-08T20:24:44Z")
What is the procedure for changing the make-up of the Security Council? Does the UN charter even allow for that possibility? I’m assuming it requires a unanimous vote of the existing UNSC, and I just can’t see China or Russia going along with this. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2010, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-backs-india-for-permanent-seat-on-un-security-council/559919/38 "2010-11-08T20:34:41Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > What is the procedure for changing the make-up of the Security Council? Does the UN charter even allow for that possibility? I’m assuming it requires a unanimous vote of the existing UNSC, and I just can’t see China or Russia going along with this. I didn’t find a good cite, but Wikipedia mentioned a 2/3 majority in the General Assembly being a requirement. Perhaps not surprisingly, much of the opposition comes from other regional powers being afraid they’ll be shut out (e.g., Argentina and Mexico are opposed to Brazil, Pakistan vs. India, smaller European countries vs. Germany, and of course China vs. Japan). Lots of info here: [Reform of the United Nations Security Council - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_reform) 2/3 claim from here: [United Nations Security Council - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Un_security_council#Membership_reform) ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2010, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-backs-india-for-permanent-seat-on-un-security-council/559919/39 "2010-11-08T20:37:18Z")
Japan also has an interesting situation in that their Constitution apparently still prohibits them from going to war except in self-defense. This was Colin Powell’s reason for objecting to Japan’s membership when he was SecState. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2010, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-backs-india-for-permanent-seat-on-un-security-council/559919/40 "2010-11-08T20:46:19Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > Japan also has an interesting situation in that their Constitution apparently still prohibits them from going to war except in self-defense. This was Colin Powell’s reason for objecting to Japan’s membership when he was SecState. I don’t see the relevance. Just because a Security Council member approves a UN military action does not mean that country has to contribute troops – does it? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-backs-india-for-permanent-seat-on-un-security-council/559919.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-backs-india-for-permanent-seat-on-un-security-council/559919.md?page=3)