# 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:** 4
**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 9, 2010, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-backs-india-for-permanent-seat-on-un-security-council/559919/61 "2010-11-09T17:22:41Z")
Wait, so does this mean India is going to don a black mask and cape and turn to the Dark Side? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2010, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-backs-india-for-permanent-seat-on-un-security-council/559919/62 "2010-11-09T19:34:33Z")
Obviously the Security Council is a relic of the geopolitical balance that existed towards the end of WWII. It was essentially the large Allied powers trying to set up a system that they could control and which might prevent future wars. Very little about its composition makes sense today. If I were drafting a new Security Council from scratch, a more likely set of members would be a representative from the EU, one from the U.S., one from the Asian democracies (a basket including South Korea, Japan, and India) , plus China and Russia. And Russia’s only there because it has a lot of nukes. Of course, this will never happen. Like it or not, the Security Council is what it is, and it isn’t likely to change. That’s why I like the second alternative, which is to simply start up a secondary international structure that coexists with the UN - this one made up only of democracies with strong human rights protection and a commitment to freedom and democracy in the future. I’d make that an organization that includes permanent council members of the UK, the US, the EU, India, Japan, and a middle-east seat that can only be occupied by democratic regimes. I’d put Israel and Iraq on it as partners and force them to work together, and offer a seat in the mid-east bloc to any other country willing to make enough democratic reform to qualify. Jordan and Lebanon might be induced to reform far enough to qualify in the short to medium term. We might also offer another ‘democratic bloc’ seat to a basket of parliamentary democracies that include Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, and a central/South American bloc composed of countries from that region with strong democratic principles and human rights protection. I’d put an automatic review process that allows new countries to enter and other countries to be kicked out if their democratic or human rights status changes. Carrot and stick. This strategy would act not just as a counterweight to the increasingly authoritarian impulses of the UN, but the regional bloc idea would force cooperation between states so they could project power through the Democratic Alliance or whatever we call it. ---
**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 9, 2010, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-backs-india-for-permanent-seat-on-un-security-council/559919/63 "2010-11-09T20:02:34Z")
Looking at your proposed from-scratch SC, it’s pretty much the existing one only with India or Japan substituted for the UK or France. That tells me the geopolitical balance hasn’t changed much since 1950. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2010, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-backs-india-for-permanent-seat-on-un-security-council/559919/64 "2010-11-09T20:13:48Z")
Except for the exceptions you made, which are REALLY big exceptions. And the only reason Russia is there because of a giant supply of legacy nukes. Going by economic size, it has no business being there. France and the UK are exploring unifying their military operations, because they can’t afford even the much-reduced military forces they have now. If the Security Council were being redrawn today, it’s hard to imagine either of them getting a seat. At the end of WWII, both of them were still in control of fairly large colonial empires. Now, not so much. Of the five permanent council members, only China and the U.S. have maintained or expanded the stature they had at the end of WWII. And since then, France and the UK have diminished significantly in stature, and the Soviet Union doesn’t even exist any more. So I don’t think it’s fair to say that the geopolitical balance hasn’t changed much since 1950. ---
**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 9, 2010, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-backs-india-for-permanent-seat-on-un-security-council/559919/65 "2010-11-09T20:20:40Z")
France and the UK are certainly not exploring “unifying” their military operations. The Royal Navy may seek short-term cooperation with the French until its new aircraft (and carrier) are ready. Bit different. That isn’t to say that their importance hasn’t diminished, of course. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2010, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-backs-india-for-permanent-seat-on-un-security-council/559919/66 "2010-11-09T20:23:00Z")
You’re right - I should have used a more accurate term to say they were looking at greater military cooperation to allow them to further reduce their own military forces. They’re not ‘unified’ in any real sense, nor do they plan to be. Even the aircraft carrier deal is more of a temporary joint operations thing. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2010, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-backs-india-for-permanent-seat-on-un-security-council/559919/67 "2010-11-09T20:30:53Z")
From the standpoint of being functional members of a security council, the UK and France have largely lost the ability to project their power. China can project power on its continent, the U.S. can still project power globally, but that’s about it. Russia can threaten with nukes and has some power projection with respect to its old Soviet Republics, but in reality its military is a mere shell of what it once was. It should be noted though that in terms of sheer military strength, the UK and France are both still near the top five, and so is Russia. However, they won’t be in that position much longer if current trends continue. Both economically and militarily, it makes as much sense for Germany to be on the SC as it does for France or the UK to be there. India is more powerful militarily than all three of them, and even Brazil is catching up fast. ---
**Author:** ![Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aca169/32.png) [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2010, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-backs-india-for-permanent-seat-on-un-security-council/559919/68 "2010-11-09T20:34:02Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > a middle-east seat that can only be occupied by democratic regimes. I’d put Israel and Iraq on it as partners and force them to work together, and offer a seat in the mid-east bloc to any other country willing to make enough democratic reform to qualify. Jordan and Lebanon might be induced to reform far enough to qualify in the short to medium term. I heard of this middle-eastern country called Turkey. It wouldn’t need to share a seat to fill the role in your hypothesized new and improved UN. Also, what purpose would this sub-UN serve? It sounds like a plan to fracture it and end it. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2010, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-backs-india-for-permanent-seat-on-un-security-council/559919/69 "2010-11-09T20:49:21Z")
I left Turkey off the list because it’s not clear whether it would belong in a mid-east bloc or in the EU. The purpose of another organization would be to further the goals of democracy and human rights, and to provide a counterbalance to a UN that increasingly seems to be a megaphone for some of the world’s worst actors and a legitimizer of despotic regimes. ---
**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 9, 2010, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-backs-india-for-permanent-seat-on-un-security-council/559919/70 "2010-11-09T20:58:07Z")
You’re a little ahead of yourself there. In manpower terms, India may be more powerful, but its hardware ranges from the advanced (Su-30MKI, Arjun tank, Akula-class submarines) to the obsolete (MiG-21, Jaguar, Mirage 2000, T-55 tank, Kilo-class submarines). The UK, and to a slightly lesser extent, France, still field the most advanced hardware outside the US, and it won’t be close for some time. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2010, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-backs-india-for-permanent-seat-on-un-security-council/559919/71 "2010-11-09T21:08:41Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > The purpose of another organization would be to further the goals of democracy and human rights, and to provide a counterbalance to a UN that increasingly seems to be a megaphone for some of the world’s worst actors and a legitimizer of despotic regimes. I’d be concerned that the formation of such a league would mean that those opposed to democracy or human rights, and one in which (as I understand it) some of the most powerful countries on the planet would gather to do their business without input from others, would be the formation in both economic and political response of \*other \*such leagues. If you form a group to take control of affairs, the natural reaction is for others to form a competing group, if only to be able to keep up with an old boy’s club. Take your ball and go home, and you probably shouldn’t be surprised if everyone else starts playing football without you. ---
**Author:** ![Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aca169/32.png) [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2010, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-backs-india-for-permanent-seat-on-un-security-council/559919/72 "2010-11-09T21:15:28Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > I left Turkey off the list because it’s not clear whether it would belong in a mid-east bloc or in the EU. > > The purpose of another organization would be to further the goals of democracy and human rights, and to provide a counterbalance to a UN that increasingly seems to be a megaphone for some of the world’s worst actors and a legitimizer of despotic regimes. I see, it’s a safe bet it won’t become a part of the EU. And what **Revenant Threshold** said about fractionation. ---
**Author:** ![appleciders](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85f322/32.png) [@appleciders](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/appleciders)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2010, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-backs-india-for-permanent-seat-on-un-security-council/559919/73 "2010-11-10T03:26:05Z")
> [@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. 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”. 🙂 You could spin it as a slap in the face to China, though, which it would most certainly be. China is already unpopular in many circles in this country. ---
**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 10, 2010, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-backs-india-for-permanent-seat-on-un-security-council/559919/74 "2010-11-10T04:04:43Z")
All indications are that the right wing noise machine is content to pillory Obama for visiting a Muslim temple while in India but not a Hindu one. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2010, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-backs-india-for-permanent-seat-on-un-security-council/559919/75 "2010-11-10T04:22:11Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Wait, so does this mean India is going to don a black mask and cape and turn to the Dark Side? Our Blessed Guru Darth Shree Rajneesh says: “There is no Dark Side, there is no Light Side, all is illusion.” Then he usually blows up a planet. It is a puzzling dharma. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2010, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-backs-india-for-permanent-seat-on-un-security-council/559919/76 "2010-11-10T04:29:45Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > That’s why I like the second alternative, which is to simply start up a secondary international structure that coexists with the UN - this one made up only of democracies with strong human rights protection and a commitment to freedom and democracy in the future. I’d make that an organization that includes permanent council members of the UK, the US, the EU, India, Japan, and a middle-east seat that can only be occupied by democratic regimes. I’d put Israel and Iraq on it as partners and force them to work together, and offer a seat in the mid-east bloc to any other country willing to make enough democratic reform to qualify. Jordan and Lebanon might be induced to reform far enough to qualify in the short to medium term. > > We might also offer another ‘democratic bloc’ seat to a basket of parliamentary democracies that include Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, and a central/South American bloc composed of countries from that region with strong democratic principles and human rights protection. > > I’d put an automatic review process that allows new countries to enter and other countries to be kicked out if their democratic or human rights status changes. Carrot and stick. [Way ahead of you.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=339251) > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > . . . the increasingly authoritarian impulses of the UN . . . The increasafucking what of the what now?! ---
**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 10, 2010, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-backs-india-for-permanent-seat-on-un-security-council/559919/77 "2010-11-10T16:40:56Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > However, by the same token, it also dilutes the votes of our deathly enemies on the UNSC – Russia, China, and France. 😉 > > I wish I could say that surprised me. Historically France have voted on our side. They generally extract the highest possible diplomatic price for their vote but they always vote our way when it’s really important, that’s why we let them on the SC in the first place, it was the three allied votes against the two commies. China have a lot of present and future competition with India, they’re comprting for influence and hegemony in their part of the world. I’m interested to hear China’s reaction to India on the SC when a coherent reaction emerges. ---
**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 10, 2010, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-backs-india-for-permanent-seat-on-un-security-council/559919/78 "2010-11-10T16:45:05Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > a UN that increasingly seems to be a megaphone for some of the world’s worst actors and a legitimizer of despotic regimes. They’re vestal virgins in these regards compared to the United States. And of course the biggest megaphone at the UN is America’s. And the US would fail any human rights test to get in any new group now. We don’t even have habeas corpus anymore and the prez says he can assassinate US citizens without due process and the reasons he chooses to assassinate people are state secrets. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2010, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-backs-india-for-permanent-seat-on-un-security-council/559919/79 "2010-11-10T18:51:15Z")
> [@Mr.Excellent](#): > > 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. China will never agree and and this will drive a wedge between the two countries especially considering that India was once offered a permanent seat and they passed it on to China. Meanwhile our support will give us diplomatic advanteages. ---
**Author:** ![etv78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d78d45/32.png) [@etv78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/etv78)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2010, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-backs-india-for-permanent-seat-on-un-security-council/559919/80 "2010-11-10T19:09:01Z")
Didn’t we let France on the Security Council to make up for them being invaded during WWII? Also, if we went to regional democratic representation from a fresh UN, is Jordan democratic? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-backs-india-for-permanent-seat-on-un-security-council/559919.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-backs-india-for-permanent-seat-on-un-security-council/559919.md?page=5)