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.
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.
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.
Do you think it would be a bad idea if it did happen?
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”. 
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.
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.
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.
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. 
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.
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.
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.
Seeing as how France is 4th on the military expenditure list, that is perhaps a bad idea…
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.
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
2/3 claim from here: United Nations Security Council - Wikipedia
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?