I don’t understand this. It seems to represent a misunderstanding of the role of the Security Council. The whole idea (and it’s a good idea) is the provide a way for the world to unite in condemnation of some particular act of aggression, or to separate squabbling neighbors while they give diplomacy a try. It’s meant to act as a shield, not as a sword. Does Pakistan think India is going to be able to draw the UN member countries into all going to war with Pakistan, just because?
I think it’s nothing more than petty politics and jealousy.
In general, you’re probably right. But I would think that an organization tasked with promoting world security through the potential use of force of arms would want its permanent members to have the ability to back up said threat.
I have since read a few more articles from that time period, however, and it seems that while the issue was broached by Powell and Armitage it was never a pre-condition to US support for Japan’s inclusion.
I didn’t realize that Japan contributes more than any other country save the US to the UN’s regular budget, more than the other permanent members combined, apparently.
I think you have it exactly correct. The concern is not so much fear that the UN will take military action in the region, but that membership has it’s privileges, so to speak, even if only for prestige. In the mind of Pakistan, any aggrandizement of India is a potential threat to them. Likewise for Argentina wrt Brazil.
Not too surprising. For most of the UN’s history, the US and the USSR have been the world’s superpowers, and almost anything the one supports the other would object to. What need does China have for using its own veto, when it can be assured that at least one of the two superpowers will do it instead?
I can certainly see the logic of including India, but it’s irrelevant to the real problem in the Security Council, that it’s too easy to veto.
Also, I’m pretty sure that China’s veto power was in the hands of the Kuomintang regime on Taiwan until the late '60s, when they switched to the PRC. And then the PRC maintained a policy (and to some extent still does) of focusing solely on internal affairs. And the immediate vicinity.
I think this is a very strong move by President Obama, aligning the US with India. They are, potentially, one of our strongest friends in the emerging powers, and they have every potential to be as strong as, say, Russia, eventually. And less screwed up, to boot.
It gives us a strong ally in the middle-east area, who can be counted on to keep a weather eye on Pakistan and Afghanistan, and even the more southern countries, especially since we seem to be distancing ourselves from Israel.
We could surely use India as our friend, and, I hope, we will one day forge a Special Relationship with it, like we have with England.
It should be noted that India spends a lot of money on Russian military hardware - MiGs, Sukhois, tanks, and even an aircraft carrier. India is putting up roughly half the development cost of the Sukhoi PAK FA program, which in ten years or so will have produced a fighter theoretically comparable to the F-22.
Keeping the Indian military supplied will be a huge deal over the next century. All the states which spend more on defense procure most of their arms domestically. India is developing its own defense industry - it leads the world in a few select areas - but even its domestically developed weapons will require foreign partners for the foreseeable future.
Indian defense procurement could keep the US defense industry solvent almost singlehandedly.
I stand corrected. I’d still reckon the political upside among ethnic Indians is greater than any potential political downside.
It should be noted, by the way, that the US has supported Japan’s inclusion in the SC for years, and that’s going nowhere either.
No doubt. Democratic leaning or not, one thing Indian Americans are not is heavily involved with the political process. I would guess that we lag behind most ethnic groups in turnout among registered voters.
Interesting. The group I am affiliated with (through my wife) must be much more politically active than normal then. They all vote routinely, and discussions are always about politics (either US or Indian). I’ll have to see if I can find any turnout numbers for the community.
Even Kofi Annan doesn’t think it’s on the table. The idea is to make the UN more democratic and recognize the power of an up-and-comer like India will wield in the future, not paralyze it with inaction by passing out veto powers.
So…apparently you can be on the Jedi Council and not* be* a Jedi.
Obama is backing India for a permanent seat. All permanent-seat members of the UNSC have veto power. Don’t they?