India has a powerful claim to permanent UN Security Council membership. The next two years are its best chance to prove it.
In his speech to the Indian Parliament earlier this month, US President Barack Obama held out the tantalizing possibility of India eventually joining the United Nations Security Council as a permanent member. Since that dramatic announcement, there’s been fevered commentary, especially within India, about the prospects for such a move and the terms under which the country might be allowed to enter this hallowed realm.
Much of the discussion and debate has centred around the time horizon this might occur, on whether or not India would be granted the coveted veto and on the likely objections from India’s principal long-term adversary, China. These exchanges are entirely apposite and topical. However, they frustratingly overlook one key point: India’s claim to permanent membership is already as good—if not significantly better—than China’s.
India was a founding member of the United Nations even though it hadn’t yet obtained its independence from the United Kingdom. Subsequently, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru proved to be an ardent supporter of the organization and its activities. To that end, India played a vital role in the International Control Commission along with Poland and Canada in Indo-China, it played a mediatory role in the Korean War and was one of the original contributors to the UN peacekeeping contingent in the former Belgian Congo. Later, India played a vital part in supporting a host of peacekeeping missions across the world. Even today, close to 10,000 Indian troops are involved in UN peacekeeping operations globally.
China, of course, initially enjoyed a seat at the United Nations but not on the Security Council—it obtained that only when the US derecognized Taiwan in 1979. Yet despite this dramatic shift in US policy in its favour, China’s record of co-operation with the United States at the UN during the remainder of the Cold War was no better than that of India, and arguably, considerably worse. Since the Cold War ended, it hasn’t gotten any better.
But despite this record, and Obama’s public (albeit qualified) endorsement of India’s cause, there are influential commentators and analysts in the United States who remain steadfastly opposed to making India a permanent Security Council member. Indeed, it might be the US experience with China that has made some so reluctant to take a chance with India.
Photo Credit: The White House
View as Single Page
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
kuldeep
time for india to ditch G4 and push for voting for it’s candidature japan is the trojan horse weakening case for India. All p5 countries including china has shown willingness to support indian candidature. We are in best position in our history with cordial relations with all the important nations in teh world. also we won the non permanent seat in security council by record votes including pakistan.
ever
Is this article are joke? or is it a common exhibition of indian type ingorance and ego?
Since when does india has more claim to permanent membership than China.
No matter it is PRC or ROC, China’s legal successor has every right to Claim the seat because and not only becasue we sacrifice 30million people to fight against facist whilst at the same time india is only a colony of their British master with no sovereignty at all.
Soviet Union, US, China and Britain are the most contributor to the victory of WW2 and the establishment of post war order. Adding France these big 5 are also to most powerful nation in military and political term in the coldwar.
So having the seat has nothing to do with “cooperating with US or western or your precious democracy”. and the world would care less about how you leaked Yank’s ass and how you served your British master.
It s about what have you done to shape the world, how capable you are to reshaping it. None of which capability does india has (currently)
Sam
@ever. India has a bigger right to a permanent veto wielding UNSC seat because it represents a billion+ people about a fifth of every human on this planet and is a democracy unlike China which proliferates nuclear technology to a bunch of dubious regimes worldwide. And everything in you comments reflects your personal ‘type ingorance and ego’.
V.Siddhartha
Francis and Thomas: With no locus standi in the matter, where was the occasion for Nehru to have been asked about PRC vis-a-vis Taiwan on UNSC? I am happy to corrected on the facts of history — if those facts are ever allowed to surface from the pages of yet-to-be declassified records.
Dude
Corrections of my typos:
“So whoever thinks India is a poor country and not deserving a UNSC seat is a pakistani?”
And what’s wrong with being a Pakistani? This is internet. I might be a dog or a cow. Does that matter?
dude
I am laughing at you indian internet warriors.
So whoever doesn’t think India is a poor country and not deserving a UNSC seat is a pakistani?
For realz playas?
Alok
I don’t know how any democratic world institution can claim to be relevant without giving due consideration to one billion people i.e. one sixth of the world. While India wasn’t an economic power even though fundamentally unfair such a system was persisted for half a century. Now with India’s growing economy which is set to be third largest by 2020 such a accommodation is inevitable. It doesn’t matter if Pakistanis or others feel uncomfortable. You cannot hold one sixth of the world hostage to someone’s discomfort.
dude
Seriously, time for India to do a lot of things.
1)Feed the one billion starving Indian peasants
2) Let Kashmiri people decide if they want to live with Hindus
3) Let the Assamese people decide if they want to live with Hindus
4) Clean up the sewage system
5) Do something about the discriminatory caste system
6) Feed the one billion starving Indian peasants
Not-So-Dude
Dude,
While it is unmistakable as to which country your affiliations are, we Indians will decide on what to and not to do…. You do make some good points and we are working to alleviate lives of our own lot :-)
But, the UN seat is about foreign relations, external policies/affairs and external conflict resolutions, not about internal affairs of India. India has an excellent record of assisting UN in conflict resolution, peace keeping and humanitarian programes, as already stated by Sumit Ganguly, who is an excellent and seasoned analyst.
About Indian state of J&K, Assam or any other; let me break it to you (i.e. if you already do not know) that we have decided to keep them in Indian Union at all costs… Since 1947.
BTW, I wish you luck in your country’s subservient relationship with Taliban.
Cheers!!!
Alok
“Dude” we know from your comments that you are a Pakistani. Don’t know why you want to hide…come on post with your real name.