A Seat At the Big Table

[dv8nation.livejournal.com]

So President Obama has come out in favor of giving India a seat on the UN Security Council. I for one really support this.

India certainly fits what one would expect from a Council member and as the world's largest democracy I think they provide a nice counter-balance to China. Also, we're talking about the only other nation that can claim 1/6th of the human race. Yes, Pakistan isn't too happy about the idea but nukes or not they don't have enough weight politically to shoot this down. So culturally, politically and economically adding India to the Council seems like a great decision to me.

Thoughts?

Comments

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

It's a nice political gesture toward India, but it would require a complete restructuring of the UN Security Council.

That's not in Obama's job description.

[dv8nation.livejournal.com]

Yeah, his job is to run America. But that can't prevent him from advocating that the UN take action to let India join.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Its been pointed out that U.S. presidents have backed lots of countries added to the council that haven't been added, such as Japan and Germany. It's more a gesture really, as you said, not their job.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Why not? He does run American foreign policy, and the UN is (or could be) a significant part of that.

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

Because he's not the Secretary General of the United Nations.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

And structuring the UN is the SecGen's job?

We appear to have vastly different ideas of the UN's function.

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

*sigh*

I'm not arguing that India wouldn't be a good addition to the Security Council. I'm not criticizing Obama, but he is President of A MEMBER NATION, and has no function in the United Nations. Frankly, I have no idea the process that would be used to add India, but it is up to the UN membership - not Obama.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but the UN was created by UN members, and is governed by them. The guy at the UN reports directly to Obama. There's no real difference between Obama saying we should have India on the SC and the American ambassador saying it.

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

To clarify, what he proposed was giving them a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. I'm opposed to giving anyone else a permanent seat on the UN Security Council as that's just a recipe for more UN inaction. I'd rather work towards eliminating permanent seat status entirely, but certainly not towards granting that status to even more countries.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Hell, even my country is going to be a temporary member of the Security Council next year! Bulgaria. Can you imagine? Suddenly we'll be so important that our name will feature on official documents. Ye-hey!

[debergerac.livejournal.com]

bulgarians are well-versed in "security"...

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Yeah, we're familiar with both ends of the baseball bat.

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

Well, you're the frontline of EU's border control from the side of the Mideast, and thats something.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Indeed, it's perfect for the contraband business. Drugs, hookers, guns, cheap labor, you name it. Oh, also cheap Chinese socks and Turkish shirts. It's the Silk Road all over again!

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Ha!!!!

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

Well, you're doing better than Canada then who was rejected in favour of Portugal: http://www.frumforum.com/security-council-rejects-canadas-bid

(The reason Canada was rejected is simple, according to some, the US sandbagged Canada because we're pulling out of Afghanistan.)

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

You must be punished for your audacity to disagree with Arlington *cough* Washington!

[tridus.livejournal.com]

That I agree with totally. Nothing against India at all, but the permanent seats with the vetoes that come with them are already a huge obstruction to the UN doing anything that matters.

We don't need more people who can veto the entire council. We need less of them.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

I for one see the vetoes as just legitimate recognition of the reality on the ground. How effective is any international action going to be without the US or China behind it?

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

"a huge obstruction to the UN doing anything that matters."

You say that like it's a bad thing :D

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Or like the UN is actually capable of doing things that matters...

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

Good strategic move to counter China, but coming a bit late i think. In a sense that India already is asserting its own role, geopolitically. Even if its temporarily coinciding with the US interests at the moment.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

It's been doing that for years. The USA's Cold War ally was after all, not India but Pakistan. India's tended to butt heads with Washington as opposed to being a toady to it. President Obama is unique in not punishing India for it the way most US leaders would into the 21st Century.

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

Because its a matter of priorities in the 21st century and he knows that. Its Zbigniew Brzezinsky whispering in his ear, after all.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Jimmy Carter's secretary of state giving foreign policy advice is supposed to be comforting?

[tridus.livejournal.com]

I'm just curious... how does this counter China? If China's unhappy about something they can still veto it. If they don't care, do you particularly need India's vote (and will you even have it, or do you have to contend with THAT veto instead)?

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

It goes much deeper than just a game of vetos on some international security body. Its more a gesture of pandering to India which is supposed to make'm play along "our" camp.

Not that such a gesture matters that much, especially regarding an institution which has been largely perceived to be no longer relevant in a dynamically changing world (mind you, the UNSC is still seen as a "club" of the nuclear powers). Nevertheless, its not a bad move. An Indian permanent seat will generally be a pro-west seat and will keep both Pakistan and China in check. As far as Pakistan and its war on terror, the present Pakistan administration has little choice but to accept US intervention in the North West provinces or risk a civil war. US predator drones are one of the few things remaining that keep the Taliban and their Pakistani allies from overthrowing the current administration (whether its likable by the Afghani people and/or the western elites). Hence, despite their protestations the Pakistani gov't really has no choice but to accept the US decisions. I wouldnt worry about that, as much as about their secret services which act as a separate gov't at this point.

Btw a Pakistani pal of mine once remarked you could always tell who was in the military: they always have the biggest houses and the newest cars. A corrupt military isnt much of an ally.

[il-mio-gufo.livejournal.com]

In a sense that India already is asserting its own role, geopolitically.

Which is why one might ask if perhaps India might be more comfortable acting independent of the UN?

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

Like North Korea, eh? ;)

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

It's also a sign that the United States is at least in some areas of the world bypassing Cold War alliances to deal with a post-Cold War world. It's frankly one of the better decisions of the Obama Administration as far as foreign policy is concerned.

[il-mio-gufo.livejournal.com]

hopefully this simple courtesy will go a long way.

[thies.livejournal.com]

Will result in no change either way. Cheap way to stroke India's ego.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Definitely.

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

Bingo.

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

I'm sure they will still manage, somehow.

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

I more mean making dirty little inside deals in general.

They have always managed to do them, straight face or otherwise.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

I have no problem with India being on the Security Council and I welcome our new Indian overlords.

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

well they already took our jerbs

[il-mio-gufo.livejournal.com]

yes, my department was outsourced only a year & a half ago :/

[prader.livejournal.com]

I think the U.N. should be abolished.

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

I certainly think the U.S. should stop paying for it.

Then it might even be able to actually get something useful done.

[prader.livejournal.com]

Yeah, or just have the U.S. resign membership, along with all financial support to the U.N., IMF, Worldbank, etc. The U.N. doesn't have to actually be disbanded.

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that worked out well with the League of Nations. Screw any public forum for international discussion. Stop talking to each other. More wars are obviously the intelligent answer.

[dv8nation.livejournal.com]

Pretty much. The League of Nations could have done a lot if it hadn't fallen apart shortly before Europe started going to hell.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

If by shortly before Europe went to Hell you mean the moment the ink was dry when Germany, the USSR, and the USA were all either excluded or uninterested in being involved, sure.

[prader.livejournal.com]

Screw any public forum for international discussion.

You would have something resembling a point if "a public forum for international discussion" was the extent of what the U.N. is.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

That was never a priority with the League of Nations in any serious sense. If it was, the USA would have ratified Versailles and the League would not have excluded Germany and the USSR right out of the starting gate. There's a reason it was a joke.....

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

Although that's probably entirely too optimistic.

As soon as you got rid of one blocker, another one will fill its place.