Why doesn't India have veto power in the United Nations when it represents nearly 1/5 of humanity?
Ashik Gosaliya, I have been working as a political Analyst with a Political.
Should I say, because this 1/5 population is made of emotional fools having no understanding of geopolitical reality and always fails in strengthening the hands of the government of the day?
Any nation is as much stronger as pragmatic it's population. Compared to US, Russia, China, Iran & Saudi Arabia, Indian citizens are less practical & more emotional in nature wrt international relations & Foreign Policy reason why despite having 2nd largest population in the world they do not exert the same influence as US or China does.
The part of the problem lies in the history of independent India as well. It's world known fact that India was offered a seat on UN security council ahead of China in 1952. It's utter idiocy of Jawaharlal Nehru, who gave up the honor in favour of China anticipating friendly relations with China.
Thence how India has been devoid of say in international decision making despite 1/5 population and China, despite having non-democratic govt has all the privileges India should be entitled of.
It's quite evident that the real politicking or international Diplomacy can't be based on the strength of the population but practical & pragmatic resolve of the political class as well as citizens of the nation.
Without getting into Hindu-Muslim politics, I am forced to believe that Indians are far more less inclined towards nationalism as much as Americans & Chinese citizens. Therefore, India has failed to build the influence that it deserves to build.
From the day one, Prime Minister Modi has been trying to build an Indian reputation of global level but has been curtailed by the opposion leaders for basted interests.
If indian people won't strengthen the hands of Narendra Modi, who else do you expect to do, the Saudies, the Chinese, the Americans, or the Russians?
India has been vocal about UNSC reforms but has been pushed back by US and China because, we may be 1/5 of the world but have no greater than 1/20th influence in the world because we are not progressing at the rate we should.
It's very easy to find a fault Witt the Govt of the day but Indian electorates are as much responsible for India not been able to exert influence.
I'm expecting UNSC reforms by 2020 end as more countries are willing to listen to India at international stage and are ready to support India taking leadership role on many issues.
Vineet Kumar, Proud Indian. Editor-in-chief at AmarJanak.com
“Position is not for those who demand it but for those who deserve it”
Truth is after world War 2 India emerged as the world's fourth-largest industrial power with increased political, economic and military(At the peak of the war 25lac Indian soldier were fighting all over the world for allied forces But at that time it was under the rule of British .
So when India got its freedom and became republic, It was offered the permanent seat at UNSC which comes with VETO power through different channel on different time but Nehruji decline the offer citing PRC (people's republic of China) interest should be considered first. It was major policy lapse on his part.
Now for some years India is trying to get the Seat but unable to achieve the objective due to following reasons
1. P-5 countries don’t wanna share the power :
Everyone thinks China is only the hindrance in our path, but US, UK, France or even Russia (Agree they are the closest powerful friend but Russia is different from the Soviet Union ) do not want to give India a seat because they don’t wanna share the power. example :
Basically, International Diplomacy works on “give and take”. So we will get the chance.
2) Japan, Germany and Brazil:
These countries too want a seat for themselves and they are giving a good fight.
3)India demands 4 seats not one:
I know but that’s the truth . India being part of G4(Japan, Germany,India and Brazil) countries want 4 seats ,one for each G4 member. Therefore it needs to change the UN charter and reform the UNSC which is also one factor of delay .
But Our PM(Modiji) is doing everything to achieve the same and I believe we will achieve it soon because “We Deserve It “
Dhiraj Singh Rathore, A regular follower of political developments.
When one talks of World Politics, it is not much different from the coalition politics. For India to get a VETO power in UN voting, it needs to secure a permanent seat in the UNSC which is restricted to 5 nations only. India enjoys overwhelming support of majority of the United Nation member-states of which the African Bloc is the biggest support. The reason is that India has established a good reputation in international arena of a peace-loving nation with Dovist foreign policy. But to get a permanent seat at UNSC that is not enough, a state needs to have backing of the existing 5 permanent members. Russia, UK, U.S.A and France, because of good bilateral relations with India Rhetorically support it but there is no guarantee that they would actually do that in UN. The reason is simple - when it comes to sharing, everyone is selfish. When 5 people are to enjoy a cake, they will never want a 6th person to have a bit of it.
Second and major problem for this is the Asian Power-Politics. First, India has major disputes with Pakistan and minor ones with China and both are good allies. Pakistan is of major interest to China because through it China will have access to the middle-east, Africa and Europe via Gwadar port in Karachi. China will never try to disappoint an economically beneficial ally.
Secondly, Japan and China are not in good terms and Japan is an aspiring UNSC permanent member candidate among the G-4(India, Japan, Brazil, Germany). India is in good relations with Japan and both mutually support each others bid for UNSC permanent seat. China has made it conditional for India either to take China's support or support Japan.
Thirdly, China and India are the emerging Asian power in world economy. India is considered a future competitor of China. China will never want a neighbor which will be equally powerful in world politics via UNSC permanent seat as well as be a tough economic competitors.
Sailendra Wadhwani, I know about International Relations.
Addition of any new member as permanent member would require reforming Security Council.
The problem of reforming the Security Council is rather akin to a situation in which a number of doctors gather around a patient and all agree on the diagnosis, but they cannot agree on the prescription. The diagnosis is clear: the Security Council (SC) reflects the geopolitical realities of 1945 and not of today.
- When the UN was founded in 1945, the Council consisted of 11 members out of a total UN membership of 51 countries; in other words, some 22 percent of the member states were on the Security Council. Today, there are 192 members of the UN, and only 15 members of the Council—fewer than 8 percent. So many more countries, both in absolute numbers and as a proportion of the membership, do not feel adequately represented on the body.
- The current composition of the Council also gives undue weight 777彩票网址to the balance of power of at least a half century ago. Europe, for instance, which accounts for barely 5 percent of the world's population, still controls 33 percent of the SC
- The Council's five permanent members (the United States, Britain, France, Russia, and China) enjoy their position, as well as the privilege of a veto over any Council resolution or decision, by virtue of having won a war sixty-six years ago.
Sushant Kishore, Annales Universitasis Apulensis: Series Historica
India was offered a permanent seat in 1955. the UN was established in 1945 with 5 permanent members. It wasn't impossible to modify the charter a little and make some room for the Republic of India (1950)...It still isn't.
The permanent seats are not reserved only for founding members....with proper recommendation modifications are possible. But i don't see the use. UN is still, for all practical purposes, US and adding another puppet to sit on the pedestal wouldn't have made much difference.
Nehru denied it.... he also denied having got any such offer.
Rajiv Gusain, Blogger
India is not in the premier group of Security Council.
India doesn’t have veto power because Nehru was so kind to give everything to China instead granting a place in global arena.
Nehru was more interested to make India a second power to China. US who also wanted India instead of China at first place but because of Nehru foreign policy which was to appease China gave such important seat to them and now India is suffering it everyday as China is the only country who uses VETO against us.
And now it’s near impossible to get into Security Council as China will never let this happen at any cost.
Fred Thompson, A single man skunkworks
Consider this: there isn’t even a single member of the UNSC from the southern hemisphere.
That’s half of the planet, and zero representation.
John Cate, Freelance Public Relations Specialist, Mount Airy, NC
Because of the way the U.N. Charter was written. Only the five permanent members of the Security Council have a veto--the United States, Russia (formerly the USSR), France, UK and China. The charter was written in 1945, and in 1945, India wasn't even an independent country yet, but still a colony of the British Empire.
There has been off-and-on discussion for many years about adding a few of the world's other most populous and/or economically powerful nations as permanent members, and if that ever came to pass, India would be one of the first countries added, along with Germany and Japan (both of which were omitted for obvious reasons in 1945), and possibly Brazil, Indonesia, and South Korea.
Unlike the P5, it's never hosted, and never topped the Gold medal count at a Summer Olympics, and shown no interest in that direction:
- USA - 1896, 1904, 1912, 1920, 1924, 1928, 1932, 1948, 1952, 1964, 1968, 1984, 1996, 2000, 2004 …, 2012, 2016
- France - 1900
- Great Britain - 1908
- Germany - 1936
- USSR - 1956, 1960, 1972, 1976, 1980, 1988
- China - 2008 (veto aquired 1971)
Nb: Most gold medals in year / home games