The biggest Reason for India to be in Security Council Permanent Membership is : It's the highest contribute contributer peace keeping force for UN... And that's what UN wants, how much u can contribute... And India is doing it very proudly... 2nd... India is the 4th most powerful nation in the world, 3rd Richest Country in the world in terms of GDP (purchase power).... 7th wealthiest in terms for GDP (nominal)....
This is pretty old, but there has been zero progress on this. I think a break up of the UK would bring their seat into question, despite England's heft in that union. Permanent members should be required to make a minimum financial contribution or lose their veto rights. I see merit in the permanent members being divided more fairly by Geography.
You do realize that Russia and China have changed countries since the beginning? The UK is England; it is the English monarchy, English Parliament, English capital… that’s like removing the USA if one state were to go independent 😂
India has fought 4 wars with pakistan and one with china, all of which were initiated by them. India wants to live in peace. UN is not about gaining power and strength, its about how much you can contribute to world security and peace. and of-course as any permanent member of the un enjoys certain privileges, it is not because of that reason that india bids for permanent membership.
According from my history teacher, the term permanent members were created because most of the major powers at that time were not interested in this idea "security council", but without their contribution, the UN would simply fail just like the league of nations. So they decided to give these major powers a special power, so that's how the permanent members came from.
UN has failed India. India should pull the plug on its contribution to UN peacekeeping forces (India is single largest contributor country) and should use those forces for its own interests in Pakistan, China or Indian Ocean.
I don't understand why Aftica is so dismissed. Nigeria and South Africa are regional powers who are more than capable of being permanent members of the security council.
You prolly dont care at all but does any of you know of a way to get back into an instagram account? I somehow lost the login password. I love any tips you can offer me.
@Cristian Spencer Thanks for your reply. I got to the site on google and im trying it out now. Takes a while so I will get back to you later with my results.
If 'push came to shove' in peacekeeping scenarios, any UN peacekeeping effort would potentially fall-back and rely on the U.S.A for its unsurpassed logistics, that is, transportation and communicatons in over-the-horizon scenarios like in East Timor in 1999. This might explain USA reticence to reform the UNSC members to avoid its hand being forced to intervene with additional permanent UNSC with whom it has no kinship, that is, UN member-states without genuine and verifiable democratic tenets and institutions . My 2 centîmes worth.
Good points . But the most obvious reform needed is the abolition of veto power for P5 ...regardless how much you enlarge the council. Funny u didn't mention this . Not saying it would pass but important things need to be repeated often.
well I would like to suggest, rather having 5 permanent veto holding states, let's have 7 veto holding states with a general house of 21 states. well I would also like to enquire if you accept research interns under your guidance?
First of all, there is a difference between economic colony and colony. India was a colony because it was formally under the jurisdiction of the British empire, china wasn't. Second of all, the term of economic was really controversial, i can even argue that most of the nations now are economic colonies of US, since the US has exported its currency,its cultural or commonly known as the western culture through out the world. A typical example will be Japan?
How about getting rid of permanent members completely? Have a barometer for which country gets on the security council such as largest economy, or have it be completely democratic, with all countries being candidates.
Yes, it is time to reform UN security council. It is: only permanent member US RU CN UK FR in the council; abolish other members. There should only be five members of UN security council, others have no right to join UN security council. The UN P5 made one mistake and gave other states too many voices, now it is time to change to reflect real world.
1.) One has to be careful when assessing developing countries. Case in point: Brazil. In 2015, its GDP dropped almost 4%. Its president is engulfed in scandal and saddled with a 9% approval rating. 2.) Any country that wants to be a permanent member with veto power has to be able to do more than supply peacekeeping troops; it has to be able to wield military power to enforce UN resolutions. Frankly, only 1 of the current P5, the USA, can really meet this requirement. 3.) No country gives up (or even dilutes) its power voluntarily. At most, I can see the UK leaving the EU and France's seat becoming an EU seat. China would veto Japan (and probably India). I don't think that Japan minds too much due to its close ties with the USA. If India wants a seat badly enough, it will have to go to war and defeat either China or Russia. (Due to the USA, India can't go to war with either the UK or France.)
So, tell me, genius, why isn't India a permanent member of the security council? You seem to think that all other members support it. (Ooh, the Canadian military -- so impressive -- not. A little bit of respect for the Brits is deserved.)
SilvanaDil Wait for next year in around April to May 2017 you will find this news, Modi is having deep influence around the world, UN law says after 1st pass there has to be discussion for 1 year because last time the changes were made in 1945, so today politics is getting shifted to Asian countries, in fact Japan wants in but Russia, China will block them...(Russia has some 3 Island problem with Japan and China has problem over South China sea with Japan)..China is not directly saying YES but is also won't say NO to India bcz all Chinese allies except Pakistan has supported India and they to have huge businesses in India ...But India is next permanent member in UN. (sorry for Asshole)
I accept your apology. :D I have nothing against India getting a seat. (Americans like India. Besides, when Americans want to do something in the world, we don't really need or care about UN approval.) I'm just not sure that China and Russia, the two non-democracies in the P5, will agree to let India join the club.
SilvanaDil Yes truly Americans don't care about UN ....this is what the problem is they them self don't care and they want all other countries to follow UN decisions ....why should any countries have to take prior permission's from UN...though all inside decisions are politically controlled by US...When India did it's Nuclear test why American govt. was crying, when USA dose same thing they call it MILE STONE and when third world dose it they call it TERROR ...US dose spying through satellites on every country and when it comes to them then it is Terror.......Remember USA is created not only by American's whole world scholars are sitting there to stand them Chinese, Russians,Indians,Africans,etc all are participating in every field from medical to space...but Americans have attitude that they rule the world...every American banks are funding Local governments in their countries to destabilize their economy and get US companies to do business in Local market's ...American greed is much bigger then American dream and this is how your TRUMP is Fooling you to make America GREAT again at the cost of billions of people they want American dream.
Every country is hypocritical. Some are very hypocritical, but don't have much power. Some are less hypocritical, but have a lot of power, and so on. We were the first to get nukes. Obviously, we would have preferred to keep it that way. By the time that the nuclear club included the Soviets, China, the UK and France, the goal was to stop further proliferation. India managed to get nukes anyway. Good for you, just don't get into a nuclear war with Pakistan. Virtually everything has been coming and will continue to from American universities and research institutes. People from all over the world come here to learn; any discoveries are co-owned by us. We landed on the moon. We created the internet (incl. Google, Facebook, TH-cam). We're going to be the top country of significant size for a long time.
Fairly good assessment, but focus on the leading power alot. You could make a break down of other parts of the world, in a sense of holding them to the swords of the bigger nation. That's why the world is in so much poverty.
Several concerns I have about UN Security Council Reform: 1. If a nation decides to become a Permanent Member, then will they be willing to engage in actions, or just authorize the use of force? 2. If the Council gets expanded, let's say to 21 members, why couldn't the six new members be given semi-permanent status. Give them four year terms, then let them take four years off the Council? 3. Why don't non-permanent members be allowed to serve two consecutive two-year terms? If it's part of the UN Charter or a by-law of the Rules of Meetings of the Council, shouldn't the UN allow a waiver to let a non-permanent member a second consecutive term, say with a two-thirds supermajority of the UN? There might be a nation whose Ambassador, from a "Third World" nation whose personal prestige makes him/her worthy of a second term? Who's integrity is unquestioned? Who is seen as both a representative of the nation and of the UN? 4. Why can't the veto be reformed to reduce the power and allow just three out of five members of the P5 to pass a resolution? They P5 would still have a major voice on the Council. 5. Shouldn't some of the reforms of the Security Council be placed into another UN organ, such as the Economic and Social Council? Why shouldn't nations such as Germany and Japan be granted permanent status on the Economic Council?
I bet after recent sitiation regarding Russia's agression and it's ability to criple UNSC in general, this video has gained absolutely different perspective..
Africa is the continent with the most nations in the world and yet it didn't have one nation on the UNSC. America, UK, and france all say they want democracy in the world and yet they give themselves more power. Its not democratic when only 5 nations decide the fate of the world. Each nation should get a vote.
why unsc reform becoz of to make un more democratic, more representative, more inclusive, more relevant as international organizations or global governance for peace, prosperity and justice in the 🗺. India is founding member of the UN, and some other countries in the world they sd likely to be a given un permanent membership, it will 🌉 the north - South gap.
I think you guys misunderstand china, we are not bully, we have dispute with other nations, just like japan and south Korea have dispute over some islands. I believed china is the only major nuclear power which has a "no first strike" policy, which only allows china to retaliate but not attack , another example will be in Sino-indian war china withdraw immediately after they get what they want, not like the US, which is constantly staying in that region and minding other countries' business.
I think you have really stressed the most important issues regarding a change in the existing structure of the UN SC. Nevertheless this discussion in my opinion focuses too much on historical arguments, such as China opposing Japan because of WWII or other states opposing Germany due to the same reason. The world community is in urgent need of a powerful executive organ, that is able to adopt legally binding resolutions quickly and is able to react to violations of international law with a certain intensity. On the other hand it is essential to include uprising powers into this process as otherwise a considerable part of the world's population would not consider the SC as a legitimate organ. At the end of the day the international community must face the facts and must in its struggle for a more peaceful world make compromises. The P5 have to be extended to ensure the legitimacy and the credibility of the SC as an executive organ for every citizen on this planet.
But wat I wasn't able to understang quite right was, why exactly USA needs to build a coalition knowing the fact that at the end of the day it can veto . just like Russia is doing right now towards situation in Ukraine
China was not. China was never a colony in the modern era, go check your history. They gave china a permanent seat because its major contribution of the war in pacific. China had like 30 millions causalities during the war, i think they deserved that seat, and they were one of the victors.
HI we have just had an election here under MMP but it seema that an MP with only 7 per cenr of the vote can choose the Government .The largest voted party has been left out. We have 3 loser in Government no. In Germany MMP is better because the largest party selects their Government. The Winner National is now in opposition which is surely wrong. which is the right MMP
HOW ABOUT INVOLVING THE UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION ON REFUGEES PROVIDING REFUGEE RESERTTLEMENT CAMPS IN CENTRAL AMERICA FOR THOSE FLEEING THEIR COUNTRIES? THE VIETNAMESE WERE RESETTLED IN REFUGEE CAMPS IN SOUTHEAST ASIAN COUNTRIES WHERE THEY WERE SUPPORTED BY DONOR COUNTRIES AND GROUPS
see. what i think is that Pakistan and India should settle up their disputes first and the behavior of these states towards each other should be Imperialistic rather than realistic. If this happens their boundary disputes will get resolved which is a big constraint for them in UN. and if they both make better relationships then obviously China would revise its policy towards India because of Pakistan too and this could lead to resolve one major issue of Indian permanent membership.
It is better in legitimacy to boost The role of the U.N in keeping the internation peace for 3 obvious reason: cheapers because it needs no large costly weapon, second it is benefit every countries from large to small, thirdly it is better to not going into the endless wars of land mines, sea mine and human entanglement of industrial countries into Netherlands or never land ect...and it does not foster racial or gender warfare
I believe, just 5 countries can’t possibly decide the fate of the world. Additionally, All five of the current permanent members have caused a lot of wars and misuse their power to their personal gains. This world needs Peace & Prosperity NOT War & Hunger. In my opinion, more countries should also be members of permanent Security Council, who other than having influence, also have shown moral and peaceful history. 1. USA has been at war for over 95% of its existence, and it still is. Causing irreversible damage to many Countries. 2. China has mass-murdered hundreds of thousands of people to confiscate their land & resources (Tibet, Taiwan, India, Japan ect). It has boundary disputes with every nation it’s attached to along with water territory disputes. 3. UK has colonized, looted and murdered millions of people for its current bank balance(however, Today it’s not involved directly except Syria.) My question is, do we really want bullies, murderers and war-mongers as security of this world? It’s like asking a thief to guard your safe. These so called world powers force every country not to build nuclear weapons and limit/destroy the current nuclear arsenal; whereas, they have 99% of world’s nuclear weapons ranging between 16000-20000. These are more than enough to destroy the entire solar system (not literally). I wish to see a reform with a much larger Permanent Security Council, which has at least 15-20 Nations. Also, VITO needs to be replaced with a voting system to eliminate any ONE country's attempt to avoid progressive decisions to impose its personal gains.
+Simply Logical Keep dreaming. This is how I see it: 1.) One has to be careful when assessing developing countries. Case in point: Brazil. In 2015, its GDP dropped almost 4%. Its president is engulfed in scandal and saddled with a 9% approval rating. 2.) Any country that wants to be a permanent member with veto power has to be able to do more than supply peacekeeping troops; it has to be able to wield military power to enforce UN resolutions. Frankly, only 1 of the current P5, the USA, can really meet this requirement. 3.) No country gives up (or even dilutes) its power voluntarily. At most, I can see the UK leaving the EU and France's seat becoming an EU seat. China would veto Japan (and probably India). I don't think that Japan minds too much due to its close ties with the USA. If India wants a seat badly enough, it will have to go to war and defeat either China or Russia. (Due to the USA, India can't go to war with either the UK or France.)
SilvanaDil India has never attacked any nation in the recorded history and even today it dosent want to go to war with any. It just want others to stop attacking India, therefore it keeps strong defence for deterance. My point is, If you really want peace in the world and stop exploitation of the world. A new security council should be formed with each nation having a right to vote in making a decision. If any one or more countries disagrees with the decision of UN, Rest of the countries together have the right and strength to enforce sanctions until all are on the same page. No one country is stronger than the rest of the countries together. Technology is for the mankind and should be shared with all the nations equally to promote trust and further innovation. There are enough resources in the world, all nations can share equally and everyone can live proprous life. But greed wont let the greedy do the right thing, they will remain selfish and keep exploiting others for their personal gain.
several emerging naions could easily play their part South Africa and Maite Nkoana Mashabane (what an amazing person) and Brazil' and India and even Germany! what the hell WWII ended 65 years did you get the memo Ban ki Moon?
japan, germany, brazil, india, ethiopia and nigiria. japan, German is obvious. brazil and India really need to have a chance. ethiopia and Nigeria for their population and the fact that they are on the opposite side of Africa.
Ok i shouldn't have used the word fair. Logical was the word i was looking for and France is going no where. Sarkozy is getting back in office, mark my word.
I am a subject of the sovereign Hawaiian kingdom ko Hawaii Pae aina i am the title holder and land owner. last absolute Kamehameha the third my dominion authority comes from our last absolute. my position comes from lineal descended inconsinquinty by the first absolute kamehameha the great in the year 1779. We are the first konohiki of kamehameha we are appointed by the fist ruler of this islands. My position is pasted down to me from my father from.his grand father and so on this genealogy is unbroken from the 1700 to the present date. I have in good faith maintains our laws and position as a sovereign nation state i have called upon the leaders and nations for assistance with this terroristic state that has refused to recognize our sovereign status. Their continues plundering and pillaging of our lands resources and ignoring our human rights and committing war crimes against our people and ignoring our rights to our lands, resources and political position. Injecting there laws in stead of our laws. This is a crime against every nation for if they are aloud to continue here then they will do thos else where.
oh really???? china is occupying LADAKH of india and china is entering japan's water territory and india's side consistently ....lol By the way india has a "no first strike"
world is ready to accept reforms in P5, but the question remains is P5 ready yet? to share their powers with what they believe are third world countries.
I think it is unthinkable to accept nations being dictatorial regimes like China and Russia being part of group of countries having veto powers. Why not establish an alternate and a new United Nations in somewhere in India (which best represents genuine democracy) without the clauses of veto power given to the five permanent members. Many countries would support that if India takes the initiative.
Looking at the G4 I think it's unrealistic that everyone will get a permanent seat at the Security Council, but maybe some of them. For example Germany: Britian, France and the US wouldn't veto Germany simply because they are alies. China wouldn't either, because they respect Germany as the european economic powerhouse and because Germany has important trade relations with them. Russia has no problems with being the bad guy, but Russia also has important trade relations with Germany and with the support of the other permanent Russia wouldn't veto Germany, but wouldn't support it either.They would most likely let it pass silently, because they don't want to get in trouble with the western countries. Germany also delivers more money to the UN budget, than Russia, the UK and France, but that is another point. Also Germany wouldn't be blocked by any other european country simply because there is no reason to. Also Germany has such an high influence in the European Union, that the EU wouldn't support a german candidacy for a permanent seat for sure. India would indeed be blocked by China, for obvious reasons. Also India isn#t even close to the amount the other G4 or P5 members are paying to the UN. Even tho Japan pays almost 10% of the UN Budget, which is the 2nd most after the US, I tihnk it would be blocked by China or Russia and maybe even by the US. China doesn't want Japan to gain any power. They aren't even supporting a candidacy for a non-permanent seat, so why would they support one for a permanent seat? Brazil is difficult. Brazil would most likely be blocked by local "enemies" like mexico or so. Brazil pays almost 4% of the UN Budget and is not in a serious diplomatic conflict with any of the P5 and it would be a permanent member from latin america. The only problem I see is Russia, because Russia is probably blocking anything, that decreases there national power, simply because they see themselves has a superpower. So the only country that has a chance is German. The Security Council would have 4 western countries, all members of NATO, as permanent members, which wouldn't represent the current world situation either.
I think the permanent members of un like france,england should be remove because they are small countries, area wise as well as population wise their potentials are less, they have less influence in global today. Countries like India and Japan are more powerful they have more potentials, India have huge potentials in every field today, India is extremely favourable for un permanent member also China is more powerful then united states so un council should removed from united states and should establish in china.
Dear, In the long term, UN Security Council couldn't work well for the world peace b/c they couldn't manage the selfish behaviors of US. So it must be reformed as soon as possible.
It is a pity such an efficeient organization like UNO takes so much time to judge India with its 1.2 billion people should be noticed. Hope good sense will prevail in UNO and India will get its seat on UNESCO. Thanks to Modi who has shown the way to the UNO how to act,and when to act. As usual the truth is always bitter and very few people (or political leaders) can swollow. Kind Regards. Sunder T.
haha I would only like that because I like his wife. I would assume Kenya Japan will get SC seats with Veto power. Brazil will get a permanent seat without veto but thats just my speculation.
LoL, can't understand your logic, you are saying because many Arabs live in the Indian subcontinent, therefore they should be represent by India, well how about this, since India is in Asia, and Asia has already represented by China and Russia, so there is no need for India to be a permanent member according to your indian subcontinent logic.
![[LIVE] BABYMONSTER(베이비몬스터) - DRIP | 두시탈출 컬투쇼](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/UG05pxLGwzc/mqdefault.jpg)
The biggest Reason for India to be in Security Council Permanent Membership is :
It's the highest contribute contributer peace keeping force for UN... And that's what UN wants, how much u can contribute... And India is doing it very proudly...
2nd... India is the 4th most powerful nation in the world, 3rd Richest Country in the world in terms of GDP (purchase power).... 7th wealthiest in terms for GDP (nominal)....
There should be no veto power at all. Also, India has more people in poverty, than all of africa combined.
@Shreyash The Slayer india have more poor people more than african poor people
@@jokejoker4752 Nigeria has recently passed india in number of poor , update urself
th-cam.com/users/shortsTFDwWS3Fmsc?feature=share3
India Have VETO❤
This is pretty old, but there has been zero progress on this. I think a break up of the UK would bring their seat into question, despite England's heft in that union.
Permanent members should be required to make a minimum financial contribution or lose their veto rights. I see merit in the permanent members being divided more fairly by Geography.
You do realize that Russia and China have changed countries since the beginning? The UK is England; it is the English monarchy, English Parliament, English capital… that’s like removing the USA if one state were to go independent 😂
How about NO permanent members? A pure democracy
Asian Master Race security council will become useless
Ling Kong Why do we need a Security Council in the first place?
Asian Master Race to aviod world war
上杉謙信 exactly
India has fought 4 wars with pakistan and one with china, all of which were initiated by them. India wants to live in peace. UN is not about gaining power and strength, its about how much you can contribute to world security and peace. and of-course as any permanent member of the un enjoys certain privileges, it is not because of that reason that india bids for permanent membership.
According from my history teacher, the term permanent members were created because most of the major powers at that time were not interested in this idea "security council", but without their contribution, the UN would simply fail just like the league of nations. So they decided to give these major powers a special power, so that's how the permanent members came from.
And today power has shift .... UK isn't stronger than India anymore
@@hiddendagger7291 Fk India and their e-waste slums
UN has failed India. India should pull the plug on its contribution to UN peacekeeping forces (India is single largest contributor country) and should use those forces for its own interests in Pakistan, China or Indian Ocean.
I agree if it keep happening anti us block in India keep growing
We although being largest contributor to UN peace keeping force, We only send 8000 soldiers....which can easily ve replenished by other countries
India has a population of 1.3 billion people. It is underrepresented in UNSC.
It's almost 2020 and yet nothing has happened.
I don't understand why Aftica is so dismissed. Nigeria and South Africa are regional powers who are more than capable of being permanent members of the security council.
It should be Nicaragua, Egypt, Turkmenistan, Kiribati, and Mongolia.
Kevin Sang You only said four countries. You need five.
Nepal,Burma,Azerbaijan,Saudi Arabia,iran
INDIA deserves a permanent seat at the UNSC
Security council should increase to Germany, India, Brazil and Japan. Maybe Brazil if they fix their current corruption scandals
You prolly dont care at all but does any of you know of a way to get back into an instagram account?
I somehow lost the login password. I love any tips you can offer me.
@Zander Brody instablaster ;)
@Cristian Spencer Thanks for your reply. I got to the site on google and im trying it out now.
Takes a while so I will get back to you later with my results.
@Cristian Spencer it did the trick and I now got access to my account again. I am so happy:D
Thank you so much, you really help me out :D
@Zander Brody Happy to help xD
ALl G4 Support Mutually Each Other...correct your statement
If 'push came to shove' in peacekeeping scenarios, any UN peacekeeping effort would potentially fall-back and rely on the U.S.A for its unsurpassed logistics, that is, transportation and communicatons in over-the-horizon scenarios like in East Timor in 1999. This might explain USA reticence to reform the UNSC members to avoid its hand being forced to intervene with additional permanent UNSC with whom it has no kinship, that is, UN member-states without genuine and verifiable democratic tenets and institutions . My 2 centîmes worth.
Good points . But the most obvious reform needed is the abolition of veto power for P5 ...regardless how much you enlarge the council. Funny u didn't mention this . Not saying it would pass but important things need to be repeated often.
well I would like to suggest, rather having 5 permanent veto holding states, let's have 7 veto holding states with a general house of 21 states.
well I would also like to enquire if you accept research interns under your guidance?
Why not create something like United Asia and be one with it.
First of all, there is a difference between economic colony and colony. India was a colony because it was formally under the jurisdiction of the British empire, china wasn't.
Second of all, the term of economic was really controversial, i can even argue that most of the nations now are economic colonies of US, since the US has exported its currency,its cultural or commonly known as the western culture through out the world. A typical example will be Japan?
excellent analysis from different contexts
Why does India not want Germany? Did I hear it right? at 7:20.
That doesn't make any sense.
How about getting rid of permanent members completely? Have a barometer for which country gets on the security council such as largest economy, or have it be completely democratic, with all countries being candidates.
you can't tell your boss what to do? unless you can defeat your boss!
At the start arguments 2 and 3 are the same...
Yes, it is time to reform UN security council.
It is: only permanent member US RU CN UK FR in the council; abolish other members.
There should only be five members of UN security council, others have no right to join UN security council.
The UN P5 made one mistake and gave other states too many voices, now it is time to change to reflect real world.
At 7.23, you probably mean Italy and Spain..
Reported
Meeta chaudhary
Chankyapuri high commission
Why would they care about fair? One of the 3rd highest political parties in France wants to leave the EU so that wouldn't happen likely.
1.) One has to be careful when assessing developing countries. Case in point: Brazil. In 2015, its GDP dropped almost 4%. Its president is engulfed in scandal and saddled with a 9% approval rating.
2.) Any country that wants to be a permanent member with veto power has to be able to do more than supply peacekeeping troops; it has to be able to wield military power to enforce UN resolutions. Frankly, only 1 of the current P5, the USA, can really meet this requirement.
3.) No country gives up (or even dilutes) its power voluntarily. At most, I can see the UK leaving the EU and France's seat becoming an EU seat. China would veto Japan (and probably India). I don't think that Japan minds too much due to its close ties with the USA. If India wants a seat badly enough, it will have to go to war and defeat either China or Russia. (Due to the USA, India can't go to war with either the UK or France.)
So, tell me, genius, why isn't India a permanent member of the security council? You seem to think that all other members support it.
(Ooh, the Canadian military -- so impressive -- not. A little bit of respect for the Brits is deserved.)
SilvanaDil Wait for next year in around April to May 2017 you will find this news, Modi is having deep influence around the world, UN law says after 1st pass there has to be discussion for 1 year because last time the changes were made in 1945, so today politics is getting shifted to Asian countries, in fact Japan wants in but Russia, China will block them...(Russia has some 3 Island problem with Japan and China has problem over South China sea with Japan)..China is not directly saying YES but is also won't say NO to India bcz all Chinese allies except Pakistan has supported India and they to have huge businesses in India ...But India is next permanent member in UN. (sorry for Asshole)
I accept your apology. :D
I have nothing against India getting a seat. (Americans like India. Besides, when Americans want to do something in the world, we don't really need or care about UN approval.) I'm just not sure that China and Russia, the two non-democracies in the P5, will agree to let India join the club.
SilvanaDil Yes truly Americans don't care about UN ....this is what the problem is they them self don't care and they want all other countries to follow UN decisions ....why should any countries have to take prior permission's from UN...though all inside decisions are politically controlled by US...When India did it's Nuclear test why American govt. was crying, when USA dose same thing they call it MILE STONE and when third world dose it they call it TERROR ...US dose spying through satellites on every country and when it comes to them then it is Terror.......Remember USA is created not only by American's whole world scholars are sitting there to stand them Chinese, Russians,Indians,Africans,etc all are participating in every field from medical to space...but Americans have attitude that they rule the world...every American banks are funding Local governments in their countries to destabilize their economy and get US companies to do business in Local market's ...American greed is much bigger then American dream and this is how your TRUMP is Fooling you to make America GREAT again at the cost of billions of people they want American dream.
Every country is hypocritical. Some are very hypocritical, but don't have much power. Some are less hypocritical, but have a lot of power, and so on.
We were the first to get nukes. Obviously, we would have preferred to keep it that way. By the time that the nuclear club included the Soviets, China, the UK and France, the goal was to stop further proliferation. India managed to get nukes anyway. Good for you, just don't get into a nuclear war with Pakistan.
Virtually everything has been coming and will continue to from American universities and research institutes. People from all over the world come here to learn; any discoveries are co-owned by us. We landed on the moon. We created the internet (incl. Google, Facebook, TH-cam). We're going to be the top country of significant size for a long time.
Fairly good assessment, but focus on the leading power alot. You could make a break down of other parts of the world, in a sense of holding them to the swords of the bigger nation. That's why the world is in so much poverty.
Several concerns I have about UN Security Council Reform:
1. If a nation decides to become a Permanent Member, then will they be willing to engage in actions, or just authorize the use of force?
2. If the Council gets expanded, let's say to 21 members, why couldn't the six new members be given semi-permanent status. Give them four year terms, then let them take four years off the Council?
3. Why don't non-permanent members be allowed to serve two consecutive two-year terms? If it's part of the UN Charter or a by-law of the Rules of Meetings of the Council, shouldn't the UN allow a waiver to let a non-permanent member a second consecutive term, say with a two-thirds supermajority of the UN? There might be a nation whose Ambassador, from a "Third World" nation whose personal prestige makes him/her worthy of a second term? Who's integrity is unquestioned? Who is seen as both a representative of the nation and of the UN?
4. Why can't the veto be reformed to reduce the power and allow just three out of five members of the P5 to pass a resolution? They P5 would still have a major voice on the Council.
5. Shouldn't some of the reforms of the Security Council be placed into another UN organ, such as the Economic and Social Council? Why shouldn't nations such as Germany and Japan be granted permanent status on the Economic Council?
I bet after recent sitiation regarding Russia's agression and it's ability to criple UNSC in general, this video has gained absolutely different perspective..
Insidious CFR and UN should be totally dismantled.
"This is just a bridge too far sums it all up."
Africa is the continent with the most nations in the world and yet it didn't have one nation on the UNSC. America, UK, and france all say they want democracy in the world and yet they give themselves more power. Its not democratic when only 5 nations decide the fate of the world. Each nation should get a vote.
why unsc reform becoz of to make un more democratic, more representative, more inclusive, more relevant as international organizations or global governance for peace, prosperity and justice in the 🗺. India is founding member of the UN, and some other countries in the world they sd likely to be a given un permanent membership, it will 🌉 the north - South gap.
I think you guys misunderstand china, we are not bully, we have dispute with other nations, just like japan and south Korea have dispute over some islands.
I believed china is the only major nuclear power which has a "no first strike" policy, which only allows china to retaliate but not attack , another example will be in Sino-indian war china withdraw immediately after they get what they want, not like the US, which is constantly staying in that region and minding other countries' business.
As a time traveler from ten years later, its a Noooooooo!
thank you for your video, read show more, IT MUST BE CHANGE
un security coumcil must has to be reform in order to mantain global peace and security.to save democracy
I think you have really stressed the most important issues regarding a change in the existing structure of the UN SC. Nevertheless this discussion in my opinion focuses too much on historical arguments, such as China opposing Japan because of WWII or other states opposing Germany due to the same reason. The world community is in urgent need of a powerful executive organ, that is able to adopt legally binding resolutions quickly and is able to react to violations of international law with a certain intensity. On the other hand it is essential to include uprising powers into this process as otherwise a considerable part of the world's population would not consider the SC as a legitimate organ. At the end of the day the international community must face the facts and must in its struggle for a more peaceful world make compromises. The P5 have to be extended to ensure the legitimacy and the credibility of the SC as an executive organ for every citizen on this planet.
But wat I wasn't able to understang quite right was, why exactly USA needs to build a coalition knowing the fact that at the end of the day it can veto . just like Russia is doing right now towards situation in Ukraine
It's time for reform...... It's has been 70 years..... It it is not reformed it will suffer the same end like league of nations
Get rid of the United Nations in general it’s a waste of money
Central and Latin America Caribbean, and south America.
China was not. China was never a colony in the modern era, go check your history. They gave china a permanent seat because its major contribution of the war in pacific. China had like 30 millions causalities during the war, i think they deserved that seat, and they were one of the victors.
reform or not, it won't make a differences
HI we have just had an election here under MMP but it seema that an MP with only 7 per cenr of the vote can choose the Government .The largest voted party has been left out. We have 3 loser in Government no. In Germany MMP is better because the largest party selects their Government. The Winner National is now in opposition which is surely wrong. which is the right MMP
Hi I forgot to say I am talking from New Zealand
Hii
HOW ABOUT INVOLVING THE UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION ON REFUGEES PROVIDING REFUGEE RESERTTLEMENT CAMPS IN CENTRAL AMERICA FOR THOSE FLEEING THEIR COUNTRIES? THE VIETNAMESE WERE RESETTLED IN REFUGEE CAMPS IN SOUTHEAST ASIAN COUNTRIES WHERE THEY WERE SUPPORTED BY DONOR COUNTRIES AND GROUPS
see. what i think is that Pakistan and India should settle up their disputes first and the behavior of these states towards each other should be Imperialistic rather than realistic. If this happens their boundary disputes will get resolved which is a big constraint for them in UN. and if they both make better relationships then obviously China would revise its policy towards India because of Pakistan too and this could lead to resolve one major issue of Indian permanent membership.
It is better in legitimacy to boost The role of the U.N in keeping the internation peace for 3 obvious reason: cheapers because it needs no large costly weapon, second it is benefit every countries from large to small, thirdly it is better to not going into the endless wars of land mines, sea mine and human entanglement of industrial countries into Netherlands or never land ect...and it does not foster racial or gender warfare
Being a world largest democracy India deserves a permanent Seat at UN
I believe, just 5 countries can’t possibly decide the fate of the world. Additionally, All five of the current permanent members have caused a lot of wars and misuse their power to their personal gains. This world needs Peace & Prosperity NOT War & Hunger. In my opinion, more countries should also be members of permanent Security Council, who other than having influence, also have shown moral and peaceful history.
1. USA has been at war for over 95% of its existence, and it still is. Causing irreversible damage to many Countries.
2. China has mass-murdered hundreds of thousands of people to confiscate their land & resources (Tibet, Taiwan, India, Japan ect). It has boundary disputes with every nation it’s attached to along with water territory disputes.
3. UK has colonized, looted and murdered millions of people for its current bank balance(however, Today it’s not involved directly except Syria.)
My question is, do we really want bullies, murderers and war-mongers as security of this world? It’s like asking a thief to guard your safe. These so called world powers force every country not to build nuclear weapons and limit/destroy the current nuclear arsenal; whereas, they have 99% of world’s nuclear weapons ranging between 16000-20000. These are more than enough to destroy the entire solar system (not literally).
I wish to see a reform with a much larger Permanent Security Council, which has at least 15-20 Nations. Also, VITO needs to be replaced with a voting system to eliminate any ONE country's attempt to avoid progressive decisions to impose its personal gains.
+Simply Logical Veto
+Simply Logical
Keep dreaming. This is how I see it:
1.) One has to be careful when assessing developing countries. Case in point: Brazil. In 2015, its GDP dropped almost 4%. Its president is engulfed in scandal and saddled with a 9% approval rating.
2.) Any country that wants to be a permanent member with veto power has to be able to do more than supply peacekeeping troops; it has to be able to wield military power to enforce UN resolutions. Frankly, only 1 of the current P5, the USA, can really meet this requirement.
3.) No country gives up (or even dilutes) its power voluntarily. At most, I can see the UK leaving the EU and France's seat becoming an EU seat. China would veto Japan (and probably India). I don't think that Japan minds too much due to its close ties with the USA. If India wants a seat badly enough, it will have to go to war and defeat either China or Russia. (Due to the USA, India can't go to war with either the UK or France.)
SilvanaDil India has never attacked any nation in the recorded history and even today it dosent want to go to war with any. It just want others to stop attacking India, therefore it keeps strong defence for deterance.
My point is, If you really want peace in the world and stop exploitation of the world. A new security council should be formed with each nation having a right to vote in making a decision. If any one or more countries disagrees with the decision of UN, Rest of the countries together have the right and strength to enforce sanctions until all are on the same page. No one country is stronger than the rest of the countries together. Technology is for the mankind and should be shared with all the nations equally to promote trust and further innovation. There are enough resources in the world, all nations can share equally and everyone can live proprous life.
But greed wont let the greedy do the right thing, they will remain selfish and keep exploiting others for their personal gain.
没逻辑的回答，不用管，印度没攻击过任何国家？真他妈可笑
several emerging naions could easily play their part
South Africa and Maite Nkoana Mashabane (what an amazing person) and Brazil' and India and even Germany!
what the hell
WWII ended 65 years did you get the memo Ban ki Moon?
japan, germany, brazil, india, ethiopia and nigiria.
japan, German is obvious.
brazil and India really need to have a chance.
ethiopia and Nigeria for their population and the fact that they are on the opposite side of Africa.
Nigeria, Ethiopia are off the table. They are tiny in terms of both population and economy.
why is japan and germany obvious? just because they're rich?
Ok
i shouldn't have used the word fair.
Logical was the word i was looking for and France is going
no where. Sarkozy is getting back in office, mark my word.
Yes it is, and I hope it is done ...else this org too fill fail like the league of nation.
i suggest give all nation "the permanent member" every nation has the right to contribute!! what do you said ?! guys?
It's been time! Security council is a joke!
I am a subject of the sovereign Hawaiian kingdom ko Hawaii Pae aina i am the title holder and land owner. last absolute Kamehameha the third my dominion authority comes from our last absolute. my position comes from lineal descended inconsinquinty by the first absolute kamehameha the great in the year 1779. We are the first konohiki of kamehameha we are appointed by the fist ruler of this islands. My position is pasted down to me from my father from.his grand father and so on this genealogy is unbroken from the 1700 to the present date. I have in good faith maintains our laws and position as a sovereign nation state i have called upon the leaders and nations for assistance with this terroristic state that has refused to recognize our sovereign status. Their continues plundering and pillaging of our lands resources and ignoring our human rights and committing war crimes against our people and ignoring our rights to our lands, resources and political position. Injecting there laws in stead of our laws. This is a crime against every nation for if they are aloud to continue here then they will do thos else where.
I believe Germany is India's biggest trading partner in Europe . I believe India wants Germany in every regard.
oh really???? china is occupying LADAKH of india and china is entering japan's water territory and india's side consistently ....lol By the way india has a "no first strike"
really?? what about the warcrime america did? the biggest in world history...what abt what they doing in iraq and afganistan?
Importing issues required for nato in Pakistan general scientific globally peace
world is ready to accept reforms in P5, but the question remains is P5 ready yet? to share their powers with what they believe are third world countries.
UK and France should give up their seats to the EU.
That is only fair.
I think it is unthinkable to accept nations being dictatorial regimes like China and Russia being part of group of countries having veto powers. Why not establish an alternate and a new United Nations in somewhere in India (which best represents genuine democracy) without the clauses of veto power given to the five permanent members. Many countries would support that if India takes the initiative.
对啊，然后印度各邦担任印度联合国常任理事国
Looking at the G4 I think it's unrealistic that everyone will get a permanent seat at the Security Council, but maybe some of them.
For example Germany:
Britian, France and the US wouldn't veto Germany simply because they are alies. China wouldn't either, because they respect Germany as the european economic powerhouse and because Germany has important trade relations with them. Russia has no problems with being the bad guy, but Russia also has important trade relations with Germany and with the support of the other permanent Russia wouldn't veto Germany, but wouldn't support it either.They would most likely let it pass silently, because they don't want to get in trouble with the western countries. Germany also delivers more money to the UN budget, than Russia, the UK and France, but that is another point. Also Germany wouldn't be blocked by any other european country simply because there is no reason to. Also Germany has such an high influence in the European Union, that the EU wouldn't support a german candidacy for a permanent seat for sure.
India would indeed be blocked by China, for obvious reasons. Also India isn#t even close to the amount the other G4 or P5 members are paying to the UN.
Even tho Japan pays almost 10% of the UN Budget, which is the 2nd most after the US, I tihnk it would be blocked by China or Russia and maybe even by the US. China doesn't want Japan to gain any power. They aren't even supporting a candidacy for a non-permanent seat, so why would they support one for a permanent seat?
Brazil is difficult. Brazil would most likely be blocked by local "enemies" like mexico or so. Brazil pays almost 4% of the UN Budget and is not in a serious diplomatic conflict with any of the P5 and it would be a permanent member from latin america. The only problem I see is Russia, because Russia is probably blocking anything, that decreases there national power, simply because they see themselves has a superpower.
So the only country that has a chance is German. The Security Council would have 4 western countries, all members of NATO, as permanent members, which wouldn't represent the current world situation either.
I think the permanent members of un like france,england should be remove because they are small countries, area wise as well as population wise their potentials are less, they have less influence in global today. Countries like India and Japan are more powerful they have more potentials, India have huge potentials in every field today, India is extremely favourable for un permanent member also China is more powerful then united states so un council should removed from united states and should establish in china.
+Sonu Swain China isn't really that powerful. Watch the testtube video on "How powerful is China"
+Sonu Swain he needs to understand, that UNSC is not a "khairat" of USA. sab kuch USA k hisab se thode sochna hai.
china really weak
Shreyash The Slayer Per capita income,
Dear,
In the long term, UN Security Council couldn't work well for the world peace b/c they couldn't manage the selfish behaviors of US. So it must be reformed as soon as possible.
DUUUUDE ever country is selfish.
It is a pity such an efficeient organization like UNO takes so much time to judge India with its 1.2 billion people should be noticed. Hope good sense will prevail in UNO and India will get its seat on UNESCO. Thanks to Modi who has shown the way to the UNO how to act,and when to act. As usual the truth is always bitter and very few people (or political leaders) can swollow. Kind Regards. Sunder T.
haha I would only like that because I like his wife.
I would assume Kenya Japan will get SC seats with Veto power. Brazil will get a permanent seat without veto but thats just my speculation.
There should be five: US, China, Russia, France (or UK), and another one from Africa. India? Stop being a joke first.
Joke?
LoL, can't understand your logic, you are saying because many Arabs live in the Indian subcontinent, therefore they should be represent by India, well how about this, since India is in Asia, and Asia has already represented by China and Russia, so there is no need for India to be a permanent member according to your indian subcontinent logic.
if India has a permanent seat at the UNSC, there will be seat for Pakistan too.
ijaz ul haq Pakistan is irrelevant. It has no space in the UN permanent place its GDP isn't even 1 trillion and its unstable.
Pakistan is irrelevant in world politics. First, stop begging for aid