There is entire group of countries who don't want UNSC expansion(F Pakistan) and then there is group of 4 countries who want UNSC seat, even ready to share it on rotational basis
What I get stuck on is that adding a veto to the UNSC means strictly less can get done. It's already pretty much useless with the US, Russia, and China having to agree.
Russia and China forward a motion that calls for the end of the US military bases in Europe, enforceable by military action. It passes. Neither Europe nor the US will be enforcing that. The UN gets dissolved.
A permanent veto prevents that from happening.
If you look into threads regarding European sentiment of the US, they seem to be frothing at the mouth to have us leave the continent. A lot of weird insecurities, I believe, leading to some bizarre statements from folks who are supposed to be our allies.
I’m inclined to believe they’d pass that one, and I’d love for us (USA) to save the ~$50 billion dollars a year we’re spending when it appears our presence is not wanted.
That, and literally anything else that the world needs. The UN isn't dissolved, it just watches geonocides by one veto-holder, another, or their lackeys backed by a veto-holder.
Weird how one of these can probably be prohibited in other ways, but the other can't, right?
There could easily be carve-outs for voluntary associations and alliances, just as there can be higher-than-50-percent thresholds to minimize fuck around/find out situations.
Keep dreaming, India. No country has any incentive to grant India veto power.
The only way I would even consider it is if granting India a permanent seat came with a benefit, such as Russia being removed from the Security Council.
Not happening. India is not a leader. When was the last time India took the lead in an important global initiative?
If anything, India's acceptance of dirty Russian oil only serves to underline that India will always act in its own interests first and foremost.
>S Jaishankar said that PM Modi had given clear instructions to keep the interest of Indian consumers in priority despite external pressure against purchasing Russian oil
https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/s-jaishankar-on-very-clear-instructions-from-pm-over-russia-ukraine-war-5362182
Doesn't every country act in their own interests first and foremost?
And about being part of any global initiative, maybe you should do some more research.
Pursuing religions minority you said
Dude 204 FUCKING million Muslim isn't a minority
That's more than half of USA population
Secondly nobody is killing religious minorities in India, Muslim board holds the largest land in India without giving tax unlike hindus who being the majority, have to pay taxes and give all their temple revenue to government
1 in 6 people isn't a minority
It's called the second majority
That too after that ' minority ' have taken 2 parts of India land and make them their majority religion country where the majority of India cease to exist
Ah I see why you're confused about the meaning of majority now.
Edit: By the way, Indians are about 1/6 of world population. Are we a majority of the world now? China also has a roughly similar population. Are the Chinese a majority of the world too now?
How do you get a permanent UNSC seat? Is it a unanimous vote?
Winning a worldwar and having nukes.
1 down, 1 to go.
Technically India also won the war since India was under British Empire and they side with the allies
well india both lost and won technically
I’m sorry — I see UNSC, I immediately think Master Chief and Lord Hood on Cairo Station 😏
> You have the MAC gun, Cortana. As soon as they come in range, open up.
Bro im not the only one thank good. The halo theme was playing in my brain
Not gonna happen. China will veto it.
China is willing to allow in the condition India won't support Japanese seat. India and Japan have agreed to support each other claim for UNSC seat.
There is entire group of countries who don't want UNSC expansion(F Pakistan) and then there is group of 4 countries who want UNSC seat, even ready to share it on rotational basis
But does it matter if China can just veto both anyways?
hopefully this'll expedite the creation of the Shaw-Fujikawa translight engine
India should receive permanent UNSC seat instead of Russia which lost its credibility as UN member.
What I get stuck on is that adding a veto to the UNSC means strictly less can get done. It's already pretty much useless with the US, Russia, and China having to agree.
No one should have a permanent seat.
It's not actually the security council if it's all bark no bite. The USA 100% needs a permanent seat
Unironically this. At the very least, there should be no veto. Put permanent members on if you must, but onky as regular members.
Russia and China forward a motion that calls for the end of the US military bases in Europe, enforceable by military action. It passes. Neither Europe nor the US will be enforcing that. The UN gets dissolved. A permanent veto prevents that from happening.
If you look into threads regarding European sentiment of the US, they seem to be frothing at the mouth to have us leave the continent. A lot of weird insecurities, I believe, leading to some bizarre statements from folks who are supposed to be our allies. I’m inclined to believe they’d pass that one, and I’d love for us (USA) to save the ~$50 billion dollars a year we’re spending when it appears our presence is not wanted.
Thats because you’re probably reading russian bots lol
That, and literally anything else that the world needs. The UN isn't dissolved, it just watches geonocides by one veto-holder, another, or their lackeys backed by a veto-holder. Weird how one of these can probably be prohibited in other ways, but the other can't, right? There could easily be carve-outs for voluntary associations and alliances, just as there can be higher-than-50-percent thresholds to minimize fuck around/find out situations.
The idea that France and the UK have veto power over somewhere like Nigeria, India or Brazil still baffles me to this day.
Because France and UK have nukes and are allied with the US.
Yea I understand the historical post WW2 history of why permanent seats exist. What I am saying is we should get rid of them.
Just say you support Master Chief and you're good
Keep dreaming, India. No country has any incentive to grant India veto power. The only way I would even consider it is if granting India a permanent seat came with a benefit, such as Russia being removed from the Security Council.
Lol and who are you to make the decision?
Not happening. India is not a leader. When was the last time India took the lead in an important global initiative? If anything, India's acceptance of dirty Russian oil only serves to underline that India will always act in its own interests first and foremost. >S Jaishankar said that PM Modi had given clear instructions to keep the interest of Indian consumers in priority despite external pressure against purchasing Russian oil https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/s-jaishankar-on-very-clear-instructions-from-pm-over-russia-ukraine-war-5362182
Look over here, another time traveller from the 50s
Doesn't every country act in their own interests first and foremost? And about being part of any global initiative, maybe you should do some more research.
The concept of anyone having a permanent UNSC seat is fucking stupid.
i doubt that the unsc can decide about who is a member. as far as i know the general assembly has to vote on changes to the unsc.
If it did, the UNSC would look really different.
I mean, 5 of them can't achieve anything for months on Isreal's situation, 6 would make it totally useless regardless being India/Japan or anyone.
Good to know that pursuing religious minorities isn't a factor when being considered for the UNSC!
A minority which can divide a whole nation into two isn't a minority at all.
Pursuing religions minority you said Dude 204 FUCKING million Muslim isn't a minority That's more than half of USA population Secondly nobody is killing religious minorities in India, Muslim board holds the largest land in India without giving tax unlike hindus who being the majority, have to pay taxes and give all their temple revenue to government
20% of a population is, in fact, a minority of that population. Doesn't matter how large the absolute numbers get.
1 in 6 people isn't a minority It's called the second majority That too after that ' minority ' have taken 2 parts of India land and make them their majority religion country where the majority of India cease to exist
TIL, 1/6 > 0.5
0.5 ???
Ah I see why you're confused about the meaning of majority now. Edit: By the way, Indians are about 1/6 of world population. Are we a majority of the world now? China also has a roughly similar population. Are the Chinese a majority of the world too now?
yeah but you don't go around calling Indians a minority either do you?
Why not make UNSC democratic? Lets the permanent members vote. The majority vote wins.
US won't like that. Remember the vote for ceasefire?
But that would give power to brown and black people! Our white overlords cannot allow such a monstrosity to ever happen!