Blackstone
Brigadier
China also should involve India in leading Asia (with US and Japan), and support its permanent UN Security Council membership too.
China's overland Silk Road and Maritime Silk Road Thread
- Thread starter SampanViking
- Start date
plawolf
Lieutenant General
China should aim to bring India into the fold more, but unless there is a complete and fundamental change in Indian attitudes and behaviour towards China (both governmental and popular), China should and will veto any attempt at India getting a permanent Security Council Seat, same goes for Japan.
But this is all very much off topic.
Ultra
Junior Member
I think the P5, will forever be the P5 until the dissolution of UN.
China will never allow Japan (through veto or other means) to be part of the P5, even though Japan is historically the second largest financial contributor to UN budget. Now because of the increasing closeness of Japan and India and India with US (Japan and India both vouch for each other for the UNSC seat back a few years ago), which threatens China's strategic outlook, China will forever blocking both's entry into UNSC.
At least Japan has a good reason being it is the second largest contribution UN, India on the other hand is not even in top 17, its contribution to UN is so insignificant even a bankrupt Spain, a small third world economy like Mexico contributed more than India. Even Brazil another BRICS nation has contributed more.
To be honest, I think the whole UNSC permanent member status is just silly in a democratic institution and the fundamental failure of the architecture of UN. If India, Japan or Germany is allow into P5, ALL other countries will want to be in for the special privileges. Why give special decision-reversing-game-changing rights to only very selected countries? If UN really wants to live up to its function, it needs to do away with the "Permanent member in UNSC" and the associated special rights afforded these nations. Just revoke P5 status or even better the whole UNSC and have all security issues talk in General Assembly only.
AeroEngineer, you have been here long enough to know the rules.
As a result of your racist comments (indicating that Chinese are superior for simply being Chinese, which sounds an awful lot like a particular sentiment certain Germans had in the 1920s-1940s), and for advocating nuclear war and destruction, you are receiving a four week suspension.
DO NOT POST during that time...if you do, you will be banned permanently.
DO NOT ARGUE with or RESPOND to this moderation. That too will result in permanent banning
Members themselves have reported this behavior. Think about your behavior, and at the end of the four weeks if you want to continue being a part of SD...come back. But if you do, follow the rules and DO NOT post such things in the future.
As a result of your racist comments (indicating that Chinese are superior for simply being Chinese, which sounds an awful lot like a particular sentiment certain Germans had in the 1920s-1940s), and for advocating nuclear war and destruction, you are receiving a four week suspension.
DO NOT POST during that time...if you do, you will be banned permanently.
DO NOT ARGUE with or RESPOND to this moderation. That too will result in permanent banning
Members themselves have reported this behavior. Think about your behavior, and at the end of the four weeks if you want to continue being a part of SD...come back. But if you do, follow the rules and DO NOT post such things in the future.
Last edited:
PS:
BTW, you members who "liked" AeroEngineer's racist posts and his post advocating nuclear war are on thin ice here on SD.
This behavior is COMPLETELY BEYOND THE PALE for our forum. I would expect that any member in good standing would not want to be associated with such posts or such behavior or sentiments.
So consider what you are "liking," in this case it groups you in bad company.{/color]
BTW, you members who "liked" AeroEngineer's racist posts and his post advocating nuclear war are on thin ice here on SD.
This behavior is COMPLETELY BEYOND THE PALE for our forum. I would expect that any member in good standing would not want to be associated with such posts or such behavior or sentiments.
So consider what you are "liking," in this case it groups you in bad company.{/color]
Last edited:
I think the P5, will forever be the P5 until the dissolution of UN.
China will never allow Japan (through veto or other means) to be part of the P5, even though Japan is historically the second largest financial contributor to UN budget. Now because of the increasing closeness of Japan and India and India with US (Japan and India both vouch for each other for the UNSC seat back a few years ago), which threatens China's strategic outlook, China will forever blocking both's entry into UNSC.
At least Japan has a good reason being it is the second largest contribution UN, India on the other hand is not even in top 17, its contribution to UN is so insignificant even a bankrupt Spain, a small third world economy like Mexico contributed more than India. Even Brazil another BRICS nation has contributed more.
To be honest, I think the whole UNSC permanent member status is just silly in a democratic institution and the fundamental failure of the architecture of UN. If India, Japan or Germany is allow into P5, ALL other countries will want to be in for the special privileges. Why give special decision-reversing-game-changing rights to only very selected countries? If UN really wants to live up to its function, it needs to do away with the "Permanent member in UNSC" and the associated special rights afforded these nations. Just revoke P5 status or even better the whole UNSC and have all security issues talk in General Assembly only.
The UN is established after WWII. The permanent members represents the victor parties of WWII who wrote the rules. The permanent member also all have thermonuclear weapons. If you want to challenge the status quo, I think you'll have to chose one of them to take on and win, then you can replace it and have your say too.
As for Japan, they pay to have US forces stationed in their country. What does that tell you?
plawolf
Lieutenant General
By that measure, Afghanistan should get a permenant seat since they have sent the British, Russians, and soon the Americans packing.
But joking aside, that's a very dangerous sentiment to have, because that promotes war, and is in effect a form of might=right, which I am firmly against.
The existing powers should make necessary concessions to accommodate new, rising powers without having to be pushed to do so, never mind forced to do so through war and military defeat.
However, the rising powers would also need to adjust their own behaviour and ambitions to make it possible for the established powers to accept and accommodate their rise.
Japan is too much a vassal state of the US still be warranted a seat, since that will merely give Washington more power.
India is more independent, but far too pugnacious in its attitude towards China, and have far too inflated an opinion of itself.
Rather than work to earn a permenant seat, the Indians seems to take the attitude that they deserve one as almost a birthright. Not so.
UN or any other international organization cannot be democratic. They are organizations of states that will not act as equal because they are very unequal. Therefore they have very different interests. Compare Malta and Nepal with US and China.
Ultra
Junior Member
When UN was established back in 1945, only USA had nuclear weapon. It took 4 years before USSR got theirs, and 7 years before British got their own, 15 years until the french got theirs, and 19 years until mainland chinese go theirs. Another thing was that PRC was not recognized by UN until 1971 - the both the seat in General Assembly and UNSC was held by Taiwan (Republic of China).