• As we are all aware, India, Japan and other countries those who are potentially eligible for permanent members in UNSC being denied to become so in spite of their active participation.

  • Though India had turned it down during 1955 by the reckless foreign policies of Nehru and his advisors, can UN & US do something now in 2015?

  • 1
    Why they would want to do it? – Anixx Jun 18 '15 at 10:32
  • 2
    Because India was destroyed during the second battle of Earth. ...Wait, different UNSC. – PointlessSpike Jun 19 '15 at 12:35

I am not sure Nehru's politics had that much to do with it. Current permanent members have very few reasons to add a new one and even talking seriously about India joining would open a huge can of worms.

What about Japan as you mentioned? What about Germany (not nuclear – but Japan isn't either – but a large European state that certainly wants to see itself on a par with the UK and France) or Brazil (large state too and vocal about the need to broaden representation)?

If you add those four, it will be even more difficult to get anything approved at all. And then you have to contend with the opposition of the “next in line”, countries like Spain, Pakistan, Mexico, etc. that might not be quite as large or powerful but have reasons to be skeptical towards their neighbours and their ambitions.

Importantly, the UN Security Council was never intended as a sort of fair representation of anything nor is it a reward for some sort of political significance. It exists for one reason only: Without it, the current permanent members (which include what were at the time the two superpowers and two large colonial empires) would never have gotten on board.

By contrast, India is in the UN (quite happy to participate in its peacekeeping missions, incidentally) and not going to leave anytime soon. So it has very little leverage.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    I object. Barack Obama, Tony Abbott and many other leaders support India's permanent recognition to UNSC. What do they think? Do you know India is the second largest supplier of manpower to UNSC. Read this and this. Finally, India has been continuously elected 7 for UNSC. – anshabhi Jul 12 '15 at 12:53
  • You may have more – anshabhi Jul 12 '15 at 12:54
  • 1
    @anshabhi I already alluded to India's contribution to UN peacekeeping missions in my last paragraph but that's actually a very good example of the reasons why India is in a weak position. You don't get something like a seat to the security council as a reward because you are a good world citizen, you get it when you have leverage and India has very little when it obviously has no intent to pull its troops and actually profits from these missions financially. Note that I certainly do not mean to justify this situation but the question is not whether it's fair, it's why nothing happens. – Relaxed Jul 12 '15 at 14:26
  • Of all the players, the US is probably the one that has least to lose in this but even Obama's support is half-hearted at best. The US knows it's a can of worms and isn't pushing very strongly for any reform. If you read your own source carefully, you should notice that the “in the context of a variety of other important reforms to the operations of the United Nations” quote gives away the fact that it's not a priority or something the US realistically sees happening any time soon. And Tony Abbott simply does not count. That's how diplomacy works… – Relaxed Jul 12 '15 at 14:27

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .