Pakistan Questions India’s Bid For Permanent Seat In UNSC

[faithfulguy]

lol Indians in UN doesn't even feel shame to ask for that much?

BTW a country who doesn't even consider UN resolution on Kashmir dont even deserve to be a member of UN let aside permanent seat, Pakistan and other civilized countries should question India's membership in UN.

Actually, the world should question India’s legitimacy as a country. India deserve to split up into multiple pieces.

 

[Jackdaws]

gigiddy!!

Anyhow can You Name two current members of the UN who beside sharing borders also share territorial dispute?

indias permanent members bid is like a Spider trying to crawl out of the bowl only to get flushed every Time

Spain-Portugal. France-Italy. US-Canada. UK-Ireland.
A lot more in Africa and South America.
Always helps when you know what you are talking about.

Actually, the world should question India’s legitimacy as a country. India deserve to split up into multiple pieces.

Lol. Question away. More Chinese material for us to laugh at.

 

[Skull and Bones]

Actually, the world should question India’s legitimacy as a country. India deserve to split up into multiple pieces.

I agree, can we expect to see an article on the subject on global times shortly?

 

[El Sidd]

Spain-Portugal. France-Italy. US-Canada. UK-Ireland.
A lot more in Africa and South America.
Always helps when you know what you are talking about.

Sorry Jack should have been more precise.

Current UNSC permanent members do no share borders nor territorial disputes. India and China have territorial disputes which are not going away any time soon

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Even in your own article it says Pakistan and Italy are against expansion of UNSC permanent seats with veto power.

My post #24 said this:

"The United for Consensus group that Pakistan is a part of is proposing an expansion of the non-permanent seats in the UNSC."

I was clear in stating that the UFC supports an expansion of non-permanent seats in the UNSC.

That said, my view is that the long term compromise will likely be the addition of both permanent (without veto) and non-permanent seats. This is certainly not an ideal position because the concept of having a select few permanent members (with our without veto) is a discriminatory and supremacist approach. It is ironic that India, claiming to be the largest democracy in the world, is so hell bent on a continuation of a discriminatory & non-democratic system in the UN.

 

[VCheng]

My post #24 said this:

"The United for Consensus group that Pakistan is a part of is proposing an expansion of the non-permanent seats in the UNSC."

I was clear in stating that the UFC supports an expansion of non-permanent seats in the UNSC.

That said, my view is that the long term compromise will likely be the addition of both permanent (without veto) and non-permanent seats. This is certainly not an ideal position because the concept of having a select few permanent members (with our without veto) is a discriminatory and supremacist approach. It is ironic that India, claiming to be the largest democracy in the world, is so hell bent on a continuation of a discriminatory & non-democratic system in the UN.

Sorry to remind you but any news about my thread ban, as you indicated?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Sorry to remind you but any news about my thread ban, as you indicated?

Try it now. Haven't worked with thread bans before so not sure if I did it correctly

 

[Sully3]

its been nerarly 2 decades of slaps on indias face regarding the membership but they still dont learn.

How many indian PM's have tried for NSG how many times has china slapped them on the face

 

[VCheng]

Try it now. Haven't worked with thread bans before so not sure if I did it correctly

Thank you, but no luck. Cannot post in that thread for some reason without any notification.

 

[MultaniGuy]

My post #24 said this:

"The United for Consensus group that Pakistan is a part of is proposing an expansion of the non-permanent seats in the UNSC."

I was clear in stating that the UFC supports an expansion of non-permanent seats in the UNSC.

That said, my view is that the long term compromise will likely be the addition of both permanent (without veto) and non-permanent seats. This is certainly not an ideal position because the concept of having a select few permanent members (with our without veto) is a discriminatory and supremacist approach. It is ironic that India, claiming to be the largest democracy in the world, is so hell bent on a continuation of a discriminatory & non-democratic system in the UN.

Even if you are right, people only care about permanent seats in UNSC with veto power.

That is what people care about.

Non-permanent seats that's rotational!

My post #24 said this:

"The United for Consensus group that Pakistan is a part of is proposing an expansion of the non-permanent seats in the UNSC."

I was clear in stating that the UFC supports an expansion of non-permanent seats in the UNSC.

That said, my view is that the long term compromise will likely be the addition of both permanent (without veto) and non-permanent seats. This is certainly not an ideal position because the concept of having a select few permanent members (with our without veto) is a discriminatory and supremacist approach. It is ironic that India, claiming to be the largest democracy in the world, is so hell bent on a continuation of a discriminatory & non-democratic system in the UN.

And since when was the UNSC about justice? It was all about supremacist and discriminatory approach from the beginning.

UNSC is the victors of WW2.
UNSC permanent seats with veto power will not be expanded any time soon.