will india get permanent membership in unsc? which countries are opposite to this and why?

Answer 1

THis is how the Chinese feel

China in principle supports the expansion of the United Nations Security Council and even India's inclusion in it if the new entrants are not given the right of veto.

This was stated by Li Shaoxian, the vice-president Of influential think-tank China Institute of Contemporary International Relations, while talking to a delegation of newsmen accompanying Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz on a visit to China. He also underlined the need for reforming the United Nations in a post-cold war world without delay.

The Director of the Centre for Counter-terrorism Studies (CICIR), Mr Li Wei, said: "India is a country of over one billion people. We have to admit that India has some claim to a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council. China has actually said that it understands the Indian wish for a permanent seat in the Security Council.

However, there are at least three requirements that India should meet before putting forward its claim. One, it should ensure stability in South Asia. Two, it should have friendly relations with its neighbours. Third, it should contribute towards world peace."

He quoted the Indian foreign minister as saying recently that if India got a seat in the Security Council without a right of veto, it would not accept it. "If India sticks to this position, I don't see India becoming a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council any time soon," he said.

Answering a question, the vice-president of the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations, Mr Li Shaoxian, said that Beijing would not use fast increasing trade volume with India as a "tool to resolve disputes between New Delhi and Islamabad. China's trade volume with India is nearly four times as high as its trade with Pakistan.

"In principle, China will do all it can to promote a dialogue between arch rivals in South Asia. But it will not take advantage of its augmented trade with India to press for a dialogue with Pakistan. Such a policy would not be effective," he argued.

He said that the Chinese government backed the peace initiatives taken recently by President Pervez Musharraf. An aide to the CICIR vice-president argued that the difference in China's trade volumes with India and Pakistan was due to their populations and market sizes. However, the on-going peace talks between Islamabad and New Delhi were an encouraging sign, he said.

The Chinese government appreciated new suggestions announced by President Musharraf for the resolution of the Kashmir issue. Similarly, Beijing has also called for a new thinking in New Delhi on this thorny issue," he explained.

Shedding light on the close relationship between Pakistan and China, he recalled that when two years ago President Musharraf had made a stopover in Beijing, the Chinese President, Hu Jintao, had asked him to take a couple of fresh initiatives on Kashmir. "Similarly, our foreign minister recently told the Indian prime minister that it must improve its relationship with Pakistan."

He rejected the impression that China had remained a silent spectator while the United States invaded Iraq. "Beijing opposed the American invasion of Iraq. The US wants to use war to eliminate terrorism. But this policy is not effective. Besides, the US is taking advantage of its war on terror to sell its values to the rest of the world."

He said that China was involved in the reconstruction of Iraq, adding that it was also trying to minimize the influence of the Iraq war on the international community which had been divided on the issue.

He dismissed as untrue reports in the media about human rights abuses in the western region of China. He said that some of the reports appearing the American press contain their perceptions and were at times "arrogant."

Answer 2

confident. India theory it replaced right into a right away wild card, mutually as its extra like the carrot for the donkey. Make no mistake, US in no way does something that doesn't income it by any skill. in my opinion, i think the US gov poorly represents its human beings. the US commoners are exceedingly lots natured, mutually as the diplomats and commoners are egocentric morons.