Does India deserve a Permanent seat in UN Security Council?
Posted in Group Discussion (GD) Topics with Answers, Total Reads: 487
Five people are having a discussion on the topic: Balaguru, Hasa, Prakash, Avinash, Hari
Category: Defence, Economy, Politics
Group Discussion Starts
Balaguru: Good evening friends, today the topic that we have is “Is permanent seat in United Nations Security Council is necessary for India?” UNSC has five permanent members as of now which are The United States of America, Russia, Kingdom, France and China. They have all the power to conduct all the necessary functions when others have minimum say in the functioning of the UNSC. India along with some other developing nations is trying to get the permanent seat there so we can have our say in world policies.
Hasa: We should look at the workings of the UNSC. It has the task of the maintenance of internal peace and security and also deciding the new nations who are about to join the United Nations. In a word, we can say that when national governments secure their parameters, it is a body which act as a world level government which ensures peace all over the world. India is home to more than 1.2 billion people and second most populous country in the world. Any decision that will be taken for the world peace will affect our country hence having a permanent seat in UNSC will help to look after our own country along with peace in the world.
Prakash : Exactly. Our governments pay a lot of money around $16 million to keep this organization working. When our own people are paying for the functioning of the UN then it is their right to have a say in its working. Apart from it, we have sent more than 150000 troops for more than 40 peacekeeping missions by UN. More than 7000 soldiers were sent in 2014 which was highest among all the nations who sent their forces. We have nuclear weapons like any other permanent members of UN. We are the best performing economy as of now and after Chinese slowdown, India is expected to emerge as the world leader. What else do we need to become the permanent member of UN?
Avinash : Look. Nobody is denying the fact that India is doing a lot of works for the peacekeeping around the world. But our motives were never to gain the advantages of our contribution. The first prime minister of India, Mr Jawaharlal Nehru declined the permanent seat in UN which shows our true spirit of maintaining peace in world but not a seat. Second thing, having nuclear weapon is not a selection criterion for UN. In 1945, only USA had nuclear weapons while other permanent members didn’t have any nuclear weapon. China developed first nuclear weapon in 1964 so we cannot say that being a nuclear nation, India deserves to be a permanent member of UN.
Hari : But what about the contributions that we are making in the peacekeeping missions and the working of the UN. It cannot be ignored. The main question is do we need a permanent seat in UN. I don’t say that our efforts for these missions are solely based on our desire to be a permanent member but it is a thought that we cannot ignore. We are spending a lot of money on these missions. If we have a permanent seat in UNSC then we can also direct how to use these resources.
Hasa: I think you are right. One more thing is here that we should consider that the world conditions are changed around the globe since 1945. The organization was a result of the world war 2. At that time, none of the defeated nations were given any place in UN but now Germany is amongst the few who want a permanent seat in UNSC. Second thing is that whatever our prime minister did in 1950, he did it to get settle Kashmir issue once and for all. But no such thing could happen because of the intervention of UK. Even Mr Nehru expressed his disappointment over the same issue. It was a mistake that has already cost us more than 60 years and there is no solution in foreseeable future. We should not repeat the same mistake.
Prakash : The five members pay most of the expenses of UN. If India gets a seat, then we would be one of the people who will have to deal with all these expenses. Even if we will spend all this money, we should not forget that we are a developing nation and seeking a lot foreign investment in country. A permanent seat will come with responsibilities and we would not be able to have diplomatic view for every single case. Strong stands against few countries can cost us a lot of money which will be a bigger concern for our economy. Most part of our defence technology along with a lot more things are imported so we should choose our future carefully. Israel is one of the biggest importers of defence technology, what we have to take a stand in Israel Palestine war. What options do we have other than being diplomatic or biased? Both of the options will not go well for us.
Avinash : We should not focus on this as the most important one. At least not till we reduce our dependencies on other nations. It will be more beneficial for India if it use the current scenario as the positive thing and try to get a sustainable path of development. We have more than 60 percentage of population which is ready to join the workforce. We can use it to become a developed economy and then we can look at this opportunity.
India is developing nation. We still need to take care of a lot of matters before going for a permanent seat in UNSC but obviously we cannot repeat the same mistake as we did in 1950. We can lead the world and should take the responsibility. It is a decision that can change a lot of equations for India and we have to choose carefully our option.
Facts related to the topic
1. Mr Jawaharlal Nehru, the first prime minister of India has declined the seat of UNSC in 1950.
2. India spent $16 million budget on UNSC to help them working.
3. India has sent more than 150000 troops for 43 peacekeeping missions.
4. In 2014, with more than 7000 soldiers India has sent the highest number of troops for peacekeeping mission.
5. In 1945 at the time of formation, USA was the only permanent member who had nuclear weapons.