If India was as powerful China could it gain a permanent seat on the UN Security Council

If India was as powerful China could it gain a permanent seat on the UN Security Council

  • yes

    Votes: 25 39.7%
  • no

    Votes: 38 60.3%

  • Total voters
    63
Say India gets to China level of development by modern time

Could the country gain a permanent seat on the UN Security Council
 
In all seriousness the general trend has been "winners of the last World War get the special perks in the new international organization", so if India was merely economically powerful it wouldn't be enough, and an India as militarily powerful as China would still have few options.
 
India could easily argue they did more than France in WWII.

And if India is mostly peaceful, has a GDP more than 5 times Britain or France, and cultural influence that scales to its GDP increase, not incorporating India would undermine the system IMO and risk a splinter organization being made.
 
Last edited:
You could see India and Britain as Mainland China and Taiwan, where the 1940s separation was followed by the previous regime continuing ruling the smaller entity and having a permanent seat in the UNSC, until the mainland is powerful enough to motivate a switch between them.
 
You could see India and Britain as Mainland China and Taiwan, where the 1940s separation was followed by the previous regime continuing ruling the smaller entity and having a permanent seat in the UNSC, until the mainland is powerful enough to motivate a switch between them.

That would absolutely not fly. Taiwan was and is ruled by the Republic of China, which maintains its claims to the Chinese mainland in opposition to the PRC's claim. There was never any dispute that the seat belonged to the Chinese government, just which you believed was the rightful government. For the other SC members to allow that, you would need a UN that's either broken down so completely or so dominated by one member that it's more or less irrelevant.
 
That would absolutely not fly. Taiwan was and is ruled by the Republic of China, which maintains its claims to the Chinese mainland in opposition to the PRC's claim. There was never any dispute that the seat belonged to the Chinese government, just which you believed was the rightful government. For the other SC members to allow that, you would need a UN that's either broken down so completely or so dominated by one member that it's more or less irrelevant.
But we could angle the issue to make the British seat be for the British empire, and India is the largest remnant of that entity, especially if the UK is split in the near future. ( Sorry, forgot that this is post-1900, not chat or future history.)
 
Say India gets to China level of development by modern time. Could the country gain a permanent seat on the UN Security Council?
Unlikely I'd say. Aside from the details of how it would be carried out as has already been mentioned China could well veto them simply because they don't want the competition. If they're both vying for second place in global affairs the permanent seat gives China a large advantage.
 
But we could angle the issue to make the British seat be for the British empire, and India is the largest remnant of that entity, especially if the UK is split in the near future. ( Sorry, forgot that this is post-1900, not chat or future history.)

Sure, if the UK is just a complete non-entity. It's just hard to imagine how that happens. MAYBE some kind of early-on nuclear war (before the huge soviet buildup) that sees most of Europe reduced to bombed-out husks, with a struggling USA trying to patch together a ruling coalition from untouched 2nd/3rd world nations. China's acquiescence could be acquired in this scenario for a peace treaty and postwar economic aid.
 
It might be possible for India to get support from China, but then at least France would probably still oppose it (maybe not too openly) since increasing the number of permanent members would inevitably dilute French influence on the Security Council.
 
It might be possible for India to get support from China, but then at least France would probably still oppose it (maybe not too openly) since increasing the number of permanent members would inevitably dilute French influence on the Security Council.
False, right now the French official policy is to support a reform. So they support India (and Germany, Brazil and Japan) into getting a permanent seat
 

Khanzeer

Banned
My thoughts are there should be 3 tier of permanent members
1st tier usa russia and china
2nd tier france Germany Britain and japan
3rd tier brazil india Indonesia south Africa sweeden Nigeria Australia

Only 1 +2 +3 votes should count as a VETO

British Commonwealth should be abolished
 
My thoughts are there should be 3 tier of permanent members
1st tier usa russia and china
2nd tier france Germany Britain and japan
3rd tier brazil india Indonesia south Africa sweeden Nigeria Australia

Only 1 +2 +3 votes should count as a VETO

British Commonwealth should be abolished

Not going to happen, the US for one isn't going to let others stop their veto. The UK and France aren't going to allow themselves to drop to the 2nd tier. All wouldn't allow that many members to have it.
 
It is my understanding that there is a debate at the UN about changing the membership of the Security Council. Germany would like a seat. Also India and Japan would like a seat. Depending on how Brazil is doing economically they want a seat. Africa would like a seat. This is one of those debates that will go on forever. None of the current members want to lose the prestige of being a permanent member. Also if they do just one seat then you have several sore losers.
 
The UN SC is the club of the World War 2 victors, nothing more and nothing less, and it will remain in place in this form until the next big shake up of the world.

Any ideas of reform face challenges, for example above mentioned Nigera, Brazil and Germany are militarily non-entities, their input on global security is irrelevant because they can not influence it one way or another, worse, they're influenced by stronger, forign powers themselves. Japan would face challenges by a good portion of East Asia and a Chinese veto because of very obvious and very good reasons - do you really want an SC seat in the hands of Nippon Kaigi?
 
Top