Login/Sign Up




India should get a permanent seat in the UN Security Council
Politics

shockwave
Nov 09, 2010
8 votes
3 debaters
2
1


+ Add Argument

4
YES


shockwave
Nov 09, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
India has the world's second largest population and is the world's largest liberal democracy. It is also the world's eleventh largest economy and fourth largest in terms of purchasing power parity. Currently, India maintains the world's third largest active armed force. India is the third largest contributor of troops to United Nations Peacekeeping missions.

India's bid is backed by permanent members France, Russia, United Kingdom and United States. Also, several countries and organizations such as Bangladesh, Chile, Australia, Czech Republic, and the African Union have openly supported India's candidacy.

Though initially opposed by the Chinese due to geo-political reasons (China being an ally of India's arch-rival Pakistan and the country also having fought a brief war with India in 1962), recent history has turned China's official support for India's candidature from negative to neutral to positive, in correlation with stronger economic ties. On 11 April 2005 China announced it would support India's bid for a permanent seat, but without a veto.

Taking into account its huge population and growing economic and political clout, India is a strong contender to clinch a permanent seat. Another factor which bolsters India's candidature is the fact it has participated in several of its activities, including UN operations in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Cyprus, Cambodia, Yemen, Somalia, Rwanda , Namibia, Sinai peninsula, among others.

*Sorry if that was a copy from wikipedia. It was just so well written.

 
shockwave
Nov 09, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: stof Show

well, then that would be a different debate altogether, and i would support your point in that. But since permanent members in UNSC exist, in such a system, i would want India to become a permanent member, for reasons pointed out before.

 
+ Add Argument

4
NO


stof
Nov 09, 2010
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: shockwave Show

i strongly believe that the opposite is what should be done, we shouldn’t have any permanent member in the UN security council, either all are or none is, no nation is better that any nation, no privileges at all that’s equality and nothing else.

 
sisko52744
Nov 15, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: shockwave Show

I think that supporting an additional member would be equivalent to supporting the continuation of the institution. Not trying to be inflammatory, I would give an analogy with racism. If a law supported one race over all others, it would seem counter-intuitive to me to argue "Race X (but not Race Z) should have as much rights as Race Y" instead of arguing "All races are equal and no race should have more rights than another." As is the case with India, it is, I think, not only morally correct but also quite practical.

 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

britain death government politics uk 2008 2009 9/11 abortion Afghanistan america Arizona AU bad Baha BBC bias Biden boycott Britain bush canada capitalism Censorship cheney children China Christianity church cia Clinton Cold War commonwealth communism Communist congress conservative conservatives conspiracy Constitution Corruption country crime death debate defeat Democracy democrat Democrats detention discrimination drugs economics economy education election elections Ethics EU Europe Euthanasia evil Fascism feminism Fight France Frankie freedom Freedom of speech freedoms french gay Gaza george bush Georgia global global warming goverment government Great Britain Guantanamo Bay guns Health Health Care Healthcare Hillary hillary clinton History Hitler homosexual human rights illegal illegal immigration immigration india iran Iranian presidential election iraq islam Israel japan Jewish juggernaut justice Karl law laws legal legislation liberal lies marijuana marriage mccain media Medicine mexico middle east military monarchy money moral morals Mugabe Muslim Muslims news North Korea nuclear nukes Obama objective Oil opression Osama pakistan Palestine Palin Panda paradox parliament peace petition philosophy policy politicians Politics polygamy power president Prime Minister prisoners protest Public Affairs punishment queen race racism religion republican Republicans revolution right rights Rove russia Saddam Sarkozy Security sex socialism Society South Korea sovereignty Supreme court tax taxes terror terrorism terrorist terrorists Tibet torture Troop U.S. uk un united nations united states us usa vancam vote Votes voting war washington weapons wmd women world wrong