Twenty years ago, India, Japan, Germany, and Brazil put forward a proposal for the four countries to join the permanent membership of the UN Security Council, which was called "advancing and retreating together."
Twenty years later, these four countries have not given up and plan to push for "Security Council reform" on the occasion of the 80th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations (2025).
Of the four countries, India is confident that it can become a permanent member.
India, an ancient and self-confident civilization, with its nationalist sentiments and sense of great power, stems from a strong cultural self-confidence. India believes that it is only a matter of time before it becomes a world power like China, as it believes that it has enough strength and potential.
Indians aspire to world power status, which means not only economic power, but also a voice in international affairs, such as permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council and a veto.
However, the 1962 war of self-defense on the border sobered Indians for 30 years, and they realized that there were many challenges to overcome to achieve this goal. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the rise of its own strength, especially the possession of the atomic bomb, India's "dream of world power" has once again become more determined.
India has once again developed unrealistic illusions about its position in the international community, and "the 21 st century will be India's century" has become the consensus of the majority of Indians.
India not only wants to become a permanent member, but also insists that it cannot accept the proposal of several other "permanent allies" to become a permanent member, but not a veto for the time being.
Former Indian Foreign Minister Natwar Singh publicly declared in 2004 that "India cannot accept a permanent seat on the Security Council without veto power." "India believes that unlike the other three countries, Germany and Japan are defeated countries in World War II and have natural disadvantages, while Brazil "played soy sauce" in World War II, only has the status of a South American power and lacks international influence.
Although India colluded with the Japanese for independence during World War II, many Indians were recruited by the British to fight during World War II, so India considered itself a "victorious country".
India has nuclear **, why does China have a veto and India does not?
India has the support of four permanent members, including the United Kingdom, France and the United States, in its bid for permanent membership in the United Nations. According to UN rules, an increase in permanent membership requires the support of more than 2 3 member states, and a negative vote from any of the five permanent members will prevent the application from succeeding.
Therefore, once the P5 all agree, it will be easier to get more than 2 3 countries to support India's aspirations. In fact, Britain and France have made clear their support for India, and the US Democratic, Republican, and Russian foreign ministers have publicly expressed their support for India as a permanent member.
However, it should be noted that both Russian and American support is purposeful. For example, in 2010, the United States made a high-profile statement of support for India to become a permanent member of the Security Council in order to obtain orders from India.
Trump's visit to India brought back a large order of 24 "Sea Hawks" and promised to fully support India's "normalization". Two years later, Modi made the request again at the UN General Assembly, and Biden also expressed his support.
However, the United States vetoed India's sixth application for "normalization", in stark contrast to the promise made two years ago. To make matters worse, the law passed by the United Nations stipulates that each country has only five chances to apply for "permanent membership".
Although India is regarded as a "hollow child", the United States and Russia have made it clear that they support its "normalization". India's current goal is to "get done" with China to ensure that it achieves its goal of "normalization" by 2025.
Could it be that the United States, Russia, Britain, France, and other countries can change China's attitude by continuing to "play"? The fact is that China is not easy to "handle". Although Sino-Indian relations have been sluggish in the past 2020, China will not support India's entry into the permanent membership even if Sino-Indian relations improve.
China has always emphasized increasing the voice of developing countries, and India, although it is also a developing country, is also a hegemonic country with wolf ambitions.
In contrast, China is more inclined to support Brazil or African countries as permanent members, such as South Africa. In this regard, UN Secretary-General Guterres' statement on the 20th can be said to speak to China's heart, he said: "We cannot accept that Africa still does not have a permanent member of the Security Council. ”
Indeed, Africa is the second largest continent in the world, with 54 countries, the largest number of any continent. In contrast, Europe, with 44 countries (excluding Kosovo), has only three permanent members, and the regional distribution is uneven.
Therefore, it makes more sense to have a permanent member of the Security Council among African countries than to have India "normalized".