Amazon.com Widgets

Should India be a permanent member of the UN Security Council?

  • India on un council

    India should be on because it has the second largest population. It already would have been on the un security council but china keeps vetoing it because it they are jealous. It just makes sense for a large country with a booming economy to be on the un security council

  • India and the UN Security Council

    India has one of the largest populations of any country in the world. The country, although still developing, is influential in world affairs. Including India in the UN Security Council only makes sense. Countries with large population that are influential in world affairs should play significant roles in the United Nations.

  • No, obviously not

    As seen with the recent example, a bunch of Pakistan terrorists killed 18 Indian Army members in the night. This made India to retaliate right back, and enhance the building of on rivers which lead to Pakistan. India is almost in a state of war, even evicting people which live on the villages that are on the border of Pakistan and India. How can a country which reacts this much for the loss of 18 Army members, who's job it is to fight, and essentially die for the country, be relied upon for the security council? Compare this with the U.S., when they were attacked by terrorists they didn't declare war on the countries, but on the terrorists and terrorism itself. They got approval from the U.N., and other groups, and didn't start fighting by itself.

  • No, they are a secondary player.

    No, India should not be a permanent member of the UN Security Council, because their security interests are not at the forefront of the world's security issues. India depends on other, more developed nations for its defense. India is not one of the countries that constantly poses a threat to others. There is no reason to have them on the Council permanently.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.