India and the struggle at the Security Council
May 12, 2017 In International Policy and Society Policy and Society
Narendra Modi, Prime Minister of India, speaks at the UN General Assembly in New York City Saturday. Addressing the question of peace talks with Pakistan, Modi said they must happen “without the shadow of terrorism.
India has been a critical part of the United Nations ever since its conception. Yet, after countless tries to be a permanent member it has been denied every single time. Is it time to give up?
While it is arguable that India has completely given up its bid for being a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, there has been a noticeable decline in their urgency to join it.
This decline can be traced back a couple of years to when it started. Though there is no official report or statistic of this, I observed the movement going passive in 2013.
There are a few reasons for this-
- Voting– As a general rule of the United Nations, the inclusion of a permanent member in UNSC would only happen with the support of a) 2/3s of the General Assembly (basically 2/3s of all 193 countries) and b) the support of all P5 members. While the first may be relatively easy to obtain, the second criteria is what breaks things. If any one country uses their veto (says no) then the bid is declined by default. While USA, France and UK have shown subtle signs of acceptance for India on the council, China remains relatively in denial.
” data-medium-file=”” data-large-file=”” class=”alignnone size-full wp-image-405″ src=”../../../../2017/05/united_nations_security_council.jpg” alt=”United_Nations_Security_Council”/> - G4 Nations– It’s hard to say whether or not the G4 alliance has brought India any considerable gain in recent years. The G4 nations comprising Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan are four countries which support each other’s bids for permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council. The group has an underlying philosophy that were there to be any inclusion of permanent members in the UN it would either be the entire G4 or none of it. This limits India considerably as China opposes the inclusion of Japan, which is a part of the G4 and therefore, opposes the G4 as a whole. As aforementioned, no decision can be taken without a P5 country’s vote.
- Opposition– Despite their support base which consists approximately of 90 countries, there is still significant opposition to India and the G4. This is carried out most significantly by Uniting for Consensus. Uniting for Consensus (UfC) is a movement, nicknamed the Coffee Club, that developed in the 1990s in opposition to the possible expansion of permanent seats in the United Nations Security Council. Under the leadership of Italy, it aims to counter the bids for permanent seats proposed by G4 nations. There are around 15 members here which opposes India’s bid. While this wouldn’t necessarily present a struggle in terms of votes, it would definitely be a political obstacle, especially considering that the group has members such as Canada, South Korea, Italy and Spain.
By: David McDonald
![](https://globalmillennial.org/2017/05/12/"http://globalmillennial.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/f705c-pasted2bimage2b02b252842529.png")
People think that Trump will transfer his business savvy into helping America’s economy “Become Great Again”, but what many people don’t realize is that the President has little control over the economy. Rather, it is Trump’s plan for America’s foreign policy that will have a more profound impact on the superpower.
Trump plans to build a wall along the American-Mexican border
Whenever Trump is brought up in a conversation, it is likely that the border wall along Mexico will be a popular topic of interest.
He makes his intentions clear, which resonates with people. However, Trump’s statements about Mexican immigrants show his lack of respect for Mexico and its people; this is not a quality that a possible future President should have.
During the announcement of his presidential candidacy in June 2015, Trump let America know that, “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending the best. They’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems. They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime. They’re rapists and some, I assume, are good people, but I speak to border guards and they’re telling us what we’re getting.”
In this instance, it isn’t his foreign policy strategy of building a wall that is so concerning, it is how he is treating Mexican immigrants.
The fact that Trump is trying to make it as difficult as possible for Mexican immigrants to start a new life in America speaks on his controversial foreign policy rules. It is one thing to build a wall to ensure only legal immigrants come into the country, but it is another thing to call Mexican immigrants “rapists” and “drug dealers” in an attempt to make them look like bad people. It is this combination of Trump’s unprofessional demeanor, and a highly aggressive foreign policy that will hinder America’s relationship with Mexico if he gets elected into office.
This isn’t the first time Trump has signaled out a group of people and attempted to deny access for them into America.
Back at a rally in Charleston, D.C. Trump let everyone know that he is, “calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States”, due to the fear of terrorist attacks on American soil.
Again, Trump points out a group of people, this time a religion, and attaches a stereotype that will perpetuate fear in Americans. He claims that ISIS is a major threat to America, and how they must ban Muslims from entering the country due to terrorist threats.
It is clear that Trump injects fear into the hearts of Americans and uses that as fuel to gain votes. Although it has worked thus far, the concern is how he will act if elected into office. It is likely that Trump will continue to place stereotypes on various ethnicities and religions and by doing so, he will jeopardize America’s relationships with various countries.
He is aggressive, disrespectful, and unprofessional. However, the most worrisome of all is Trump’s ability to act without thinking about the consequences.
Trump will establish China as an economic threat to America
A large portion of Trump’s foreign policy is targeted at China, as he sees them as an “economic threat” to America. Probably because China appears to be on track to surpass the United States as the world’s largest economy sometime in the 2020s. In fact, China may pull ahead of the U.S. as early as 2016, which has Trump and the rest of America on high alert.
If elected into office, Trump will implement a foreign policy strategy that will ultimately slow down China’s economic progress.
Trump’s word choice is aggressive. He doesn’t want to ‘negotiate’ with China, he wants to “retaliate”. This aggressive nature transfers to every aspect of his foreign policy, and is precisely what will jeopardize foreign relationships.
It is essential to understand the Chinese currency system before making any assumptions on Trump’s strategy. China’s economic policy is based around managing the yuan exchange rate to benefit its exports. China does not have a floating exchange rate that is determined by market forces, as is the case with most advanced economies. Instead, it pegs its currency, the yuan (or renminbi), to the U.S. dollar. The yuan was pegged at 8.28 to the dollar for more than a decade starting in 1994. It was only in July 2005, because of pressure from China’s major trading partners, that the yuan was permitted to appreciate by 2.1% against the dollar, and was also moved to a “managed float” system against a basket of major currencies that included the U.S. dollar. By doing so, foreign buyers could buy more renminbi and, therefore, purchase more Chinese goods. This means more business for Chinese producers and more jobs for Chinese workers in those industries.
![](https://globalmillennial.org/files/"https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/4qkcacz01vhewdp98xqj8fbmf2mzouqloa54r5g3-9bo0gxwhzcbheqnq9aqt7l6bnloavq_fxofdre83ooqkcskzavma1yyx0fbsd4dlwggc7ivlmjtqt4hetzxglnb-oa15asx")
Basically, China de-pegged its currency in order to increase their exports, and boost their economic production, not to intentionally rob America of jobs and revenue.
So why does Trump oppose this idea?
Trump blames cheap Chinese products for stock market turmoil in the United States, as well as the assumption that they are robbing American workers of jobs because domestic companies can’t sell enough goods.
Trump has stated that China is “robbing Americans of billions of dollars of capital and millions of jobs” by manipulating their currency, and that America needs to “retaliate”. When in fact, China still remains a great economic ally to America, regardless of their currency value. He even argued that China’s declining currency will hinder American exports, yet American exports to China continue to rise. From 2005 when China de-pegged its currency to 2015, American exports to China have risen from $41.9 billion to $116.19 billion, yet Trump insists that they are ruining their economy.
![](https://globalmillennial.org/files/"https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/ay_2symr0wzbyuwzrspnqfcvhc82zb4udbnmqrxijgyiord_t-bg26mstwzkhlwkehzicfq8xqoqy5ssnkxxxxv0bfhkv7eu8m1qhchiivlwiihs8ythgj1suq41fm1rdvcyuidj")
America’s top trading partners The best way to visualize what Trump wants to do is with the diagram above. Notice how China exports triple the amount of products to America that it imports from them. Trump wants this to change. His strategy consists of:
-
Make China look like the enemy.
-
Apply a tariff on Chinese and Japanese imports into the U.S.
-
Reclaim American jobs that China has obtained through outsourcing efforts.
Trump’s plan generally makes sense. On the surface, he wants to limit foreign growth and initiate domestic growth by bringing jobs back to the homeland. However, Trump should not need to create enemies in order to get what he wants. His attempt at trying to make China seem like the bad guy is unprofessional, and is not the best way to achieve his foreign policy goals.
America and China rely heavily on one another, so to jeopardize that relationship would be detrimental for America.
Through his campaign, Trump has singled out two of America’s top three economic partners as enemies to the nation. Who knows how many more enemies he will create if elected into office.
So the questions arise, can the U.S. really afford jeopardizing these relationships? Will electing such a power-crazed and unprofessional businessman into office be a detrimental decision?
The answers to these questions will have to wait, but if there is already so much scrutiny attributed to Trump’s possibly presidency, what future beholds the mighty superpower?
Only time will tell, but for now, the future of America and it’s allies are in the hands of U.S. voters.
#ImprovingSociety
More than anything else, the aforementioned reasons have pretty much blocked India’s entry for now. Unless China supports India and the G4 group, the political situation is bound to be like this for quite some time.
By Manas Chawla
Originally published at www.theyouthjournal.com
Facebook Comments
Related Posts
Manas Chawla
President at The Youth Journal
Manas Chawla is a 15-year-old writer interested in international relations, economics, and geopolitics.
He is the founder of a youth organization which discusses the aforementioned topics in an online publication called The Youth Journal.
He aspires to encourage teenagers around the world to be informed of current geopolitical events in order to be responsible citizens and leaders of the next generation.
He is the founder of a youth organization which discusses the aforementioned topics in an online publication called The Youth Journal.
He aspires to encourage teenagers around the world to be informed of current geopolitical events in order to be responsible citizens and leaders of the next generation.
Latest posts by Manas Chawla (see all)
- Political Analysis: Rouhani for Iran and the world – May 21, 2017
- What Would Happen If The USA Left The United Nations? – May 14, 2017
- India and the struggle at the Security Council – May 12, 2017
