NEW DELHI -- President Barack Obama backed India for a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council Monday, a dramatic diplomatic gesture to his hosts as he wrapped up his first visit to this burgeoning nation.

Obama made the announcement in a speech to India's parliament on the third and final day of his visit. In doing so, he fulfilled what was perhaps India's dearest wish for Obama's trip here. India has been pushing for permanent Security Council membership for years.

"The just and sustainable international order that America seeks includes a United Nations that is efficient, effective, credible and legitimate," Obama said. "That is why I can say today -- in the years ahead, I look forward to a reformed U.N. Security Council that includes India as a permanent member."

The announcement brought the loudest applause of Obama's speech. But it does not mean that India will join the five permanent Security Council members anytime soon. The U.S. is backing India's membership only in the context of unspecified reforms to the council that could take years to bring about.

That makes Obama's announcement more of a diplomatic gesture than a concrete step. Nonetheless, it underscores the importance the U.S. places on fostering ties with this nation of 1.2 billion people, something Obama has been seeking to accomplish throughout his time here.

Continue reading at www.foxnews.com.

  • Comment Filters
Contributor Comments
Member Comments
Comment Popularity

Comments :

Trace Urdan
Joined
May '10
Trace Urdan

Was this expected? What do we think? Any chance we could call out Victor to weigh in here? A left-leaning regime to be sure -- but a supportive voice is a more aggressive stand in Afghanistan and Pakistan? Thoughts?

Diane Ellis, Ed.

Trace Urdan: Was this expected? What do we think? Any chance we could call out Victor to weigh in here? A left-leaning regime to be sure -- but a supportive voice is a more aggressive stand in Afghanistan and Pakistan? Thoughts? · Nov 8 at 10:50am

Max Boot over at Commentary thinks this is a very positive move:

Now, thankfully, Obama appears determined to make up for lost time. In his speech to the Indian parliament, he made a suitably dramatic gesture, calling for India to be granted a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. That is unlikely to happen anytime soon, because other nations are also determined to get a coveted seat — South Africa and Brazil among them. But it’s a good thing to call for because it is an emotional issue for India and an area where we can back Indian ambitions at no harm to ourselves.

I hope that Obama’s interest in India will not wane after his trip is over. As many commentators have argued (see, for example, Dan Twining’s article calling for an Indo-American Century), the U.S.-India alliance could be of pivotal importance in the 21st century...

Kenneth
Joined
Jul '10
Kenneth

This would be like adding a Fourth Stooge.

Claire Berlinski, Ed.

This is shrewd, actually. Thumbs-up. For a change.

Pseudodionysius
Joined
Sep '10
Pseudodionysius
Claire Berlinski, Ed.: This is shrewd, actually. Thumbs-up. For a change. · Nov 8 at 11:47am

Its so shrewd that I'm wondering who's idea it is: Hillary's?

River
Joined
Aug '10
River

Wouldn't it be marvelous if he did one thing in the interests of America and civilization? It had to happen sooner or later. No human can do and be evil all the time. They're bound to slip up once in a while.

flownover
Joined
Aug '10
flownover
Trace Urdan: Was this expected? What do we think? Any chance we could call out Victor to weigh in here? A left-leaning regime to be sure -- but a supportive voice is a more aggressive stand in Afghanistan and Pakistan? Thoughts? · Nov 8 at 10:50am

I'd love to have Indian backup against Al Qaeda on Pakistani soil. That would shake things up ! The Pakistani support has been pretty spotty as they put us on hold frequently to talk to Iran on the other line. Assuming that is the only place they can find consensus in the Muslim world on attacking the coalition.

herb briggs
Joined
Oct '10
herb briggs

It was weird, finding myself agreeing this morning with Obama on a lot of things. However his knowledge of Indian history and culture is quite shallow, which is not surprising. Obama apparently doesn't know that Ghandi is not universally revered in India. (Many blame Ghandi for the partition with Pakistan and therefore, the present stand-off between the two countries- and lots of Indians were not fond of his descendants either.) Obama's frequent references to Ghandi as the father of their independence and democracy undoubtedly hacked off a few people. He could have mentioned Rabindranath Tagore's role as one of the founders of Indian independence, for instance, which would have let him ease up on the Ghandi references and would have widened the appeal of his message.

Another example of inexperience and limited knowledge.

Paul Snively
Joined
Oct '10
Paul Snively
Claire Berlinski, Ed.: This is shrewd, actually. Thumbs-up. For a change. · Nov 8 at 11:47am

Pardon my cynicism, but: he said some words. Some of those words sounded good to us. So freaking what? Saying words that sound good to some audience is all this man has ever done.

flownover
Joined
Aug '10
flownover

They flashed a picture of Ben Kingsley on the teleprompter and the Gandhi switch is triggered. Sort of like throwing a Queen of Diamonds on the table.

Just like when Mara Liasson's switch broke the other day and she compared Pelosi to Churchill.

These things don't always work people !

Jules
Joined
May '10
Anang

A cautious thumbs up.

Herb, knowing the differences between the icons of the Indian Independence movement is like expecting Indians to know about the differences between Jefferson and Adams or Jefferson and Jackson.

In fact, if you want to delve into that issue, I and many others would blame Jinnah for the split, mainly because he demanded it. During the early years of the movement, his "Muslim League" lost heavily during national elections to the Congress party of Nehru and Gandhi. 4.8% of the vote and still Jinnah demanded power and position. Should Pelosi remain the majority leader, simply because she represents the botoxed minions?

http://books.google.com/books?id=D63KMRN1SJ8C&lpg=PA35&ots=4jfnVSRYao&dq=jinnah%201937%20elections&pg=PA35#v=onepage&q=jinnah%201937%20elections&f=false

As for support against Al Qaeda, you're fishing in the wrong waters. India is a neutral nation. Even after 26/11, all they know is their gut says maybe.

Aaron Miller
Joined
May '10
Aaron Miller

I very much doubt Obama did this for reasons we would agree with. As usual, his words are meaningless.

It makes sense, as things are. India is a strong and rising economy with an exploding population. It will likely have a strong regional and global influence in the decades to come, so excluding it would undermine the supposed premise of the U.N.

That said, I despise the U.N. and would be more than happy if America abandoned it. A forum where national leaders can meet, discuss matters in concert and begin negotiations makes sense. A world government with dues, projects, courts, and military resources does not. The U.N. gives our enemies power over us. Our alliances should be selective and conditional.

herb briggs
Joined
Oct '10
herb briggs

Anang: A cautious thumbs up.

Herb, knowing the differences between the icons of the Indian Independence movement is like expecting Indians to know about the differences between Jefferson and Adams or Jefferson and Jackson.

Anang:

You're looking at it backwards. It was Obama's responsibility as a guest-speaking foreign leader to have at least read up on the topic. It is not the average Indian's responsibility to know the difference between Jefferson and Adams. However if Dr M Singh came back to the US, spoke to Congress, and made one of his key points by invoking the American Founding Fathers, I sure would expect him to have taken the time to have educated himself.

For what this American's opinion is worth, I don't think Ghandi could have done anything that would have prevented an eventual partition and, I'm sure, most Indians don't blame him either. As you have noted, there definitely were other actors involved...

...just as there are definitely people in India today who still blame Ghandi. It is what it is.

Bryan G. Stephens
Joined
May '10
Bryan G. Stephens

I think this would be great. India should be there. Now, can we get Russia, China and France gone?

Better yet, we should form our own organization of Anglosphere + India. India is part of the Angolsphere family, as far as I am concerned.

flownover
Joined
Aug '10
flownover

Please ? What's 26/11 ?

Jules
Joined
May '10
Anang

Thanksgiving November 26, 2008. The date of the Mumbai attacks.


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading
Welcome Visitor

Already a Member?
Please Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Join Ricochet today!

Already a Member? Sign In