THW Grant India Permanent Membership on Security Council
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
Burden of proof is shared.
Whiteflame and Misterchris must comment before accepting. (I will extend argument time to one week due to their greater debate ability)
Security council: The United Nations Charter established six main organs of the United Nations, including the Security Council. It gives primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security to the Security Council, which may meet whenever peace is threatened.
Information about permanent membership: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_members_of_the_United_Nations_Security_Council
Con will argue that India should not be granted permanent membership to the security council.
Not only is India poor economically, it also abuses its military power in the local area instead of focusing on less morally ambiguous missions. Already, Pakistan notes that India has been terrorizing them across 20 wars, countering the Council's mission to keep peace.
The military history of Pakistan encompasses an immense panorama of conflicts and struggles extending for more than 2,000 years across areas constituting modern Pakistan and greater South Asia. The history of the modern-day military of Pakistan began in 1947, when Pakistan achieved its independence as a modern nation.
The military holds a significant place in the history of Pakistan, as the Pakistani Armed Forces have played, and continue to play, a significant role in the Pakistani establishment and shaping of the country. Although Pakistan was founded as a democracy after its independence from the British Raj, the military has remained one of the country's most powerful institutions and has on occasion overthrown democratically elected civilian governments on the basis of self-assessed mismanagement and corruption. Successive governments have made sure that the military was consulted before they took key decisions, especially when those decisions related to the Kashmir conflict and foreign policy. Political leaders of Pakistan are aware that the military has stepped into the political arena through coup d'état to establish military dictatorships, and could do so again.
- "India has also long pursued a policy of silence on most of the other burning issues in international security which UNSC permanent members are often concerned with, from nuclear proliferation in Iran and North Korea, to human rights violations in Syria."
- India continues to use colonial-era sedition law and arbitrarily restricts freedom. The unaccountable oppressive law counters its ideas of democracy, and the results are massive violence against woman in Delhi.
- Also notice how Con's source with Russia 2 only enhances my argument. While US will use powerful economic sanctions to prevent Russia's actions instead of direct military strikes, India will recklessly attack Pakistan. While India's economy loops back to hit itself in the butt in the foreign policy, US is able to retain its strong political power precisely because it is able to execute these economic sanctions. "The sanctions severely limit five major Russian banks' ability to obtain medium and long-term financing from Europe. The United States also restricted technology exports to Russia's deep-water Arctic offshore or shale oil production." Since Russia is having such a hard time recuperating, we can safely say the US prevented military attacks without costing a single life. Extend this argument.
If this wasn't enough, India remains passive in the overall international security issues. It only seems to care about its own foreign policy than a worldwide view of what's important. As The Diplomat argues, "India has also long pursued a policy of silence on most of the other burning issues in international security which UNSC permanent members are often concerned with, from nuclear proliferation in Iran and North Korea, to human rights violations in Syria."  India's seeming cowardly nature defeats its desire to be permanently on the UNSC. Without playing a meaningful role in the matter of interest, the other four countries could not prevent China's inevitable veto. In addition, India continues to use colonial-era sedition law and arbitrarily restricts freedom. The unaccountable oppressive law counters its ideas of democracy, and the results are massive violence against woman in Delhi.  Hundreds of thousands of migrant settlers had been displaced. The severe lack of reforms highlights that India is heavily backwards compared to other countries in the P5. The inability to support human rights is abhorrent and single-handedly destroys India's case at the permanent seat.