Warm words for India
DELHI: "A shining example to the world of our shared faith in free institutions, free markets and free societies".
Thus Gordon Brown has praised India in a speech which recognises this country's growing economic and political power and backs India's call for a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council.
What is less clear is how or when this would happen or what precisely it would mean. There are four countries well placed to get seats at an expanded international top table - Brazil, Germany and Japan as well as India.
Each faces opposition eg China fears Japanese membership whilst some European countries want an EU seat not one for a third EU member state.
Team Brown hints that it might back membership for India before the other three but cannot answer questions about whether she would have the same status and veto powers as the other permanent UN members (ie UK, China, France, Russia and USA) or whether she would be the first member of a second tier (which her politicians may well regard as second rate).
Today's speech also spells out in more detail the Brown vision of a new world order in which :
* an expanded UN would have a rapid reaction force to ensure rapid reconstruction once conflicts end and combine traditional peacekeeping with stabilisation, recovery and development.
* a reformed World Bank would fund low carbon economic development.
* a reformed IMF would promote greater transparency and monitoring in order to defend economic stability from shocks like last summer's credit crunch.
(. [Word document])
I'm 
Comments
I think journalists who are funded by the taxpayer should have a public 'register of interests'. I think we should know that the impartial Nick Robinson flew to China on Gordon Brown's private jet. Don't you?
Isn't there a small issue over India's refusal to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? Along with Pakistan, Israel and North Korea.
Brown is only pushing India for a UN seat because he knows there's no chance of it happening. Backing a lost cause is one of the safest ways of making political capital.
With regard to the first comment, that is presumably not a problem as we are going to subsidise Inida nuclear weapon programme at a cost of £800M+.
And re the UN security membership, perhaps the best option is to sell our seat to the highest bidder. It might allow the Govt to run a surplus for at least one year. And think of the votes it can buy ...
Can somebody explain to me why the British taxpayer is going to give £800+ million pounds in "aid" to a country that is now richer than we are ? Is the British government maladministration so out of touch with the reality at home it cannot find a use for the money here ?
India can't have our Security Council seat - it's been promised to the EU.
Nice to know that while our under-equipped and under-supplied soldiers are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan, Brown has donated £800M (which approximates to 2.5% of our defense budget) to India - a nuclear power with the world's fastest growing economy. He is, as ever, generous with taxpayers' money.
Nick, you almost sound surprised that Gordon Brown has made an announcement without thinking it through. Shame on you!
I've also added you to my blogroll over the weekend.
£800 million in aid to one of the worlds fastest growing economies; that sum buys an awful lot of data encryption software Gordon.
India a free society? Has Gordon Brown heard of the cste system? This ranks with his trumpeting of the number of Bentleys in Beijing as a British success story; it's German now
er, I rather thought that in a free market businesses operating on a flawed model were allowed to go bust. It's the mechanism that keeps capitalism healthy, something which the younger Mr Brown would have seen as something of an oxymoron. Is it just me or does the collossus be-striding the world stage have severe fault lines opening up underneath him at home, where it matters most. Shades of Thatcher? As Arthur Wing Pinero put it, the past re-entering by a different door?
Can you ask the PM why Britain is giving £800 million in aid to a country rich enough to have nuclear weapons programme ?
Gordon arrives in India the 'Free Indian market' falls 7.5% - any comnnection here?
If India, Brazil, Germany and Japan join the UN Security Council, it will have 3 and a half (Russia) European members but not a single African or Muslim country. Hmm.
Indonesia has higher population than Brazil, and Nigeria more than Japan. Both have higher population than Russia, France, UK or Germany.
If we want a fairer world with more power to the poor, the UNSC might be one of the places to start.
Ref Comment No. 1: All prominent journalists fly with the leaders of their countries on their excursions around the world. Not only does this help Britain's carbon footprint but it also helps them to keep track of the prime minister without having to race around countries searching for him. This benefits all of us: We are guranteed to see everything the PM does without the risk of our journalists missing anything and Gordon Brown is guaranteed to have eveyrthing he says recorded.
Anyway, on the main point: I agree with Bill Young (comment 2). The fact that India has nuclear weapons in violation of international law means they should be forbidden a seat on the UN Security Council. Germany should not be allowed a seat for obvious reasons.
I think the Permanent 5 UN Security Council should be made up of a panel of judges selected by unanimous agreement by the member states. The problem with having individual nations as members is that they have ther own vested interests. For example: I disagreed with the Iraq War but don't think the UN's role was relevant. Russia and France both had vested interests in Iraq and so were bound to veto the decision to go to war. The war was wrong but not because of the UN's decision to veto it.
Nick
Just a comment on your report today morning from New Delhi. You said Mahatma Gandhi was the "founder" of India. I am sorry but you are worng here. India was "founded" centuries ago and the first civilisation was Indus Valley Civilisation(3300 BC). India gets its name from Indus or Hindustan (Land of Hindus - i.e. people living on the other side of Indus also refers to Sindh).
Mahatma Gandhi is the "father" of the nation because he led the non-violent freedom strugle against British Raj and father of modern India
I hope this helps
To Will (no.1):
There is a Register of Journalists' Interests. All lobby journalists who are accredited to the Parliamentary Press Gallery appear on it, including Nick Robinson. You can read it here:
Nick,
I am sure you have enjoyed your tax payer funded jaunt to China and India along with Gordon and his new best buddy Mr Branson. While each may well have some impact on the world economy and world security, I don't believe that anything that GB has to say on the matter will make much difference. Ask our European partners when the last time they changed their policies as a result of UK views or pressure.
However, from where I am sitting, it appears that you have either given up reading the responses to your blogs, or you don't much care what they say. Either way, there are more important issues for you and the blessed leader to be focussing upon. The state of law and order, the debate on the EU Treaty, the apprent imminent collapse in world stock markets, falling house prices, Jacqui Smith being scared to walk the streets of London at night (!!!!), Darling being too scared to be Chancellor, Des Browne employing Jonah McTernan, etc.
Is there any prospect of a return to normal service?
By the way...when Sarkozy went to China in November he came back with €20bn of oorders for Airbus and Nuclear power stations...where are Gordon Brown's orders for British companies and British workers?
Team Brown? The only occupants of Planet Brown?