However， there are a few obstacles：

1。China - China‘s position on India’s bid has always been。。。ambiguous。 I think that its current position is that it‘s open to consideration， but not ready to approve of India’s permanent membership。 India-China relations are better now than they‘ve been for some time， irrespective of the Kashmir can of worms， China’s ties with Pakistan， and other issues。 However， China opposes Japan‘s bid， which India supports， and China will likely not support India for as long as India continues to support Japan。 （Confusingly worded， I know。）

2。The United States - The official American policy has been， for some time， to oppose India’s permanent membership on the Security Council。 Apparently this is because India is not a signatory of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty， and possesses nuclear weapons——a source of great annoyance to the US。 However， President Obama has declared support for India‘s bid。 It’s not clear what the US position is anymore， but we can be pretty sure that there will be no progress in the near future。

3。Pakistan - Naturally， Pakistan opposes India‘s bid， and while it doesn’t have as much influence in itself， it has close ties with both China and the United States （though recent events have thrown these alliances into question）。 Also， the very fact that India and Pakistan are embroiled in conflict that frequently appears on the Security Council agenda is an issue。

4。The structure of the Security Council itself - This is by far the biggest problem。 India is already on the verge of having the verbal support of all the P5， yet there‘s a very slim chance that it will gain a permanent seat anytime soon。 This would mean an amendment o the UN Charter， which requires a two-third vote of general members， and the support of the P5。 But whatever lip service the P5 may pay to supporting India， they will likely keep tabling the issue because allowing one country to join the permanent members sets a precedent that might open a floodgate and upset the power balance。 Why change things when they are comfortable the way they are （if inefficient）？ Wouldn’t it further legitimize the bids of other countries——Japan， Germany， Brazil， etc。 all of whom seem to support each others‘ bids as G4 nations？ The UN can’t even seem to manage to raise the number of nonpermanent members on the Security Council， an issue that has been on the table for sometime。 How many eons will it take for them to add the first new permanent member， if ever？

小編翻譯：

可是，印度加入常任安理會有幾個障礙：

1.中國—中國對印度申請的立場一直…模稜兩可。我認為，它目前的立場是，它願意考慮，但並不想同意印度成為常任理事國。如果不考慮克什米爾問題、中國與巴基斯坦的關係以及其他問題，如今的中印關係比歷史上的有段時間要好。但中國反對日本的申請，而印度支援，只要印度繼續支援日本，中國很可能不會支援印度。

2.一段時間以來，美國的官方政策一直是反對印度成為安理會常任理事國。顯然，這是因為印度不是《不擴散核武器條約》的簽署國，而且擁有核武器——這讓美國非常惱火。然而，奧巴馬總統已經宣佈支援印度的申請。目前還不清楚美國的立場，但我們可以非常肯定，在不久的將來可能都還是會保持不變。

3.巴基斯坦—自然，巴基斯坦反對印度的申請，雖然它本身沒有那麼大的影響力，但它與中國和美國都有著密切的關係。此外，印度和巴基斯坦經常捲入安理會議程上出現的衝突，這本身就是個問題。

4.安全理事會本身的結構—這是迄今為止最大的問題。印度已經接近得到五常所有成員國的口頭支援，但它在短期內獲得常任理事國席位的可能性非常小。這意味著要修改《聯合國憲章》，需要全體成員國三分之二的投票，並得到五常的支援。但是，無論五常口頭上如何支援印度，它們都可能繼續擱置這個問題，因為允許一個國家加入常任理事國開創了一個先例，可能會開啟閘門，打破權力平衡。如果現狀讓人並無不適，為什麼要作出改變呢？這會不會進一步使其他國家的申請合法化——日本、德國、巴西等似乎都彼此支援。聯合國似乎甚至無法增加安理會非常任理事國的數量，這個問題已經討論了一段時間了。如果要再增加常任理事國，他們還得等上多少個世紀?

But getting unambiguous approval and support of all the P5 members is a tedious job。

1。USA says they support Japan to get into the council because USA knows Russia and China will use the veto against it。

2。USA， France， UK and Russia says they support India because they know China will surely use it‘s veto。

3。China says they’d support India‘s bid to permanent seat but on the condition that India has to abandon Japan。 China clearly knows that this is not possible given India’s all-time relations with Japan。 So it‘s a win-win for China。See， all the 5 supports one or the other nation on the surface。 But deep down， none of them really wants the expansion of UNSC。

On a different note， I think China had its own diplomatic reasons to oppose India and Japan both。 China has an ambiguous love-hate relation with JapanAs for India， China wouldn’t want a powerful neighbour with same powers as it has。 Given that China is trying to set a control in Indian Ocean and Arabian sea by Gwadar port， CPEC， Maldives and the resurrection of ancient Silk Rout。

小編翻譯：

但是得到所有P5成員國明確的批准和支援是一項長期困難的工作。

1.美國表示，他們支援日本加入安理會，因為美國知道俄羅斯和中國將使用否決權。

2.美國、法國、英國和俄羅斯表示支援印度，因為他們知道中國會使用否決權。

3.中國說，他們會支援印度爭取常任理事國席位，但條件是印度必須放棄日本。中國清楚地知道，考慮到印度與日本歷來的關係，這是不可能的。所以這對中國來說是雙贏的。

看，這五個國家表面上都支援這個或那個國家。但在內心深處，沒有一個國家真正想要擴大聯合國安理會的規模。

另一方面，我認為中國有自己的理由反對印度和日本。中國與日本有著愛恨交加的關係。

至於印度，中國不想擁有一個與它擁有同樣實力的強大鄰國。鑑於中國正試圖透過瓜達爾港、中巴經濟走廊、馬爾地夫控制印度洋和阿拉伯海，重振古絲綢之路。

以上是比較典型的回答，小編在看到的絕大部分的評論都是在討論中國的態度，好像印度和日本進不了聯合國常任理事國會都是中國使絆子，真是無語！

因小編英文水平有限，暫時翻譯到這裡，更有趣的評論會在下期發表。

你們不關注我嗎？Are you sure ？

評論區回答為什麼“五大流氓”不讓印度日本德國等成為安理會常任理事國。