#1
So, this week in the news:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-26197693


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-26220304


Surprise! Russia and China likely to veto action against people abusing human rights. Were you surprised? I was surprised.


The US has used its veto in the past to protect Israel, such as any document that condemns illegal settlements. France and the UK have, of course, only vetoed things the US would pet their heads for (except on Iraq, where France aaaallmoost vetoed the resolution that had very vague wording regarding the consequences in the case of Iraq's noncompliance... I'm glad they didn't veto it, are you?).

So essentially, this thing's been useless to lots of people. Especially because of Russia. And China. And the US. And the rest of the permanent members, can't remember their names. They're not important really.


So I want to see your best arguments for why there should even be a veto. Why can't it be a vote of double majority among the 5 permanent states and the 10 "just happy to be here" states? Why are we giving any one permanent state the right to disrupt progress? Is my thing likely to be more harmful to the world?
#2
syria... over 200.000 people died, still russia and china veto'd the shit out of taking action.
The whole arrangement is just ****ed up and stupid and the UN arent really united nations, just a couple of assholes protecting their own perks they have with said countries, even if it means the murders continue.

At least, I think that happened. I stopped really caring about it when I heard russia and china were against action in the middle east.
My Soundcloud

My beginner rig:

Epiphone Goth G-400 SG
Line 6 Spider IV (Don't judge me, I was young and stupid)
Stagg SW203N
Yamaha APX500
#3
Veto-ing is stupid because it prevents debate and discussion on a topic so it's basically 100% anti-democratic at least within the terms of the UN.

longing rusted furnace daybreak seventeen benign nine homecoming one freight car
#4
Not to be "that guy" but it's 140,000 dead; 180,000 missing inside gov't prisons (don't hold out hope); 7 or 8k officially detained; and a few hundred abducted by Islamists (who regularly behead, so I wouldn't count on those "few hundred" being more than a "few dozen").


As for NK, well, no one knows. Thanks China!
#5
it's important in order to keep powerful nations in check, the UN is not a human rights organization that needs to push a specific political agenda, its merely an entity to try to prevent another major war, as such while you may dislike the actions of powerful countries be it China, Russia, or even the US their ability to veto keeps them in check, in a simple majority system you could resolutions that could be problematic for 1, or a few powerful countries and lead to all out war
#6
Quote by Bad Kharmel
it's important in order to keep powerful nations in check, the UN is not a human rights organization that needs to push a specific political agenda, its merely an entity to try to prevent another major war, as such while you may dislike the actions of powerful countries be it China, Russia, or even the US their ability to veto keeps them in check, in a simple majority system you could resolutions that could be problematic for 1, or a few powerful countries and lead to all out war

HUGE parts of the UN are focused around promoting human rights and providing humanitarian aid. The Security Council may not be centered around this, but then again the UNHCR doesn't get to make decisions, only the SC does.


So your entire argument is that one of those 5 permanent members is likely to throw a hissy fit and start bombing everyone because it didn't get its way? So why give the SC power regarding humanitarian crises? Shouldn't there be a more objective council for these issues?
#7
Its good because otherwise a superpower is ganged up by the other ones. World keeps spinning this way
#9
veto's are basically a way of those in power to asure that they will remain the only ones in power.
You who build these altars now

To sacrifice these children
You must not do it anymore
#10
The League of Nations didn't have a veto system so when a great power's interests were threatened, they just upped and left. At least this way the system keeps all the players involved so they can focus on other, more minor stuff.

Also, let's not pretend that the only reason no action has been taken on Syria is the Russian/Chinese veto. Countries have frequently been willing to act without UN approval when it suits them.
#11
Quote by ali.guitarkid7
HUGE parts of the UN are focused around promoting human rights and providing humanitarian aid. The Security Council may not be centered around this, but then again the UNHCR doesn't get to make decisions, only the SC does.


So your entire argument is that one of those 5 permanent members is likely to throw a hissy fit and start bombing everyone because it didn't get its way? So why give the SC power regarding humanitarian crises? Shouldn't there be a more objective council for these issues?

because a humanitarian crisis is a somewhat vague term, and even humanitarian aid can lead to greater western encroachment, which scares the Russians and the Chinese (particularly the Chinese if you know much about their last 200 years, they are looking for greater Asian influence like that had prior to western expansionism) humanitarian aid can still . Likewise the 5 permanent members being the US, the UK, and France, then Russia and China makes it very easy for the western powers to push around the east in a majority system (yes there are the non-permanent members but these still have the greatest influence), its likely that without a veto Russia and China would not want to be a part of the UN. Conversely, if you take current Chinese expansion into consideration you could see them becoming more and more influential meaning they could likewise become a superpower and begin to properly challenge the west in terms of influence, in which case the veto becomes useful to prevent eastern dominance.
#12
oh, and also historically speaking many wars have been started by one nation having a "hissy fit"
#13
Quote by gabcd86
The League of Nations didn't have a veto system so when a great power's interests were threatened, they just upped and left. At least this way the system keeps all the players involved so they can focus on other, more minor stuff.

Also, let's not pretend that the only reason no action has been taken on Syria is the Russian/Chinese veto. Countries have frequently been willing to act without UN approval when it suits them.

I'm just pointing out how corrupt this system is. The veto is likely never to be abolished (since someone would veto that resolution lol).


And let's not start condemning countries for NOT breaking international law.


Quote by Bad Kharmel
because a humanitarian crisis is a somewhat vague term,

How does 9 million displaced sound?


and even humanitarian aid can lead to greater western encroachment, which scares the Russians and the Chinese (particularly the Chinese if you know much about their last 200 years, they are looking for greater Asian influence like that had prior to western expansionism) humanitarian aid can still . Likewise the 5 permanent members being the US, the UK, and France, then Russia and China makes it very easy for the western powers to push around the east in a majority system (yes there are the non-permanent members but these still have the greatest influence), its likely that without a veto Russia and China would not want to be a part of the UN. Conversely, if you take current Chinese expansion into consideration you could see them becoming more and more influential meaning they could likewise become a superpower and begin to properly challenge the west in terms of influence, in which case the veto becomes useful to prevent eastern dominance.

So the current system is no doubt the best there is? There should be no attempt at veto reform? If not to abolish it, then to at least give that power limitations?
#14
Quote by ali.guitarkid7
Isn't the US like the only real superpower left now?


Lol. I think these days the US should be so afraid of Russia/China that it's unreal.
The only thing keeping them save is a few deals they made and the allies they have.
My Soundcloud

My beginner rig:

Epiphone Goth G-400 SG
Line 6 Spider IV (Don't judge me, I was young and stupid)
Stagg SW203N
Yamaha APX500
#15
Quote by ali.guitarkid7
I'm just pointing out how corrupt this system is. The veto is likely never to be abolished (since someone would veto that resolution lol).


And let's not start condemning countries for NOT breaking international law.



It's the best we've got. States act according to their interests. That we've managed to start the process of getting some states to conceive of their interests as occasionally including humanitarian concerns in the space of a couple of decades is great news, but that doesn't mean they're going to completely compromise themselves.

Also, I'm not, I'm glad NATO didn't get involved. Just saying that there is precedent for bypassing the Security Council and if NATO had care that much they could have pulled the "illegal but legitimate" one they did on Kosovo.
#16
Quote by BjarnedeGraaf
Lol. I think these days the US should be so afraid of Russia/China that it's unreal.
The only thing keeping them save is a few deals they made and the allies they have.

Its also questionable whether or not China would get involved in a military conflict on the side of the Russians, economically they are heavily invested in selling goods to the west and need to keep that going to keep up economic expansion, then the only country the Chinese people have a particular problem with is Japan so if Japan's not the aggressor the Chinese people may not support the war, moreover speaking of the Chinese people the reason the government censors everything, and has a one-child policy is that there are so many people that they are intensely difficult to govern. However China will likely attack Taiwan in the next 100-200yrs and that could prove interesting depending on how other countries deal with it
#17
If the right to veto any UN security council measures were to be abolished Israel would be f*cked

But this whole scenario won't happen because someone would veto the decision

/] 三方 [\
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
#19
Not really a surprise, Russia's got a lot of homeland security to consider what with the Olympics, and China rarely ever travels far to engage in interventionist action.

I don't necessarily see any problem with the current system. I'd rather slow progress and a certain level of military isolationism than proxy conflicts and general 20th century bullshit. The UN is not the world police, so the unilateral veto system works to ensure that people don't take rash action on a volatile world stage which, don't forget; is kind of choc-a-bloc with nuclear missiles, and not just the guys who are supposed to have them.
Vinland, Vinland Über Alles

"Why do they still call me a warlord? And mad? All I want to do is create the perfect genetic soldier!"
#21
Quote by bradulator
The Cold War is over. The UN is still here.

Are you an isolationist?
#22
Quote by bradulator
The Cold War is over. The UN is still here.


The UN predates the Cold War by almost a decade.