matt
Senior Member
Posts: 425
|
Post by matt on Sept 6, 2013 4:05:15 GMT 1
From Wikipedia:
Various discussions have taken place in recent years over the suitability of the Security Council veto power in today's world. Key arguments include that the five permanent members no longer represent the most stable and responsible member states in the United Nations, and that their veto power slows down and even prevents important decisions being made on matters of international peace and security. Due to the global changes that have taken place politically and economically since the formation of the UN in 1945, widespread debate has been apparent over whether the five permanent members of the UN Security Council remain the best member states to hold veto power. While the permanent members are still typically regarded as great powers, there is debate over their suitability to retain exclusive veto power.[20]
A second argument against retaining the UNSC veto power is that it is detrimental to balanced political decisions, as any draft text needs to be approved of by each permanent member before any draft resolution can possibly be adopted. Indeed, several proposed draft resolutions are never formally presented to the Council for a vote owing to the knowledge that a permanent member would vote against their adoption (the so-called "pocket veto"). Debate also exists over the potential use of the veto power to provide "diplomatic cover" to a permanent member's allies[citation needed]. The United States has used its veto power more than any other permanent member since 1972, particularly on resolutions condemning the actions or policies of Israel.
I think we desperately need to end the Un Security Council member's veto power. I can not remember it being used for a good reason in my lifetime. Can you?
|
|
matt
Senior Member
Posts: 425
|
Post by matt on Sept 6, 2013 7:12:00 GMT 1
Sorry, that was alarmist and worded too strongly. If we desperately needed that we would be in trouble, because not doubt it would take some time. Also, I am sure it would be very difficult to do. Let me reword the question. What advantages or disadvantages can you see in ending the veto power?
|
|
|
|
Post by bristollad on Sept 6, 2013 8:20:41 GMT 1
The permanent veto ensures that there has to be consensus across very different political views for a resolution to be passed. This is frustrating I agree but essential for the Security Council to be seen to be above political factions e.g. East vs. West or Democracy vs. Communism. Arguably, one problem is that the permanent members all tend to side with developed countries' interests and that none speak for the undeveloped countries.
Ending the permanent veto would lead to less consensus and countries like China or USA choosing to ignore the UN and do what their leaders think is in their own and their countries best interests.
|
|
gary
Senior Member
Posts: 38
|
Post by gary on Sept 6, 2013 9:08:05 GMT 1
Sounds to me like opening the door to anarchy
|
|
matt
Senior Member
Posts: 425
|
Post by matt on Sept 6, 2013 17:37:04 GMT 1
The permanent veto ensures that there has to be consensus across very different political views for a resolution to be passed. This is frustrating I agree but essential for the Security Council to be seen to be above political factions e.g. East vs. West or Democracy vs. Communism. Arguably, one problem is that the permanent members all tend to side with developed countries' interests and that none speak for the undeveloped countries. Ending the permanent veto would lead to less consensus and countries like China or USA choosing to ignore the UN and do what their leaders think is in their own and their countries best interests. Well, it was meant to prevent world war by allowing the Superpowers to protect their interests. Actually, the veto often ensures that there needs to be consensus amongst the 5 permanent members for a resolution to be considered, i.e. the pocket veto. And it's the veto that usually causes nations to act without a UN vote. Can you name an instance where it worked for what you believe is the greater good? |
|
matt
Senior Member
Posts: 425
|
Post by matt on Sept 6, 2013 17:49:13 GMT 1
Sounds to me like opening the door to anarchy How? Without a veto, a lot more resolutions would be brought to a vote in the UN. I think the present is much more like anarchy, because nations break international law routinely. And sometimes they have to to do the right thing. The veto has insured the world can not pressure some nations like Israel to treat their marginalized citizens with more respect. The US has blocked it. Russia has prevented the UN condeming atrocities in Sarjevo and Kosovo, and Syria, not calling for action mind you, just condemning. China has used it to block the same in North Korea and Myanmar. And these are just a few examples. The US has used it more than any nation since 1972. When do you think it has worked well, Gary? |
|
|
|
Post by bristollad on Sept 7, 2013 8:22:44 GMT 1
Matt, nations do not do the "right thing". Political leaders do the expedient thing, the thing they think is in their own, their political group's and then their nation's best interest. The veto exists to prevent the outbreak of war between the most powerful nations and arguably it has succeeded in that objective.
Clive.
|
|
matt
Senior Member
Posts: 425
|
Post by matt on Sept 7, 2013 10:03:33 GMT 1
Agreed, but it is a whole new ball game. In this world, there are no nations.There is not eye, ear, nose taste or all the way up to mental element. I just asked if you could name an instance where it has worked for all people? Now imagine it doing so.
I am telling you, friends, the veto sucks as bad as Guantanamo bay. You don't want to accept responsibility for who you really are. That is the problem,
|
|
|
|
Post by Rudy on Sept 7, 2013 15:50:39 GMT 1
Sorry to say Matt, but there are no quick and easy solutions that work for all people...
Buddhism itself is a proof of the point that therre are no quick and easy solutions to happiness - unless you disagree with the First Noble Truth of course.
In international politics it seems we always need to try and find a balance between unanimous agreement (which rarely happens) and individual decisions of countries. Translated into a more personal level, the first is not unsimilar to the 'normal' justice system within a country where decisions can take years and years, or we chose for everyone to be their own judge and executioner. Despite our justice systems being far from ideal, I think it is way better then anarchy...
|
|
|
|
Post by bristollad on Sept 7, 2013 16:45:39 GMT 1
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this?
One moment, you ask us to look at things from the point of view of ultimate truth
the next, you say that
which sounds like reification to me.
So I guess I've missed your point.
|
|
matt
Senior Member
Posts: 425
|
Post by matt on Sept 7, 2013 16:46:19 GMT 1
Good answer, They all are actually. I agree. Oh I was responding to Rudy, but you are right too Clive. If you guys think it is working, then it probably is. Sorry for my weird post.
|
|
