One contentious issue that arises every so often in regard to the United Nations is the veto power of the five permanent Security Council members. In theory the veto power exists to help prevent conflicts. For instance, if the General Assembly or Security Council votes on a certain resolution, but that resolution is detrimental to one of the five powers, then that that country can veto the resolution, thus preventing an international crisis.
Some have criticized the veto power as actually leading to more conflicts, however, and possibly in some cases even preventing "much needed" intervention. Proponents of this idea point to the Vietnam War and Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, as well as the current civil war in Syria, as examples of this perceived flaw. Supporters of the veto power would argue that in some of these instances, United Nations invention would have actually led to an escalation of the conflict, such as retaliation from the great powers.
While I can understand both sides of the argument, I am leaning more in favor of maintaining the veto power. I believe that it is absolutely imperative that the United States not allow itself to fall victim to the United Nations, which doesn't necessarily share our values or have our best interest at heart. For instance, many countries (and even some people in first-world countries) are opposed to Israel. Without veto power, these countries could intervene on the side of the Palestinians, which certainly isn't in the best interest of the United States and/or Israel. Other examples of where the veto power may very well be necessary are crisis such as the Falkland Islands dispute, Korean dispute and others. Not only that, but when the United Nations fails, there is always the option of acting without the United Nations, so it doesn't affect us at all militarily.
I also have grave concerns over what could happen to human rights and civil liberties should America (and our allies) lose our veto power. For instance, there are a number of authoritarian countries out there, some of which have been trying to infringe upon freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, the right to privacy, etc. and have in some cases even taken to trying to get such resolutions passed in the United Nations. Take for instance the controversial Arms Trade Treaty that the United States and our allies have successfully blocked from gaining ground. There's also evidence that some extremist groups would try to use the United Nations as a means to push for more power on a global stage, especially after the controversial United Nations Conference against Racism, which was boycotted by a number of countries (including the United States) for allegedly being hijacked by extremist groups and actually promoting racism (rather than combating it).
With these concerns, I do not believe that it would be in the best interest of the American people or our allies that we abolish the veto power. As for the option of reforming the veto power, I would have to hear out each proposal on an individual basis before coming to a decision. What do you believe should be done with the veto power in the United Nations, if anything?