United Nations Veto Power Reform

[Wells]

I think we should reform the veto power. As in, we should kick Russia out of the UN. Then it might actually be a legitimate organization.

Yes the United Nations designed to ease relations and communication between nations would certainly be more effective with fewer people in it that disagree with us.

[Kalyyn]

Yes the United Nations designed to ease relations and communication between nations would certainly be more effective with fewer people in it that disagree with us.

Currently, anything put to a vote in the UN will end one of two ways:

1. US veto
2. Russian veto

There is no third option. Under the current conditions, this complete halt of progress will continue repeated endlessly, until the sun consumes the Earth and Russia starts vetoing measures to liberate the slave mines of Alpha Centauri.

[Wells]

Currently, anything put to a vote in the UN will end one of two ways:

1. US veto
2. Russian veto

There is no third option. Under the current conditions, this complete halt of progress will continue repeated endlessly, until the sun consumes the Earth and Russia starts vetoing measures to liberate the slave mines of Alpha Centauri.

A) That's not true.

B) not everything the UN does is have the security council vote on shit

[Kalyyn]

A) That's not true.

B) not everything the UN does is have the security council vote on shit

It's the only important function it performs.

[Sorrior]

I'd prefer we scrap the UN altogether and form a coalition either losely based on NATO or an entirely new body made up of strictly and provably democratic states. Then we might be able to take unilateral action that could change the world for the better or at least make it a little freer.
If the UN fails to uphold the Universal Declaration of Human Rights universally throughout its member-states then it has ultimately failed as an organisation and needs to be drastically reformed or disbanded.

I dunno man ..Most supposedly free nations are getting more then a bit censor/nannystate/policestate happy....If anything the world needs a bit less unity.

[Wells]

It's the only important function it performs.

Millions of kids not dead from terrible diseases probably think otherwise.

[Kalyyn]

Millions of kids not dead from terrible diseases probably think otherwise.

Oh, do we really want to delve into the UN's aid record? I'm sure those African warlords really enjoyed profiteering all that UN food.

[Wells]

Oh, do we really want to delve into the UN's aid record? I'm sure those African warlords really enjoyed profiteering all that UN food.

Listen, the UN is directly responsible for some of the largest humanitarian programs on this planet. If you want to pretend that the security council politics are all there is then fine, but its an ignorant position to take.

[Kalyyn]

Listen, the UN is directly responsible for some of the largest humanitarian programs on this planet. If you want to pretend that the security council politics are all there is then fine, but its an ignorant position to take.

You're not really addressing my concern here, are you?

[Wells]

You're not really addressing my concern here, are you?

If your argument is that the UN is bad because it makes mistakes and sometimes things go badly that's pretty ridiculous. You said the only important function the UN serves is through the security council, and you only can think that because you're privileged enough to live where you do. They do untold amounts of good throughout the developing world.

[Zoranon]

I did say every country gets to participate to a degree, didn't I? With that I meant a degree appropriate to the population of any given country.

So an institution in which pretty much all power would be held by 3rd world countries? No thank you.

[Skroe]

Anyone who says puting India, Japan or Brazil in permanent on the Security Council and replace it with the EU has the wrong idea of what the security council is.

First off, the United States supports Japan having a permanent seat only because Japan would be as a reliable "West" vote as the UK is. It would heavily slant the UN against Russia and China.

Secondly, the US has expressed support for India on a few occasions, but it never really meant it. It was cheap applause line material that the country has done precisely zero to move forward. And in any event, if we did move forward, we'd be excited about it because it would mean China would have a neighbor and a nuclear armed rival to deal with in that forum, thus making isolating China even easier.

Brazil... yeah that's not a serious option either. And neither is South Africa.

In truth the idea all four countries (including SA) should have permanent seats with Veto power reflects the wrong idea: that the UN Security Council should be representative of geography or population, as an extension of global democratic governance. The problem with that idea is that it is incompatible with the fundamental ideal of the Security Council: that it is the place where the militarily significant and involved countries can meet.


It's hard to deny the permanent five their position in that regard based on one metric or another. Even the UK and France, under this metric, should never give up their seats to the EU because they are both among the foremost military powers in the world.

The proposed countries listed are inconsequential militarily.

Japan has a powerful military - probably the strongest non-American one in Asia - but it has purposefully avoided military engagement for decades, and even if they reform their constitution, they will stick to largely territorial defense as to not destabilize East Asia. Of the proposals, theirs is the most credible, and it's still not because of their intentional non-involvement.

India contributes troops to UN Peacekeeping, but that's it. They have a 40-years behind military, utilize a Navy largely of second hand ships (although they just launched their first domestic mini-carrier). They can launch small rockets into space, but their nuclear weapons are also of an antiquated design.

Brazil is in the same boat as India. They do not contribute in any way to global security. Neither does South Africa.

The UN Security Council is a place where countries make sure that small scale conflicts don't turn into massive wars, and in that regard it has worked. It is not a place for global democracy. So no one should get a seat, because on their own merits, the prime movers of Global Security already have seats and the would-be contestants simply do not make that much of a splash.

[Elegiac]

I did say every country gets to participate to a degree, didn't I? With that I meant a degree appropriate to the population of any given country.

Meaning that India and China would just dominate all votes given how much population they possess per country, despite the fact that other countries are stronger and wealthier.

Well, if you have a bunch of small countries agreeing on something, they become important.

Not really, given that the present structure of the GA does exactly that, and nobody pays attention to it.

Oh, right, I forgot, in your world, might makes right, and since a gazillion people spread out through a dozen countries don't really have the might to do much since they're not united, it must mean their opinion doesn't count. And that really makes perfect sense, seeing as the might of the larger countries is almost never put to use. So it's not even might makes right at this point, it's might-that's-never-gonna-get-used-and-doesn't-really-matter makes right.

Oh, do I love me some realpolitik stuck-in-the-past people.

If strength were purely about numbers, maybe, but it isn't. And "my world" is the real world - until the UN gains some means by which to enforce its agenda, or even an agenda period, the international system will remain anarchic.

[Scathbais]

I don't think anyone should have the power to veto anything. It's decidedly undemocratic.

Without veto power, you could have a situation where the mob (majority) rules. Those in the majority could just decide to vote on something selfish and immoral. How do you handle such a situation without veto power.

The threat of government by the will of the masses (the mob) is why the US is a constitutional republic and NOT a democracy.

[Zecora]

Without veto power, you could have a situation where the mob (majority) rules. Those in the majority could just decide to vote on something selfish and immoral. How do you handle such a situation without veto power.

The threat of government by the will of the masses (the mob) is why the US is a constitutional republic and NOT a democracy.

Then by that logic, the veto power should either be given to everyone, or to the smallest and most powerless countries that otherwise would get overrun again and again. Neither would work, and no country should have a veto right, especially not an unlimited veto right.

About the only thing you said that is correct is that the US is hardly a democracy. Except it is, (in theory at least) since it is the people that elect their representatives.

[Wikiy]

So an institution in which pretty much all power would be held by 3rd world countries? No thank you.

Then just make a Western United Nations. If you want a club for special snowflakes (which might indeed be a better solution since those countries are more reasonable usually), then just advocate that instead of advocating a club for special snowflakes within a club pretending to be for everyone.

[Zoranon]

Then just make a Western United Nations. If you want a club for special snowflakes (which might indeed be a better solution since those countries are more reasonable usually), then just advocate that instead of advocating a club for special snowflakes within a club pretending to be for everyone.

Again, what would be the point of such institution? Nothing that would warrant international intervention has happened for a long time in western countries.
Besides as Skroesec correctly said, the really relevant states are already represented in the security council. And given that UN has so far fulfilled its primary task, I see no reason for changes.