Russian invasion of Ukraine

[Wilian]

Veto is a complete joke. Yea, why not let criminals decide if they should be investigated or not? What could possibly go wrong.

At this stage I would declare UN even more worthless than League of Nations prior but it still serves some function in peacekeeping of some parts of world..

[Odinfrost]

Veto powers should be stripped from countries. And if that is too outrageous for those countries, at least they have to be stripped if said country is directly involved in the matter. Like Russia being unable to veto an investigation into Russia

[Gorsameth]

the UN makes a lot more sense when you stop seeing it as some sort of global peace force and more as a way for Nuclear powers to say "no you can't do that".
Because that is why the UN is. Not for nothing that the Security Council, with its veto's, are all the major nuclear powers of the time.

[Iphie]

the UN makes a lot more sense when you stop seeing it as some sort of global peace force and more as a way for Nuclear powers to say "no you can't do that".
Because that is why the UN is. Not for nothing that the Security Council, with its veto's, are all the major nuclear powers of the time.

Taiwan was never a nuclear power though...

The Government of the Republic of China (ROC) (now Taiwan) used its Security Council veto only once, to stop the admission of the Mongolian People's Republic to the United Nations in 1955 on the grounds it recognized all of Mongolia as a part of China. During the 1950s the PRC began to demand to be recognized by the UN instead of the Government of the ROC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_...United_Nations

(other than that you are quite right)

[Kralljin]

the UN makes a lot more sense when you stop seeing it as some sort of global peace force and more as a way for Nuclear powers to say "no you can't do that".

Bit backwards since by the time UN security council was founded, only a single nation had the nuclear bomb.

The UN should be seen as the "We won WW2" club, hence why initially Tawain was included as most nations recognized them as the legitimate representative of the Chinese, until reality forced them to acknowledge Mao Zedongs government as its legitimate representative.

However, pretty much all victors of WW2 later acquired the bomb.

[ringpriest]

Bit backwards since by the time UN security council was founded, only a single nation had the nuclear bomb.

The UN should be seen as the "We won WW2" club, hence why initially Tawain was included as most nations recognized them as the legitimate representative of the Chinese, until reality forced them to acknowledge Mao Zedongs government as its legitimate representative.

However, pretty much all victors of WW2 later acquired the bomb.

It did start as the "We won WWII" club, but it became the "we're all still talking club", which is its primary purpose. The Security Council veto works great for its intended goal: it keeps everyone at the table (because if you leave, you can't exercise your veto, as the Soviets found out with the Korean War). When it comes to international relations in a world full of nuclear weapons, keeping everyone at the table is really important. It's not a magical panacea. The mere existence of the UN and the Security Council doesn't absolutely prevent war between global powers. But it helps a lot.

[Kralljin]

It did start as the "We won WWII" club, but it became the "we're all still talking club", which is its primary purpose.

The point of that statement is more to explain why the rules favour a certain group of nations - the ones that won WWII, not because they have a nuclear bomb.

You don't get a permanent seat and veto rights by the virtue of owning a nuclear bomb.

[Edge-]

Veto powers should be stripped from countries. And if that is too outrageous for those countries, at least they have to be stripped if said country is directly involved in the matter. Like Russia being unable to veto an investigation into Russia

It's mostly a reminder of how pointless and ineffective the UN has to be to exist.



This remains a fairly accurate representation of the effectiveness of the UN, generally.

[Azadina]

the UN makes a lot more sense when you stop seeing it as some sort of global peace force and more as a way for Nuclear powers to say "no you can't do that".
Because that is why the UN is. Not for nothing that the Security Council, with its veto's, are all the major nuclear powers of the time.

Everyone knows about RuZZias and NK's bullshittery, and having investigation officially confirm what everyone already knows would change next to nothing at all. It's a completely useless veto on a subject that barely affects them, except now they don't even have to pick an excuse from their long list they have prepared.

So regardless of how you look at it, it still is a complete joke. If vetos were used on actually serious matters with real consequences, that'd be different, but when they're used even on trivial stuff like the equivalent of airing dirty laundry just because one can, well...you know..

[diller]

The veto rights in the UN are stupid and shouldn't be there, I assume they are there because otherwise the countries (specifically the US) would just stop being members (Just like the US don't recognize the International Criminal Court)

[Kallisto]

The veto rights in the UN are stupid and shouldn't be there, I assume they are there because otherwise the countries (specifically the US) would just stop being members (Just like the US don't recognize the International Criminal Court)

Yes, the veto is a feature to stop the big 5 bowing out when they don't get their way. The whole veto Russia pulled is a feature not a bug of the UN so it doesn't become a new League of Nations. (Not that I agree with what they did, just saying that's basically what the veto is for.)

[Jessicka]

Bit backwards since by the time UN security council was founded, only a single nation had the nuclear bomb.

The UN should be seen as the "We won WW2" club, hence why initially Tawain was included as most nations recognized them as the legitimate representative of the Chinese, until reality forced them to acknowledge Mao Zedongs government as its legitimate representative.

However, pretty much all victors of WW2 later acquired the bomb.

Just as backwards. Britain and France were massive colonial powers, Britain having a veto specifically meant 1/4 of the world’s landmass and population had one, France wasn’t far behind, while China was basically a third world country but still massive enough to demand one. Russia and America were the other two major world powers.

You could probably switch up or add some vetoes today but it wouldn’t make a lot of difference. Ultimately these things came out of the failures of the League of Nations and the world is better for having it, whatever it’s current failings. It does way more than try to prevent and resolve conflict.

[Iphie]

Just as backwards. Britain and France were massive colonial powers, Britain having a veto specifically meant 1/4 of the world’s landmass and population had one, France wasn’t far behind, while China was basically a third world country but still massive enough to demand one. Russia and America were the other two major world powers.

You could probably switch up or add some vetoes today but it wouldn’t make a lot of difference. Ultimately these things came out of the failures of the League of Nations and the world is better for having it, whatever it’s current failings. It does way more than try to prevent and resolve conflict.

well...there is the argument that currently no countries in the Global South are permanent members with Veto powers. So that would make a rather big symbolic differnece

[Specialka]

well...there is the argument that currently no countries in the Global South are permanent members with Veto powers. So that would make a rather big symbolic differnece

That would imply add even more difficulty to get a decision without getting vetoed. And to which country would you give that veto ? A big chunks of "South countries" are either dictatorship or have instability issues or straight have crazy people in command.

[Soulwind]

That would imply add even more difficulty to get a decision without getting vetoed. And to which country would you give that veto ? A big chunks of "South countries" are either dictatorship or have instability issues or straight have crazy people in command.

Unlike the US, the UK, Russia and China, which are all very stable democracies that are always ruled by reasonable people...

[Specialka]

Unlike the US, the UK, Russia and China, which are all very stable democracies that are always ruled by reasonable people...

Which is beside the point.

Was pretty sure that someone would say that though.

[Iphie]

Iran allegedly tipped of russia before the terrorist attack...

Reuters

And there's aparently a fire on the territory of Uralmashavod in Yekaterinaburg...if I'm not mistaken that's the only reamianign active tankfactory in russia.

[Kralljin]

Just as backwards. Britain and France were massive colonial powers, Britain having a veto specifically meant 1/4 of the world’s landmass and population had one, France wasn’t far behind, while China was basically a third world country but still massive enough to demand one. Russia and America were the other two major world powers.

No, it's not.

The Soviets probably would have not received a seat without WW2 because they were pretty much a closed off society and hadn't absorbed almost the entirety of Eastern Europe.
China was still embroiled in a civil war, they were not really in a position to "demand" one.

[Wilian]

Just as backwards. Britain and France were massive colonial powers, Britain having a veto specifically meant 1/4 of the world’s landmass and population had one, France wasn’t far behind, while China was basically a third world country but still massive enough to demand one. Russia and America were the other two major world powers.

You could probably switch up or add some vetoes today but it wouldn’t make a lot of difference. Ultimately these things came out of the failures of the League of Nations and the world is better for having it, whatever it’s current failings. It does way more than try to prevent and resolve conflict.

China was added because Russia demanded counterbalance to US&UK dynamic and French were a compromise when US&UK wanted to add one more because they were seen less aligned by Russia.

[Combatbutler]

The veto rights in the UN are stupid and shouldn't be there, I assume they are there because otherwise the countries (specifically the US) would just stop being members (Just like the US don't recognize the International Criminal Court)

The veto rights are there by design, to remind the world who is in charge and that some nations are inherently better than the rest.