Pages: 1 2

 

2007-04-30 05:21:50
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7205|Argentina
Someone please explain to me why there is veto in the Security Council.  Why do the five permanent members (US, UK, Russia, France and China) have the power of veto?  Isn't that the opposite of a Democracy?  Why doesn't the UN change to a simple vote system without veto? 

A bit of history:

What is the Security Council?
The Security Council is the United Nations' most powerful body. It has "primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security." Five powerful countries sit as "permanent members" along with ten other member states, elected for two-year terms. Since 1990, the Council has dramatically increased its activity and it now meets in nearly continuous session. It dispatches military operations, imposes economic sanctions, mandates arms inspections, deploys human rights and election monitors and more.

How the Security Council Works:
The Security Council is part parliament, part secret diplomatic conclave. Its procedures and working methods can be puzzling and mysterious. While the Council votes on its decisions in public meetings, it spends much of its time in private informal consultations, where ambassadors discuss, negotiate, persuade and pressure their colleagues, far from television crews and newspaper reporters and beyond the view of the rest of the UN's member states as well. This page provides information on the methods of work and procedures of the Security Council. It also links to Council resolutions and documents.

How the Veto Works:
The five permanent members of the Security Council (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States) enjoy the privilege of veto power. This power has been intensely controversial since the drafting of the UN Charter in 1945. The United States and Russia would probably not have accepted the creation of the United Nations without the veto privilege. Fifty years later, the debate on the existence and use of the veto continues, reinvigorated by many cases of veto-threat as well as actual veto use.

This Table shows number of times veto was cast, by country.

Subjects of UN Security Council Vetoes.

Wouldn't the Security Council serve its goals better removing the power of veto?
2007-04-30 05:24:09
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6977|Global Command
Yes it would, but that would be as likely as the mods here giving up their power; aint gonna happen.
While were @ wishful thinking, why don't we just disband it altogether?
2007-04-30 05:26:11
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7029|SE London

Absolutely. The veto needs to be scrapped for the UN to stand a chance of becoming an effective organisation. It's a shame, because we really need the UN to work. All these people who say the UN should be gotten rid of are fooling themselves. We need an organisation like the UN, but we need one that works, which the UN in its current state does not.
2007-04-30 05:28:02
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7205|Argentina

ATG wrote:

Yes it would, but that would be as likely as the mods here giving up their power; aint gonna happen.
While were @ wishful thinking, why don't we just disband it altogether?
If you read the UN resolutions and sanctions they aren't that wrong.  The resolutions and sanctions can't take place because of the veto.
2007-04-30 06:16:16
EVieira
Member
+105|6926|Lutenblaag, Molvania
Any motion to banish the veto would just get vetoed.
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered;  the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei  (1564-1642)
2007-04-30 06:39:23
PureFodder
Member
+225|6733
Apparently the US has vetoed 9 resolutions aginst the US. Seems a bit pointless if it's a licence to stop any resolutions passed aginst your country or an ally.
2007-04-30 06:44:53
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7029|SE London

PureFodder wrote:

Apparently the US has vetoed 9 resolutions aginst the US. Seems a bit pointless if it's a licence to stop any resolutions passed aginst your country or an ally.
You should see how many resolutions against Israel they've vetoed.


It is pointless. That is why the veto should be removed.
2007-04-30 06:49:53
EVieira
Member
+105|6926|Lutenblaag, Molvania
The veto is the pillar that has made the UN stand for so many years, without it it would have crumbled a long time ago, like the League of Nations.

The United Nations canonot exist without support from the major world powers, and these powers will not support the UN unless they have control over it.
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered;  the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei  (1564-1642)
2007-04-30 06:54:58
BeerzGod
Hooray Beer!
+94|7018|United States
The UN in a joke, it has always been a joke, and it will always be a joke. It is very true that we need an organization like this, but a working one... one capable of doing what it was created to do in the first place. Unfortunately, that will never happen, and all we can really do is complain about it.
2007-04-30 07:11:01
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7029|SE London

EVieira wrote:

The veto is the pillar that has made the UN stand for so many years, without it it would have crumbled a long time ago, like the League of Nations.

The United Nations canonot exist without support from the major world powers, and these powers will not support the UN unless they have control over it.
The League of Nations fell apart because of WWII. Very few nations entry into WWII had anything to do with the League (Japan is probably the only one), so I think saying that the UN would crumble in the same way if it had no veto system is an unsubstantiated claim.

WWII is long since ended. Why should the allies maintain a stranglehold on international politics? I think the number of permanent members of the security council should be expanded (possibly to include Germany and Japan) and the veto removed in favour of a 2/3rds majority security council vote.

I know it almost certainly won't happen. But it'd be good if it did.
2007-04-30 07:22:46
EVieira
Member
+105|6926|Lutenblaag, Molvania

Bertster7 wrote:

EVieira wrote:

The veto is the pillar that has made the UN stand for so many years, without it it would have crumbled a long time ago, like the League of Nations.

The United Nations canonot exist without support from the major world powers, and these powers will not support the UN unless they have control over it.
The League of Nations fell apart because of WWII. Very few nations entry into WWII had anything to do with the League (Japan is probably the only one), so I think saying that the UN would crumble in the same way if it had no veto system is an unsubstantiated claim.
The permanent members are responsible for about half of the UNs funding. Do you think they would still support the UN so much if they didn't have power over it? And if anyone thinks the UN is not effective now, how effective would the UN be if the US, Russia and China weren't members? The veto is necessary, it balances the power in the UN, giving the major world powers the major power they do have.

Bertster7 wrote:

WWII is long since ended. Why should the allies maintain a stranglehold on international politics? I think the number of permanent members of the security council should be expanded (possibly to include Germany and Japan) and the veto removed in favour of a 2/3rds majority security council vote.

I know it almost certainly won't happen. But it'd be good if it did.
Granted, the council should be expanded, but not based on WWII. Japan and Germany should be included because of their weight in world politics, and so should Brazil to give Latin America proper representation. Brazil is, after all, one of the worlds biggest economies.

But the veto should not be removed. Instead, a 2/3 majority vote by all UN members should be able to overturn a veto, therefore keeping the veto power but weaking it so the US can't be defending Israel so much.

Last edited by EVieira (2007-04-30 07:25:11)

"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered;  the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei  (1564-1642)
2007-04-30 07:29:27
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7029|SE London

EVieira wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

EVieira wrote:

The veto is the pillar that has made the UN stand for so many years, without it it would have crumbled a long time ago, like the League of Nations.

The United Nations canonot exist without support from the major world powers, and these powers will not support the UN unless they have control over it.
The League of Nations fell apart because of WWII. Very few nations entry into WWII had anything to do with the League (Japan is probably the only one), so I think saying that the UN would crumble in the same way if it had no veto system is an unsubstantiated claim.
The permanent members are responsible for about half of the UNs funding. Do you think they would still support the UN so much if they didn't have power over it? And if anyone thinks the UN is not effective now, how effective would the UN be if the US, Russia and China weren't members? The veto is necessary, it balances the power in the UN, giving the major world powers the major power they do have.

Bertster7 wrote:

WWII is long since ended. Why should the allies maintain a stranglehold on international politics? I think the number of permanent members of the security council should be expanded (possibly to include Germany and Japan) and the veto removed in favour of a 2/3rds majority security council vote.

I know it almost certainly won't happen. But it'd be good if it did.
Granted, the council should be expanded, but not based on WWII. Japan and Germany should be included because of their weight in world politics, and so should Brazil to give Latin America proper representation. Brazil is, after all, one to]he worlds biggest economies.

But the veto should not be removed. Instead, a 2/3 majority vote by all UN members sould be able to overturn a veto, therefore keeping the veto power but weaking it so the US can't be defending Israel so much.
I didn't mean that Germany and Japan should be permanent members of the security council because of their roles in WWII. They were just the two biggest world powers I could think of that are not members.
I see how my original post could have been quite confusing on that issue though.

Japan is, if I remember rightly, the second largest contributer to the UNs funding, yet they are not a permanent member of the security council. Germany is also a major contributer.
The amount of funding the UN recieves from any particular nation is more determined by GDP than by influence within the UN.

I agree with your point about the veto remaining, but it being possible to overturn the veto with a 2/3 majority vote. That sounds like a good idea.
2007-04-30 07:36:10
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7205|Argentina

EVieira wrote:

The permanent members are responsible for about half of the UNs funding. Do you think they would still support the UN so much if they didn't have power over it? And if anyone thinks the UN is not effective now, how effective would the UN be if the US, Russia and China weren't members? The veto is necessary, it balances the power in the UN, giving the major world powers the major power they do have.
The veto is totally unnecessary.  They should vote and if there's 2/3 or something like that, then you have a Resolution.  Period.  The veto is a joke.  How come you have a Resolution with 14 votes agreeing, but one vote from one of the 5 permanent members can veto the vote of the other 14?  It's outrageous.  The veto is the main responsible for the situation between Palestine and Israel not being solved.  As long as there is a veto in the UN, the UN will never achieve its goals.
2007-04-30 07:46:40
IG-Calibre
comhalta
+226|7190|Tír Eoghan, Tuaisceart Éireann
Well, if the Union breaks up - that's one seat gone..
2007-04-30 07:48:36
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7029|SE London

IG-Calibre wrote:

Well, if the Union breaks up - that's one seat gone..
No it isn't.

It didn't change anything when the USSR split up or when the People's Republic was formed.
2007-04-30 07:49:40
EVieira
Member
+105|6926|Lutenblaag, Molvania

Bertster7 wrote:

Japan is, if I remember rightly, the second largest contributer to the UNs funding, yet they are not a permanent member of the security council. Germany is also a major contributer.
The amount of funding the UN recieves from any particular nation is more determined by GDP than by influence within the UN.

I agree with your point about the veto remaining, but it being possible to overturn the veto with a 2/3 majority vote. That sounds like a good idea.
Decision making power over the UN will most certainly affect a government's willingness to fund the UN, and Japan is very pissed off about it.
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered;  the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei  (1564-1642)
2007-04-30 07:53:52
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7029|SE London

EVieira wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Japan is, if I remember rightly, the second largest contributer to the UNs funding, yet they are not a permanent member of the security council. Germany is also a major contributer.
The amount of funding the UN recieves from any particular nation is more determined by GDP than by influence within the UN.

I agree with your point about the veto remaining, but it being possible to overturn the veto with a 2/3 majority vote. That sounds like a good idea.
Decision making power over the UN will most certainly affect a government's willingness to fund the UN, and Japan is very pissed off about it.
They may be pissed off about it, but they've been putting up with it for quite a long time.

Things didn't go their way over that issue either.
2007-04-30 07:53:55
EVieira
Member
+105|6926|Lutenblaag, Molvania

sergeriver wrote:

EVieira wrote:

The permanent members are responsible for about half of the UNs funding. Do you think they would still support the UN so much if they didn't have power over it? And if anyone thinks the UN is not effective now, how effective would the UN be if the US, Russia and China weren't members? The veto is necessary, it balances the power in the UN, giving the major world powers the major power they do have.
The veto is totally unnecessary.  They should vote and if there's 2/3 or something like that, then you have a Resolution.  Period.  The veto is a joke.  How come you have a Resolution with 14 votes agreeing, but one vote from one of the 5 permanent members can veto the vote of the other 14?  It's outrageous.  The veto is the main responsible for the situation between Palestine and Israel not being solved.  As long as there is a veto in the UN, the UN will never achieve its goals.
As long as there is politics and world powers, the veto will exist. What we seem to somewhat agree on is my propostion that a 2/3 majority vote by all UN members to overturn any veto.

Last edited by EVieira (2007-04-30 07:54:11)

"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered;  the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei  (1564-1642)
2007-04-30 07:55:46
EVieira
Member
+105|6926|Lutenblaag, Molvania

Bertster7 wrote:

EVieira wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Japan is, if I remember rightly, the second largest contributer to the UNs funding, yet they are not a permanent member of the security council. Germany is also a major contributer.
The amount of funding the UN recieves from any particular nation is more determined by GDP than by influence within the UN.

I agree with your point about the veto remaining, but it being possible to overturn the veto with a 2/3 majority vote. That sounds like a good idea.
Decision making power over the UN will most certainly affect a government's willingness to fund the UN, and Japan is very pissed off about it.
They may be pissed off about it, but they've been putting up with it for quite a long time.

Things didn't go their way over that issue either.
But it shows that the decion-making power is to be considered. And we haven't seen the end of this either, Japan is not going to put up with funding 20% of the UN  and not having a seat forever.
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered;  the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei  (1564-1642)
2007-04-30 08:00:09
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7029|SE London

EVieira wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

EVieira wrote:


Decision making power over the UN will most certainly affect a government's willingness to fund the UN, and Japan is very pissed off about it.
They may be pissed off about it, but they've been putting up with it for quite a long time.

Things didn't go their way over that issue either.
But it shows that the decion-making power is to be considered. And we haven't seen the end of this either, Japan is not going to put up with funding 20% of the UN  and not having a seat forever.
I can't see the majority of the security council objecting to Japan getting a permanent seat. If the system you've proposed were to be implemented then Japan may well get a permanent seat on the security council.
2007-04-30 08:26:17
theelviscerator
Member
+19|6737
I agree the UN needs scrapped.
2007-04-30 09:16:37
EVieira
Member
+105|6926|Lutenblaag, Molvania

Bertster7 wrote:

EVieira wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:


They may be pissed off about it, but they've been putting up with it for quite a long time.

Things didn't go their way over that issue either.
But it shows that the decion-making power is to be considered. And we haven't seen the end of this either, Japan is not going to put up with funding 20% of the UN  and not having a seat forever.
I can't see the majority of the security council objecting to Japan getting a permanent seat. If the system you've proposed were to be implemented then Japan may well get a permanent seat on the security council.
Due to the veto, it only takes one country to oppose Japan: China. China uses the excuse that Japan hasen't done enough to compensate China for WWII to oppose their seat.
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered;  the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei  (1564-1642)
2007-04-30 10:04:54
blisteringsilence
I'd rather hunt with Cheney than ride with Kennedy
+83|7150|Little Rock, Arkansas

Bertster7 wrote:

Absolutely. The veto needs to be scrapped for the UN to stand a chance of becoming an effective organisation. It's a shame, because we really need the UN to work. All these people who say the UN should be gotten rid of are fooling themselves. We need an organisation like the UN, but we need one that works, which the UN in its current state does not.
It's the golden rule: He who has the gold, makes the rules.

Anyway, I personally think the veto system is just as effective as the UN itself. It's a useless organization that does nothing well but sap money from the US and Japan. Hell, if the US and Japan were to say, "Hey UN. Piss on you. We're making our own keg party" the UN would implode. There's already so much fraud and waste it makes 1880's NYC look like utopia. Remove 40% of their budget, they'd fold.

Not to mention, we'd get some great real estate back, and the police in NYC could start impounding illegally parked cars.

Anyway, the veto is important becuase, despite others protestations to the contrary, not all countries are as important as others. You can yell til you're blue in the face, but Panama is not the equal of the US in any way, shape, or form, and should not have an equal vote.

I believe that all men are created equal. Not all countries. We got their first, won, and declared the race over. Sucks to be those running behind.
2007-04-30 10:09:26
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7029|SE London

blisteringsilence wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Absolutely. The veto needs to be scrapped for the UN to stand a chance of becoming an effective organisation. It's a shame, because we really need the UN to work. All these people who say the UN should be gotten rid of are fooling themselves. We need an organisation like the UN, but we need one that works, which the UN in its current state does not.
It's the golden rule: He who has the gold, makes the rules.

Anyway, I personally think the veto system is just as effective as the UN itself. It's a useless organization that does nothing well but sap money from the US and Japan. Hell, if the US and Japan were to say, "Hey UN. Piss on you. We're making our own keg party" the UN would implode. There's already so much fraud and waste it makes 1880's NYC look like utopia. Remove 40% of their budget, they'd fold.

Not to mention, we'd get some great real estate back, and the police in NYC could start impounding illegally parked cars.

Anyway, the veto is important becuase, despite others protestations to the contrary, not all countries are as important as others. You can yell til you're blue in the face, but Panama is not the equal of the US in any way, shape, or form, and should not have an equal vote.

I believe that all men are created equal. Not all countries. We got their first, won, and declared the race over. Sucks to be those running behind.
What are you talking about?

1. Japan contributes the 2nd most to the UN and has no position on the security council whatsoever.
2. Your point about all countries not being equal is perfectly valid, but that is why the security council is there. Votes by members of the security council should not be blockable by any single nation. Panama certainly does not equal the US, but a vote by the UK, China, Russia and France should not be blockable by the US alone.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-04-30 10:09:39)

2007-04-30 12:47:04
EVieira
Member
+105|6926|Lutenblaag, Molvania

rdx-fx wrote:

Considering the amount of funding given to the UN, global influence on the world economy, and military might - France should lose it's 'permanent seat', and Japan should take that vacant seat.

Compared to US, UK, Russia, and China - France isn't in the same league at all, in any of the three metrics above.

Japan's SDF would be considered the 3rd or 4th largest military in the world.
Japan's economy and technology is definitely a 'global influence'.
You should research a bit before posting such blatanly wrong arguments. France's economy is just as big as UK's, and China's, and almost 3 times Russias. If you switch to per capita GDP, Russia nd China are far below france...

On UN funding, France is one of the largest contributers, much more than Russia and China

And on military might, considering you got those two arguments wrong I'm not gonna waste time digging that up. You're obviously just taking an opportunity to do some France bashing...
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered;  the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei  (1564-1642)

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard