Someone remind me again why does the US, or any country, have veto power in the UN?
A veto power basically makes the entire institution useless.
Because without it there would be no UN, and as useless as you think the current UN is, I promise you no UN is even more useless.
It's bleak but the fact that we can even get everybody in the same room is remarkable. Like it or not, a UN where Monaco and the US (or, Russia, China, etc) have the same power at the table is a UN where the big players reject its authority and form their own clubs.
Justify how there would be no UN without such veto. Because, honestly, an agreement council where you can only agree as a group to do something if the big players don't say otherwise to me looks like it just compounds the eternal problems we already have and is nothing more than just another flavour of "feel free to protest in a way that does not importunate me" Capitalism.
Because there isn't a UN without America, China and Russia.
France and the UK could leave and the UN could exist but those 3? Not a chance.
Each of those larger nations carries so much weight that their influence on global politics would outshine any body that tried to legislate without them.
The UN could exist technically but it would have no teeth at all. It has few enough as is.
Still, doesn't sound like a good argument to give those nations veto power over all decisions. Like, currently the way things are reading a motion could come it to have the UN acknowledge that, say, Palestinians are still human beings, and the US could veto that - and then what?
That can't happen - go read the declaration on human rights. The question is never if they're humans: it's if the state is recognized. Their rights as humans aren't contested.
Taiwan is still not recognized as a country only because China refuses to do so.
This is better than the alternative.
Wasn't that why the League of Nations failed?
The League of Nations failed because it was toothless, and basically did have extreme veto powers built in for world powers.
Countries weren't abiding by their obligations to directly intervene with attacks on member nations when a world power was an aggressor because doing so would create severe political problems for them. To this end the UN have their own armed forces for such issues.
Do you honestly think the UN is that effective when it concerns international human rights? They approved a ceasefire in Gaza and nothing happened. There's a two-year long genocide in Ukraine and the UN just let's the Russian Ambassador carry on, and they've done nothing to stop them.
Things like food aid and whatnot they're obviously helpful with, but if the League of Nations was toothless then the UN is wearing dentures in my mind lol
You say that all have the same power but Its never the small countries vetoing the big questions though.
He didn't say all nations have the same power in the UN. He said the opposite. Read the comment before you reply to it
"Like it or not, a UN where Monaco and the US (...) have the same power at the table is a UN where the big players reject its authority and form their own clubs."
Ah I see. I misread.
It still stands though that to bring the big guys to the table, we give them the chance to have it their way and therefore get nowhere with the big questions
Only permanent members of UNSC have veto powers.
So the only way to get the big guys to the table is by giving them the option to have it their way by force
I know that there are pro's and cons to this but IMO its too much power
Critics say that the veto is the most undemocratic element of the UN,[5] as well as the main cause of inaction on war crimes and crimes against humanity, as it effectively prevents UN action against the permanent members and their allies.[6]
Only the five permanent members have a veto power on the security council. USA, China, Russia, UK, and France.
No one else has the power to veto.
In fact, I think grandparent was talking about a hypothetical and counterfactual world where every nation had the same powers at the UN.
it's* never the small countries
It's* always the USA
See league of nations.
US, China, Russia, France, and the UK have veto power over Security Council resolutions because they are the ones who are called upon to actually enforce Security Council resolutions.
if that were the argument, China, Russia, France and the UK could now act to enforce the resolution if the US is not doing it. After all, they have veto power too, right?
A veto means the resolution does not pass in the first place.
Someone remind me again why does the US, or any country, have veto power in the UN?
A veto power basically makes the entire institution useless.
Because without it there would be no UN, and as useless as you think the current UN is, I promise you no UN is even more useless.
It's bleak but the fact that we can even get everybody in the same room is remarkable. Like it or not, a UN where Monaco and the US (or, Russia, China, etc) have the same power at the table is a UN where the big players reject its authority and form their own clubs.
Justify how there would be no UN without such veto. Because, honestly, an agreement council where you can only agree as a group to do something if the big players don't say otherwise to me looks like it just compounds the eternal problems we already have and is nothing more than just another flavour of "feel free to protest in a way that does not importunate me" Capitalism.
Because there isn't a UN without America, China and Russia.
France and the UK could leave and the UN could exist but those 3? Not a chance.
Each of those larger nations carries so much weight that their influence on global politics would outshine any body that tried to legislate without them.
The UN could exist technically but it would have no teeth at all. It has few enough as is.
Still, doesn't sound like a good argument to give those nations veto power over all decisions. Like, currently the way things are reading a motion could come it to have the UN acknowledge that, say, Palestinians are still human beings, and the US could veto that - and then what?
That can't happen - go read the declaration on human rights. The question is never if they're humans: it's if the state is recognized. Their rights as humans aren't contested.
Taiwan is still not recognized as a country only because China refuses to do so.
This is better than the alternative.
Wasn't that why the League of Nations failed?
The League of Nations failed because it was toothless, and basically did have extreme veto powers built in for world powers.
Countries weren't abiding by their obligations to directly intervene with attacks on member nations when a world power was an aggressor because doing so would create severe political problems for them. To this end the UN have their own armed forces for such issues.
Do you honestly think the UN is that effective when it concerns international human rights? They approved a ceasefire in Gaza and nothing happened. There's a two-year long genocide in Ukraine and the UN just let's the Russian Ambassador carry on, and they've done nothing to stop them.
Things like food aid and whatnot they're obviously helpful with, but if the League of Nations was toothless then the UN is wearing dentures in my mind lol
You say that all have the same power but Its never the small countries vetoing the big questions though.
Its always USA , China or Russia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vetoed_United_Nations_Security_Council_resolutions
He didn't say all nations have the same power in the UN. He said the opposite. Read the comment before you reply to it
"Like it or not, a UN where Monaco and the US (...) have the same power at the table is a UN where the big players reject its authority and form their own clubs."
Ah I see. I misread. It still stands though that to bring the big guys to the table, we give them the chance to have it their way and therefore get nowhere with the big questions
Only permanent members of UNSC have veto powers.
So the only way to get the big guys to the table is by giving them the option to have it their way by force
I know that there are pro's and cons to this but IMO its too much power
(From wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_veto_power)
Only the five permanent members have a veto power on the security council. USA, China, Russia, UK, and France.
No one else has the power to veto.
In fact, I think grandparent was talking about a hypothetical and counterfactual world where every nation had the same powers at the UN.
See league of nations.
US, China, Russia, France, and the UK have veto power over Security Council resolutions because they are the ones who are called upon to actually enforce Security Council resolutions.
if that were the argument, China, Russia, France and the UK could now act to enforce the resolution if the US is not doing it. After all, they have veto power too, right?
A veto means the resolution does not pass in the first place.
The threat of violence.