Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Should The Veto Be Available In The UN  
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31712 posts, RR: 56
Posted (10 years 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2645 times:

The Five Permanent members of the UN Security council namely USA,UK,France,Russia & China have Veto powers.
There is a proposal to add to this team member states minus the veto powers.
The War ended half a century + ago.If the UN is supposed to be a democratic organisation,why keep the veto power.Why not abolish it.
regds
MEL


Think of the brighter side!
11 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently onlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21521 posts, RR: 53
Reply 1, posted (10 years 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2633 times:

I think in principle you´re right... The veto has to go. But since the whole construction was made with the veto in place, there will need to be changes to the rules as well; We´ll need to come from the "might makes right" situation with the veto to a "majority rules, but minority is well protected" situation without it that can be accepted by all (besides the usual posturing, of course! Wink/being sarcastic).

User currently offlineLuisde8cd From Pitcairn Islands, joined Aug 2004, 2575 posts, RR: 31
Reply 2, posted (10 years 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2617 times:

The veto power in the Sec Council helped prevent nuclear catastrophe during the Cold War, because neither the US or the USSR would try to pass a resolution that would piss off the other country. I think veto power was extremely useful during the cold war, but right now I think there should be some changes. Countries like Germany and Japan are world powers and yet they don't have a permanent seat. Also developing countries like Brazil, Mexico, India should also get a permanent seat.

My proposal is to keep the current P-5 without veto power and add Germany, Japan, India, Mexico and Brazil as permanent members also without vetopower.


User currently offlineGreaser From Bahamas, joined Jan 2004, 1101 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (10 years 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2612 times:

My proposal is to keep the current P-5 without veto power and add Germany, Japan, India, Mexico and Brazil as permanent members also without vetopower.

I don't see 10 members for the simple reason of a tie. However, doubling the size of the permernant members seem a bit much?? maybe adding 2 (total 7) would be ok, but not another 4 or 6 more. Howver i agree with you that Japan should be one of the permernant members. They have truly proven themselves to the world more than anyone else, and they tend to be neutral (tend, not always) on most issues



Now you're really flying
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (10 years 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2595 times:

Considering the sheer number of screwed up countries in the world, with screwey governments, I would be wary of granting them the power to do whatever they want. What if the majority (mostly poor countries) decide that there should be a redistribution of wealth. The countries that generate 50% of the world's GDP (less than a dozen countries would be in this group)should donate annually 10% of their GDP directly to the rest of the world. Without a veto, the world's wealthiest countries could find themselves in violation of some ridiculous UN Resolution, and exposed to sanctions, etc.

I agree that the UN structure is antiquidated and needs a radical update (including the elimination of 95% of its staff and structure). But I cannot accept that countries like North Korea and Zimbabwe would have an equal voice as civilized countries like Japan, France or the U.S..

I would consider a system that grants full voting rights only to countries that have democratic governments (not just in name, but in fact). All others would have observer status only. If a government does not see fit to give its people a significant vote in how their country is run, I don't see why they should be given a vote in the UN.

Charles


User currently offlineKaran69 From India, joined Oct 2004, 2893 posts, RR: 18
Reply 5, posted (10 years 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2587 times:

Once the Veto rights are given they are given-No present "Veto Country" will allow any other country to get veto status.
Even if other member countries want to join another one will VETO the decision or choice

This could be due to the age old fact that "enemies never change, they only increase"
OR
Due to some insecurity one may have about another,etc.etc.......



User currently offlineIakobos From Belgium, joined Aug 2003, 3316 posts, RR: 34
Reply 6, posted (10 years 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2571 times:

Cfalk including the elimination of 95% of its staff and structure

Then the entire world is in for the big chaos. Want a shortlist of UN bodies ?


User currently offlineIakobos From Belgium, joined Aug 2003, 3316 posts, RR: 34
Reply 7, posted (10 years 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2569 times:

http://www.un.org/aboutun/chart.html

which 5% of these agencies do you wish to keep ?


User currently onlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21521 posts, RR: 53
Reply 8, posted (10 years 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2557 times:

Cfalk: Considering the sheer number of screwed up countries in the world, with screwey governments, I would be wary of granting them the power to do whatever they want.

But with the veto, that´s basically what we´ve got! If China doesn´t want to allow criticism of any of its human rights violations, it simply vetoes it and voila! Pretty screwed-up as it is!


Cfalk: What if the majority (mostly poor countries) decide that there should be a redistribution of wealth.

As in any democracy, the majority can decide that - as far as the constitution allows it. Keeping the veto instead of a strengthened charta for the protection of nation´s rights with increased democratic measures would basically be the same as granting Bill Gates and other wealthy people a veto on any law (including taxation legislature) for the mere fact that they´re rich!


Cfalk: The countries that generate 50% of the world's GDP (less than a dozen countries would be in this group)should donate annually 10% of their GDP directly to the rest of the world. Without a veto, the world's wealthiest countries could find themselves in violation of some ridiculous UN Resolution, and exposed to sanctions, etc.

A veto is actually the worst possible way to "assure" protection - because it means only some nations have protection, the others get screwed. Only the equivalent of a well-designed and properly executed global constitution can help here.


Cfalk: I would consider a system that grants full voting rights only to countries that have democratic governments (not just in name, but in fact). All others would have observer status only. If a government does not see fit to give its people a significant vote in how their country is run, I don't see why they should be given a vote in the UN.

I actually think you´ve got a point here. It would be very difficult to implement, but I think something along those lines is indeed necessary. Although I wouldn´t go so far as to relegate non-democratic countries to observer status. But being democratic (according to a fair and verifiable definition) should indeed be honoured by some privileges.

The time has passed when some people could claim democracy and human rights were purely "western" concepts and in no way applicable to every nation on the planet. They are universal.


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (10 years 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2545 times:

Klaus,

But with the veto, that´s basically what we´ve got! If China doesn´t want to allow criticism of any of its human rights violations, it simply vetoes it and voila! Pretty screwed-up as it is!

I agree that the veto system is hardly a very good system in itself. I'm just pointing out that a "democratic" UN giving every country an equal say has its own very significant problems, in a world where most countries are run illegitimately, either through a dictatorship or with regular and systemic fraud.

Of course the biggest question is what to do about China - nearly a quarter of the world's population living under an illegitimate government, that shows no real signs of leaving any time soon. And they can veto any attempt to make the UN more respectful of democratic governments.

In fact that, that alone might be enough to scupper any real reform of the UN.

Iakobos, The agencies have impressive titles, and many of them actually do some good. But when you know as many of the people in the UN as I do, (and I know hundreds) who have worked in UNHCR, WHO, ITO and other agencies for years, and you hear nothing but complaints about the absolute inefficiency brought on by "empire politics" combined with a governmental bureaucratic mindset, combined with the complete lack of accountability other than to themselves. Most of their work involves making up work for themselves and others that justify their position. That a particular task may actually do something in the direction what the agency is supposed to do is incidental, as long as you can justify your headcount.

Charles


User currently offlineJasepl From India, joined Jul 2004, 3582 posts, RR: 39
Reply 10, posted (10 years 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2537 times:

Countries like Germany and Japan are world powers and yet they don't have a permanent seat. Also developing countries like Brazil, Mexico, India should also get a permanent seat.

I agree that the UN desperately needs reform and that the security council needs to be expanded. Certainly, India because of its size needs to be considered. But I strongly feel India is not ready and does not deserve a place at the table at the moment. Simply because India's contribution to and role in world affairs has been minimal at best in modern times.


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31712 posts, RR: 56
Reply 11, posted (10 years 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2517 times:

I know its not a possibility......But just presuming......That apart from the 5 permanent members,all the rest of the UN members,quit the UN & form another organisation with a similiar UN setup but the Security council has no veto.What would happen.
Will the Big 5 join this new organisation.
 Smile
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Should Pete Rose Be Let In The Hall? posted Sun Mar 17 2002 23:00:30 by Donder10
Satellite Radio Will Be Available In Canada posted Fri Jun 17 2005 00:57:09 by IlikeYYC
Should Old People Be Allowed On The Road? posted Wed Aug 23 2000 02:42:10 by Flyf15
Should The UK Better Utilise The Channel Tunnel? posted Wed Aug 30 2006 00:22:51 by RJ111
Why The Elderly Shouldn't Be Behind The Wheel... posted Wed Jul 19 2006 05:28:40 by KFLLCFII
Should Politics Be Taught In Schools. posted Fri Mar 3 2006 21:52:13 by Gary2880
Should Women Be Allowed In Golf? posted Tue Nov 29 2005 18:50:55 by 9VSPO
America Finally Seems To Be Getting The Message... posted Sat Sep 17 2005 00:46:55 by SATX
Should ESP Be Mandatory In New Vehicles? posted Wed Feb 16 2005 11:43:35 by UTA_flyinghigh
Is Ensure Available In The UK? posted Wed Jan 26 2005 22:15:29 by SmithAir747