IMHO I reckon that the power of veto should be suspended when that country (or countries) are involved any incident at least.

Cheers.

Perhaps you might care to remember back to the Iraq war in 2003. Bush made it clear that the USA were going in and expected the UK to assist, but he was told that he didn't have a UN mandate to do that. His famous reply was "Nobody tells America what to do".

True, but by doing so, the US lost an enormous amount of international prestige and political capital and it wrecked their reputation. Just shows that sure, you can go without an UN mandate, but its gonna cost you.

I shall have to look into the UN as I don't have enough knowledge of it to comment much further.

After you with the book cos I haven't either :)

My instincts tell me that stripped of their power of veto - the big boys (and girls) did you see that nifty little sidestep away from sexism everyone :) would abandon the UN and set up their own club - like they have on other issues. (Would be nice to be wrong on that though... *sigh*)

I also have a niggling suspicion that several peace initiatives have been scuppered with the cynical use of a veto - but I will have to look into that before commenting specifically. You don't mind waiting do you Мишель? :)

Just a quick glance at the list in the link I posted in the Isreal/Palestine thread (repeated below) sort of suggests the veto has been used inappropriately on more than one occasion though...

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html

...and of course not just by America. It's its inappropriate use that gets right up my nose - and as Wiggo has said - when it's used by the accused (so to speak) which turns the whole thing into a farce.

How you get round that I'm not sure - but as it is at the moment - being gummed by a toothless and declawed tiger is hardly effective at delivering anything other than a big bill to everyone else for no services rendered.

I'm going to shut up now.............

................

There! Did you like it? Wasn't that peaceful! :)

Hopefully by the weekend, I'll have a bit of time to make a more balanced, well-researched post than this one :)

So the P5 countries will just chuck a childish hissy fit and go away and sulk in a corner by themselves and ignore the votes of other countries?

It is suppose to be the "United Nations" isn't it?

Why can't world issues just be decided by a greater majority (say 66-75%) of all the member countries?

I'm sorry, but reforms are needed here, we all have to live on and share this world together (no one should be set above the others).

Cheers.

So the P5 countries will just chuck a childish hissy fit and go away and sulk in a corner by themselves and ignore the votes of other countries?

It is suppose to be the "United Nations" isn't it?

Why can't world issues just be decided by a greater majority (say 66-75%) of all the member countries?

I'm sorry, but reforms are needed here, we all have to live on and share this world together (no one should be set above the others).

Cheers.

+1000

Faultless Wiggo. How about penalties for any of the big five that decide not to cooperate... yes... I'll come up with some suggestions! Might float them here first though... before forwarding them to the UN :)

Someone said it here, but if one of the P5 members is involved as a primary player in an incident in the world then they should be suspended from being able to VETO.

Personally I would go further, I would change the Security Council so it did not have Permanent Members but made up of a representative country, or a proxy block.

Each Nation would sit on the council in Turn. For arguments sake..

Representatives from

North America (Mexico / USA / Canada)
South America (All Nations south of Mexico)
Sub Saharan Africa
North African Nations
Australasia (Aus, NZ, Phillipines, Indonesia)
Pacific Rim (Japan, Korea, Vietnam, China,Taiwan etc)
Central Asia (India, Pak, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan etc)
Middle East Nations
Eastern Europe (All for the Former Soviet Nations)
Western Europe

That would give 10 representatives on the Security Council, would be fairer, more honest and less prone to the vagaries of the major powers

---

That won't fly because the 5 permanent members won't give up their power. Fairness is not an issue with any of them.

---

That won't fly because the 5 permanent members won't give up their power. Fairness is not an issue with any of them.

Yep.

@Everyone:

I don't think the veto system in the UN Security Council is all that bad. Think about it...

1. The UN exists (as one of its mission statements in its charter) to cut down on the incidence of wars.
2. Each one of the Permanent 5 has been, at some time over the last 300 or so years, on opposite sides of an armed conflict.
3. Only the Security Council of the UN can authorize war in the UN's name.
4. The P5, each with their own agendas, allies, and interests (not to mention Nukes), having a veto makes war in the UN's name MUCH less likely.

How about one of the following two solutions:

1. Expand the list of non-permanent members of the Security Council from 4 to 15 (for a total of 20 seats). That would be 15 seats rotating instead of only 4. Then give all members of the Security Council the Veto.

2. Eliminate the Security Council altogether and with it the UN's power to wage war.

Since the UN exists to prevent war, why should they be DOING war?

4. The P5, each with their own agendas, allies, and interests (not to mention Nukes), having a veto makes war in the UN's name MUCH less likely.

Indeed, and when they do agree to authorize the use of military force, such a mission instantly gets a very high degree of international legitimacy. In other words, you know youre bombing the right guy if the US, Russia, China, the UK and France can agree with each other that its necessary.

2. Eliminate the Security Council altogether and with it the UN's power to wage war.

Since the UN exists to prevent war, why should they be DOING war?

Well, sometimes you need to. Pacifism is great, but sometimes there are just people that won't play by the rules. Sometimes you need to wage war in order to protect yourself or in order to prevent a greater harm.

Also, its not the UN that wages war. The UN simply authorizes its member states to use military force to achieve a certain objective. The UN itself only does peace keeping missions. Big difference.

Someone said it here, but if one of the P5 members is involved as a primary player in an incident in the world then they should be suspended from being able to VETO.

Personally I would go further, I would change the Security Council so it did not have Permanent Members but made up of a representative country, or a proxy block.

Each Nation would sit on the council in Turn. For arguments sake..

Representatives from

North America (Mexico / USA / Canada)
South America (All Nations south of Mexico)
Sub Saharan Africa
North African Nations
Australasia (Aus, NZ, Phillipines, Indonesia)
Pacific Rim (Japan, Korea, Vietnam, China,Taiwan etc)
Central Asia (India, Pak, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan etc)
Middle East Nations
Eastern Europe (All for the Former Soviet Nations)
Western Europe

That would give 10 representatives on the Security Council, would be fairer, more honest and less prone to the vagaries of the major powers

That looks nice if you look at the map, but in reality such blocks would be incredibly impractical. A lot of those countries you grouped together in a block have almost no common interests and others are just downright enemies of each other. Having a representative represent his country AND the other countries in his block would therefor never work.

Korea..

That changed the game plan. Russia opposed Military intervention to prevent the Communists over-running the South and used it's VETO, this was ignored by the Western Powers and the UN as a whole which authorised Military and Humanitarian intervention.

The VETO does not block the UN from action, it simply stops a unanimous vote. The VETO does not block operations or actions, it simply means that it needs to go to a Vote in the main chamber for the whole of the UN.

Politicians in the modern era seem reluctant to do this and when a VETO is used do not often call for the vote to be sent to the main UN body.

---

Korea..

That changed the game plan. Russia opposed Military intervention to prevent the Communists over-running the South and used it's VETO, this was ignored by the Western Powers and the UN as a whole which authorised Military and Humanitarian intervention.

The VETO does not block the UN from action, it simply stops a unanimous vote. The VETO does not block operations or actions, it simply means that it needs to go to a Vote in the main chamber for the whole of the UN.

Politicians in the modern era seem reluctant to do this and when a VETO is used do not often call for the vote to be sent to the main UN body.

No, because only the UNSC resolutions are binding. You can have the general assembly vote for or against something, but whatever they decide is not binding (except when its a budgetary matter). Furthermore, I don't even think the general assembly is allowed to make recommendations on matters of peace and security. Thats the Security Councils exclusive domain.

But there are a number of ways around not getting your mandate from the UNSC. You are allowed to use force when its for self defense, and self defense includes collective self defense (eg, helping an ally defend itself). Also, when a country invites you or gives you permission to conduct military operations on its territory, you also don't need an UNSC mandate. Hence the French could bomb Jihadists in Mali without a UN mandate and could the US bomb ISIS in Iraq without having to ask permission of the UN first.

In the case of Korea, the Soviet Union had been boycotting the UN, so the UN decided to move forward without the Soviet Union getting a vote. But yeah, technically, that was not entirely according to UN rules.

That is at odds with their comments on the UN Website.

---

4. The P5, each with their own agendas, allies, and interests (not to mention Nukes), having a veto makes war in the UN's name MUCH less likely.

Indeed, and when they do agree to authorize the use of military force, such a mission instantly gets a very high degree of international legitimacy. In other words, you know youre bombing the right guy if the US, Russia, China, the UK and France can agree with each other that its necessary.

THIS! Though I might not use the term 'authorize', but instead 'put their stamp of approval on'. Nations still retain their power and authority to wage war without the UNSC stamp of approval on it, but as Bush the Younger found out, doing so tends to p**s other people off.


As you say, the current UNSC system of the P5 having Veto power works pretty well. Do away with the Veto in the UNSC and switch over to a simple or super-majority vote system, and you will quite likely see a sizable increase in the UN's... uhh.. 'Police Actions', further destabilizing the geopolitical climate thus leading to an increased likelyhood that General War will break out.

Let the P5, especially the big 3 (USA, Russia, and China), continue to play their 'chess game' in the UNSC. It keeps them occupied, for the most part (though not always... Iraq, Ukraine, etc.).

2. Eliminate the Security Council altogether and with it the UN's power to wage war.

Since the UN exists to prevent war, why should they be DOING war?

Well, sometimes you need to. Pacifism is great, but sometimes there are just people that won't play by the rules. Sometimes you need to wage war in order to protect yourself or in order to prevent a greater harm.

Also, its not the UN that wages war. The UN simply authorizes its member states to use military force to achieve a certain objective. The UN itself only does peace keeping missions. Big difference.

Peacekeeping missions... what a joke.

Put a bunch of people in a 'war zone', wearing bright blue helmets, with BIG WHITE letters on the sides of their vehicles, inadequately armed, with instructions to avoid using the weapons they DO have, with the 'threat' of "don't shoot at us, or we might have to use HARSH language at you"...

<snort>

You want to 'peacekeep' a 'war zone'? You send in the REAL military, and shoot at both sides until *they* agree to stop fighting... Then you STAY there keeping them apart until its OBVIOUS that the two former enemies are now best buddies.

Peacekeeping missions... what a joke.

Put a bunch of people in a 'war zone', wearing bright blue helmets, with BIG WHITE letters on the sides of their vehicles, inadequately armed, with instructions to avoid using the weapons they DO have, with the 'threat' of "don't shoot at us, or we might have to use HARSH language at you"...

<snort>

You want to 'peacekeep' a 'war zone'? You send in the REAL military, and shoot at both sides until *they* agree to stop fighting... Then you STAY there keeping them apart until its OBVIOUS that the two former enemies are now best buddies.

I agree. If youre gonna do peacekeeping, at least make sure you can actually keep the peace, rather than look helplessly how the locals kill each other.

But that leads to the logistical problem of UN Peacekeeping. Namely the peacekeepers. While the UN can try to set up a mission, its up to the member states to provide troops to such a mission. And sadly, the countries that provide the most troops are also the countries that generally only have third rate armies. As a result, those troops are generally awful and completely unsuitable for the task at hand. Its hardly surprising that in areas where the UN has a peacekeeping mission, rape, prostitution and child prostitution spike.

Really, if one part of the UN needs reform, its the way they do peacekeeping missions.

Really, if one part of the UN needs reform, its the way they do peacekeeping missions.

I think we totally agree on the above statement.

You want to 'peacekeep' a 'war zone'? You send in the REAL military, and shoot at both sides until *they* agree to stop fighting... Then you STAY there keeping them apart until its OBVIOUS that the two former enemies are now best buddies.

No surprise you have a USA flag in your avatar then.

You ever have to break up a fight between a couple of little kids?

Nations are not that much different.

If you don't punish both for fighting, it leads to a host of... other problems.

Nations are not that much different.

One assumes that you would advocate the same approach to Palestine and Israel then?

If they're going to fight over it then neither of them can have it!

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

Can I ask a quick question here? Would Israel go to bed early without any tea?

Nope... Totally different culture...

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

For me, the UN lost all credibility shortly after it's creation with the debarcle that was Korea and then again on repeated occasions when it has singularly failed to enforce sanctions against Israel and the failings in both Libya and more importantly The Balkans in the 1990's onwards..

It's a busted flush.

---