The veto in the Security council doesn't make sense

[Truthseeker]

Russia’s Lavrov warns of ‘serious’ danger of World War III

UN to vote on Security Council veto reforms
The 193 members of the UN General Assembly are set to vote on a resolution that would require the five permanent members of the Security Council to justify their use of the veto in future...

Directly targeting the US, China, Russia, France and the UK – who are the only holders of the veto right – the measure would “make them pay a higher political price” when they opt to use their veto to strike down a Security Council resolution, said an ambassador from a country that does not have the veto.

The veto in the Security Council doesn't make sense. The countries should not only have to pay a price for using the veto, there should not be a veto at all. However, I doubt this will happen in the near future. If this Ukraine war doesn't teach us that, when will this happen?

 

[sun rise]

It's a tiny step but I think a useful one.

 

[exchemist]

Russia’s Lavrov warns of ‘serious’ danger of World War III

UN to vote on Security Council veto reforms
The 193 members of the UN General Assembly are set to vote on a resolution that would require the five permanent members of the Security Council to justify their use of the veto in future...

Directly targeting the US, China, Russia, France and the UK – who are the only holders of the veto right – the measure would “make them pay a higher political price” when they opt to use their veto to strike down a Security Council resolution, said an ambassador from a country that does not have the veto.

The veto in the Security Council doesn't make sense. The countries should not only have to pay a price for using the veto, there should not be a veto at all. However, I doubt this will happen in the near future. If this Ukraine war doesn't teach us that, when will this happen?

The UN is highly imperfect but that is inevitable, given the need to get all countries, with widely differing histories, goals and political systems, to sign up to it. Arguably, it's fairly ridiculous that the UK and France are permanent members of the security council. But that's the history of it. Once you call one aspect into question you risk a free-for-all that dismantles the whole thing without anyone being able to agree how to improve it. Tearing multinational institutions down is easy: building them up is extraordinarily difficult. My recollection is that the League of Nations failed because countries that were criticised simply left the organisation. The primary aim has to be to keep them all at the table, talking and thereby subject to some degree of peer pressure.

 

[Aupmanyav]

"The veto in the Security council doesn't make sense": Security Council itself does not make any sense if no one cares for it.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I see it as a bunch of talking heads that really dosent accomplish a whole lot.

 

[exchemist]

I see it as a bunch of talking heads that really dosent accomplish a whole lot.

That figures.

 

[F1fan]

The UN was set up with an extension of trust to all parties, and the assumption that the major powers would have the stability to know best. As we see with authoritarian leaders, like Trump and Putin, among others, that these leaders can wield a great deal of influence and power over their nations. Putin has certainly destroyed this trust over the last decade and especially this year with the invasion. It illustrates how even democracies like the USA can fall into authoritarian and unethical leadership quite easily.

France seemed to understand that authoritarian leadership is unsuitable for Europe and security. Solvenia followed with a rebuke of its incumbent authoritarian leadership as well. For the USA it remains to be seen if the 2024 election will result in fairness and ethics. So I suggest this measure is necessary given the strong support, albeit minority of populations, for authoritarians. They cannot be trusted for global cooperation and peace.

 

[F1fan]

I see it as a bunch of talking heads that really dosent accomplish a whole lot.

Well, put Le Pen and Trump in power with Putin and there's going to be a lot more global pain. Talking it better. Authoritarians can't be trusted.

 

[Truthseeker]

It's a tiny step but I think a useful one.

That may be true. But we need much more than that.

Here's the news today is concerning what this reform entails:

UN approves measure requiring states to justify veto

The 193 members of the United Nations General Assembly have adopted by consensus a resolution requiring the five permanent members of the Security Council to justify their use of the veto...

The text is non-binding and nothing prevents a country that has used its veto from declining to explain its actions to the General Assembly.

This seems to amount to nothing now once the details have come out, which was not available to me yesterday. But if they don't justify their veto, I suppose that would look bad.