• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

United Nations Security Council "power of veto"

United Nations Security Council "power of veto"

  • Total voters
    15
radcen

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
United Nations Security Council "power of veto"

Does allowing any ONE permanent member of the UN Security Council to veto things work well, or does it just create and/or perpetuate problems?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_veto_power

I find it interesting that the US never used their veto until 1970... though we have certainly made up for lost time.

If you feel it doesn't work well, what would be a good alternative?
 
radcen said:
United Nations Security Council "power of veto"

Does allowing any ONE permanent member of the UN Security Council to veto things work well, or does it just create and/or perpetuate problems?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_veto_power

I find it interesting that the US never used their veto until 1970... though we have certainly made up for lost time.

If you feel it doesn't work well, what would be a good alternative?
Click to expand...

I think in any system like this it is far better to do nothing than to do something wrong. This is something that should be true of all government systems. When in doubt stay out. That is why things like the filibuster exist. That's why we have a bill of rights that no majority can take away.
 
MrWonka said:
I think in any system like this it is far better to do nothing than to do something wrong. This is something that should be true of all government systems. When in doubt stay out. That is why things like the filibuster exist. That's why we have a bill of rights that no majority can take away.
Click to expand...

Good answer. Nicely put.
 
I can understand why it's there - I doubt countries like Israel, the US, Russia or China would bother to put up with the UN if they didn't have a way to ensure their interests were protected. And it occasionally does some good, like just recently in The Gambia. However, you really have to question the point of an organisation that was explicitly set up to stop the crimes of World War 2, only to stand by when something like the Rwandan Genocide happens. Leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I'm therefore voting undecided.
 
Perhaps SC consensus should be allowed to override the veto?
 
radcen said:
United Nations Security Council "power of veto"

Does allowing any ONE permanent member of the UN Security Council to veto things work well, or does it just create and/or perpetuate problems?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_veto_power

I find it interesting that the US never used their veto until 1970... though we have certainly made up for lost time.

If you feel it doesn't work well, what would be a good alternative?
Click to expand...

The question is well chosen as we absolutely do need a communal structure that can guarantee general security for all. There is no doubt tha without it we are going to have The Big One that will sink us all.

But a change in the voting rules of the UNSC will not be enough and it is unclear that it would improve the probability of global organization getting onto a survival trajectory. The changes we need are much more complex and will require a fine tuned political maneuvering and negotiations. Political decision making systems are very difficult to get right. How badly they can go is quite visible in the way the Eu has gone from one crisis to the next because it's political structures, though better than those of the un, are very poor.
 
radcen said:
United Nations Security Council "power of veto"

Does allowing any ONE permanent member of the UN Security Council to veto things work well, or does it just create and/or perpetuate problems?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_veto_power

I find it interesting that the US never used their veto until 1970... though we have certainly made up for lost time.

If you feel it doesn't work well, what would be a good alternative?
Click to expand...

If a UNSC member wants to veto an issue, then it should ask the General Assembly to back it up. So if the UNSC votes on an issue and any member disagrees, then it goes to the General assembly with a requirement of a 2/3 majority to pass the resolution.
 
MrWonka said:
I think in any system like this it is far better to do nothing than to do something wrong. This is something that should be true of all government systems. When in doubt stay out. That is why things like the filibuster exist. That's why we have a bill of rights that no majority can take away.
Click to expand...

..and yet we currently have a minority of people trying to take away the 1st Amendment rights of American citizens and LIBERALS are supporting it...
 
Harbo said:
I can understand why it's there - I doubt countries like Israel, the US, Russia or China would bother to put up with the UN if they didn't have a way to ensure their interests were protected. And it occasionally does some good, like just recently in The Gambia. However, you really have to question the point of an organisation that was explicitly set up to stop the crimes of World War 2, only to stand by when something like the Rwandan Genocide happens. Leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I'm therefore voting undecided.
Click to expand...
Similar to another poster, there are times when indecision or inaction is probably the best course. Yet it is frustrating when something that should be clearly address gets vetoed for political reasons, then again sometimes we save ourselves from bad action when proposals are mode purely for political reasons.

As frustrating as it can be, maybe it is a good system overall. :shrug:
 
radcen said:
United Nations Security Council "power of veto"

Does allowing any ONE permanent member of the UN Security Council to veto things work well, or does it just create and/or perpetuate problems?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_veto_power

I find it interesting that the US never used their veto until 1970... though we have certainly made up for lost time.

If you feel it doesn't work well, what would be a good alternative?
Click to expand...

Honestly the UN as a whole does not work well. Its rife with corruption and its effectiveness is fairly null. as to the security council, perhaps they need a veto override ability. The security council has 5 permanent and 10 non permanent members. If they added a 2/3 supermajority veto override ability where 10 members could override a veto that might help.
 
faithful_servant said:
If a UNSC member wants to veto an issue, then it should ask the General Assembly to back it up. So if the UNSC votes on an issue and any member disagrees, then it goes to the General assembly with a requirement of a 2/3 majority to pass the resolution.
Click to expand...

IIRC it can be placed for vote by UN members. Nor sure but it would be a simple majority to pass.
 
faithful_servant said:
..and yet we currently have a minority of people trying to take away the 1st Amendment rights of American citizens and LIBERALS are supporting it...
Click to expand...

lol...way to take a thread about the UN and turn it around to an opportunity to diss LIBERALS. I'm surprised you even have an axe left, with all the grinding you do.... haha
 
OlNate said:
lol...way to take a thread about the UN and turn it around to an opportunity to diss LIBERALS. I'm surprised you even have an axe left, with all the grinding you do.... haha
Click to expand...

Like how every TDS suffering liberal here can turn any thread into another opportunity to spew their hate??
 
faithful_servant said:
Like how every TDS suffering liberal here can turn any thread into another opportunity to spew their hate??
Click to expand...

Seems like you're the one spewing hate at the moment. So, at best, according to your perspective, you're no better than us. Congrats!!

:lamo
 
OlNate said:
Seems like you're the one spewing hate at the moment. So, at best, according to your perspective, you're no better than us. Congrats!!

:lamo
Click to expand...

No hate on my end, unlike the TDS suffering liberals here who have openly and repeatedly admitted to hating conservatives, Pres. Trump, Reps. and pretty much anyone who doesn't line up with their ideology.
 
faithful_servant said:
No hate on my end, unlike the TDS suffering liberals here who have openly and repeatedly admitted to hating conservatives, Pres. Trump, Reps. and pretty much anyone who doesn't line up with their ideology.
Click to expand...

Hey, what does TDS stand for?
 
faithful_servant said:
No hate on my end, unlike the TDS suffering liberals here who have openly and repeatedly admitted to hating conservatives, Pres. Trump, Reps. and pretty much anyone who doesn't line up with their ideology.
Click to expand...

radcen said:
"Trump Derangement Syndrome"... the opposite of TSD, "Trump Sucker Disorder".
Click to expand...

Huh...well, that sounds like a very loving generalization, no hate there, right "Faithful Servant"? lol........... *cough* *HACK* *cough*
 
Without looking into it, most of the US vetos have been blocking censure of Israeli actions against their neighbours, and Gaza in particular. If all the vetos had been put to a GA vote they would have been overruled.
 
OlNate said:
Huh...well, that sounds like a very loving generalization, no hate there, right "Faithful Servant"? lol........... *cough* *HACK* *cough*
Click to expand...

Just the opposite of a generalization. "TDS suffering liberals" identifies s very specific subset of liberals, not a label applied to all liberals. I used to always specify that kind of thing, since too many liberals just couldn't wrap their head around the idea that there could be such subsets within groups bit I stopped, thinking that maybe they were finally getting it. I guess I was wrong and I'll have to go back to over-explaining everything so that those of you who can't conceive of not pigeonholing everyone into nice little over-generalized categories won't get confused.
 
faithful_servant said:
Just the opposite of a generalization. "TDS suffering liberals" identifies s very specific subset of liberals, not a label applied to all liberals. I used to always specify that kind of thing, since too many liberals just couldn't wrap their head around the idea that there could be such subsets within groups bit I stopped, thinking that maybe they were finally getting it. I guess I was wrong and I'll have to go back to over-explaining everything so that those of you who can't conceive of not pigeonholing everyone into nice little over-generalized categories won't get confused.
Click to expand...

faithful_servant said:
That's not hate, it's just a simple truth.
Click to expand...

Stop, all this love you're sending my way is starting to make me blush!! If you keep this up, I'll expect dinner...just sayin'... lolz
 
UN security council decisions should be a majority vote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom