The Veto-right

[Henkie36]

When I was watching the news this morning, I heard that China and Russia blocked a UN resolution to judge what's going on in Syria with a veto, while a majority was in favor of the resolution. And this got me thinking: is the veto still up-to-date?
I get the feeling that it should be scrapped. Why should the winners of WWII, which does not matter anymore in the current world, be able to stop something the entire world thinks should be done? And for that matter, shouldn't the countries that matter the most have the veto? I mean, be honest here, Britain was one of the superpowers during WWII, but since then, the Empire has broken up, they have lost much of their international influence, and if it was Britain that would be going bust rather then Greece, the EU wouldn't even turn its head to see what is going on. France basically has the same problems, and Russia only really matters in the world because they have lots of raw fabrics and because they inherited the nuclear wepons of the Soviet Union. Shouldn't countries which are more important in the current world, the so-called losers of WWII, Germany and Japan, have more influence?
I do understand why they created the veto, to get stuff done which went against the Axis, but I have a distinct feeling that it doesn't matter anymore, and that this 66 year old sytem is really outdated. What do you think?

 

[Da Orky Man]

Because the powers that have the right to veto are still the most powerful countries around. The UK is second to the US in terms of power projection, we have a VERY influential economy, and we have nukes. What countrie deserve the power of veto? Right now, it's Russia, China, UK, US, and France. All have nukes. All are powerful economically, militarily, and politicially.

 

[urilukin]

You under estimate these superpowers way to much...
The force is strong with them...

 

[Vault Citizen]

If you look at the structure of the U.N. you will see echoes of the fact it was born out of WWII by the victors of said war. At the time the veto was made because there was no way the powers would agree to such a body without it. I think the veto should be removed and I think that the permanent council should change but I believe that neither of these things will ever happen.

 

[XDravond]

Well I do agree the veto right should be discontinued as old things usually are. And something more interesting is that USA is allowed to have veto and membership even though they under several years did not pay up like the rest of the members have to...

Yes UN cost money and where do they get money? Mastership states. Should you be allowed to have veto if you haven't paid up? Could I keep my car/house if I don't pay the loan/insurance/tax/etc?...

But it's politics the pace it changes with is mostly the speed of a broken car... sometimes people give it a push to move it and sometimes there's hills... So nothing will probably change in our lifetime. But miracles happen like there's a possibility to bump in to a honest politician...

 

[mikey7339]

The vote that was vetoed was on a motion to 'condemn' Syria. All that was going to happen was the UN members were going to shake their finger at Syria and pretend they made a difference. All Russia and China did was stop some self-righteous idiots from having a few choice words with some diplomats...like that would have mattered at all.

 

[cookyy2k]

I think the veto is a good thing simply because it allows China and Russia to keep a check on the boys club that has formed from the western powers, lead by the USA. It means the USA has to please China and Russia in what it does instead of just being able to do what it wants backed up by politically bought votes.

Also it is a good protection against major conflict, say China really didn't want the USA to be allowed to invade somewhere. If the USA could get permission irrelevant of what China thought then it'd cause conflict and either a new cold war or something worse depending on how each side felt about the situation. The UN keeps these rules to basically force the major world powers into peace, with each other at least.

 

[cookyy2k]

I think the veto is a good thing simply because it allows China and Russia to keep a check on the boys club that has formed from the western powers, lead by the USA. It means the USA has to please China and Russia in what it does instead of just being able to do what it wants backed up by politically bought votes.

Also it is a good protection against major conflict, say China really didn't want the USA to be allowed to invade somewhere. If the USA could get permission irrelevant of what China thought then it'd cause conflict and either a new cold war or something worse depending on how each side felt about the situation. The UN keeps these rules to basically force the major world powers into peace, with each other at least.

It actually doesn't keep them at peace with each other because they can just veto any actions against themselves.

What it has done, for most of its history, is stopped the UN from acting as a peace maker under its Charter mandate. The Blue Helmets were invented because the UNSC had become completely impotent and they needed to do SOMETHING to get around the SC.

It forces a stale-mate between the super powers, one can't take action against another legally. It means the USA can never impose sanctions on China the way they did on Japan that lead to some unpleasantness circa 1941.

 

[dantoddd]

Oh, and those 5 are still the only 5 countries that can "legally" have nukes.

I think both india & Pakistan 'legally' have nukes.

 

[cookyy2k]

Oh, and those 5 are still the only 5 countries that can "legally" have nukes.

I think both india & Pakistan 'legally' have nukes.

No they actually don't. Only those 5 countries have them legitimately, the others either developed them independently of the UN (India) or were given them for stability purposes (Pakistan).

 

[Ilikemilkshake]

The vote that was vetoed was on a motion to 'condemn' Syria. All that was going to happen was the UN members were going to shake their finger at Syria and pretend they made a difference. All Russia and China did was stop some self-righteous idiots from having a few choice words with some diplomats...like that would have mattered at all.

even if you're right that this motion wouldnt have accomplished anything, its still undemocratic that one country can prevent something, even if the entire rest of the world voted for it

 

[Cowabungaa]

I think the veto is a good thing simply because it allows China and Russia to keep a check on the boys club that has formed from the western powers, lead by the USA. It means the USA has to please China and Russia in what it does instead of just being able to do what it wants backed up by politically bought votes.

No it doesn't. All the veto right does is give those countries the power to put their economic interests above everyone else's, at least that's what it all boils down to. Not to mention that any sanctions against them or their allies can easily be veto'd by them. It basically means that nothing that matters actually gets done and that the UN is almost useless.

So yes, the veto power should go. It completely devalues what the UN could be.

 

[dantoddd]

Oh, and those 5 are still the only 5 countries that can "legally" have nukes.

I think both india & Pakistan 'legally' have nukes.

No they actually don't. Only those 5 countries have them legitimately, the others either developed them independently of the UN (India) or were given them for stability purposes (Pakistan).

Both india and pakistan developed nukes independently in the 90s, and neither of them have signed the non-proliferation treaty. This means there is nothing illegal about them having nukes.

 

[pbteyeofharmony]

I mean, be honest here, Britain was one of the superpowers during WWII, but since then, the Empire has broken up, they have lost much of their international influence, and if it was Britain that would be going bust rather then Greece, the EU wouldn't even turn its head to see what is going on.

While it's true that the empire has broken up, Britain certainly is not without influence. They're a very powerful economy. They're one of the relatively few countries whose currency beats the dollar, and beats it hard.

 

[Henkie36]

While it's true that the empire has broken up, Britain certainly is not without influence. They're a very powerful economy. They're one of the relatively few countries whose currency beats the dollar, and beats it hard.

True, but is Britain's economy more powerful then say... the Japanese? The German?

 

[C. Cain]

True, but is Britain's economy more powerful then say... the Japanese? The German?

Depends on how you look at it. If you consider the Japanese debt negligible, the answer is no. As for the German economy, also no.

But it's still an immensely important economy. And the UK is still rather influential.