• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

What's the point of VETO power?

StageLeft

StageLeft

No Lifer
Take the UN for example. Let's say that there is a new resolution. 5 permanent security council members, 10 elected. Any of the 5 have veto power. If 14 of the 15 agree to a resolution one single nation can say "no", and that's it. Squashed. And not just with the current conflict but with anything. Veto undermines the will of the majority by allowing a small minority or single entity to upset the wish of the many. What's the point?
 
But NATO has veto as well - and even the president does. I don't want to get into why the president does because that's a different bag of worms, but where you have a group of entities and generally they vote, but some of them have veto power it just doesn't make sense to me.
 
I think the original intention was to have a unified voice of the major players so that one side or the other (read: communist vs. democracy) wouldn't have a "peaceful" advantage.

 
Originally posted by: MaxDepth
I think the original intention was to have a unified voice of the major players so that one side or the other (read: communist vs. democracy) wouldn't have a "peaceful" advantage.
Click to expand...
That is not Democracy. If 14 out of 15 vote yeah, the motion should pass. That is the essence of democracy.

Too many people think that Democracy ( and "rights" ) means that you can do whatever you want. It really means that everyone is entitled to think they way they want and to vote anyway they want, but also to respect that the majority of the opinions and votes are what counts.

In other words if the majority of people vote a specific way then that decision stands. Everyone has a voice and a vote but the majority rules or nothing could get done. Unfortunately today's society has decided that if the minority doesn't like what the majority says, they just go to court and whine that their "rights" are being violated because that minority's opinion isn't being followed.

 
The point is, without a veto, the big players in the world wouldn't have got together in the U.N. They only decided to play with all the other kids because they got their way by way of a veto. The fact it still stands after all this time is that once you have an advantage like that - you won't give it up.

Andy
 
Originally posted by: Fencer128
The point is, without a veto, the big players in the world wouldn't have got together in the U.N. They only decided to play with all the other kids because they got their way by way of a veto. The fact it still stands after all this time is that once you have an advantage like that - you won't give it up.

Andy
Click to expand...

Yup, that sums it up.
 
The fact it still stands after all this time is that once you have an advantage like that - you won't give it up.
Click to expand...
...which is one of the many reasons why the UN is doomed not only to remain irrelevant, but to actually become less and less credible as time goes on. It's already ridiculous that France & the UK have veto power...how much *more* ludicrous will it be 50 years from now, when both countries may conceivably have dropped out of the list of Top 20--much less Top 5--world powers??
 
Originally posted by: Iron Woode
Originally posted by: MaxDepth
I think the original intention was to have a unified voice of the major players so that one side or the other (read: communist vs. democracy) wouldn't have a "peaceful" advantage.
Click to expand...
That is not Democracy. If 14 out of 15 vote yeah, the motion should pass. That is the essence of democracy.

Too many people think that Democracy ( and "rights" ) means that you can do whatever you want. It really means that everyone is entitled to think they way they want and to vote anyway they want, but also to respect that the majority of the opinions and votes are what counts.

In other words if the majority of people vote a specific way then that decision stands. Everyone has a voice and a vote but the majority rules or nothing could get done. Unfortunately today's society has decided that if the minority doesn't like what the majority says, they just go to court and whine that their "rights" are being violated because that minority's opinion isn't being followed.
Click to expand...
The UN isn't and never was a democracy. Socialist and communist countries would never join an organization that used democratic legislature to enforce or enact policy.

I find it arrogant on our part as Americans to install democracy in other countries. We ourselves do not live in a pure democracy. We live in a democratic republic. We vote in national elections to choose delegates who then are supposed to vote as dictated by their constituents. That's why Bush won over Gore. He had more electoral college votes than Gore although Gore had more votes in total.


Just my opinion: I firmly believe in a republic. I don't believe that just because a majority of people voting for something makes it right or fair.

 
The point of the veto powers was/is to build concensus. If one power is unhappy, and they are a small country that is not part of the p-5, then fine, they can voice their opinion. But when the UN was created, the p5 were power houses, either in their region or worldwide. One could not take action unless all 5 agreed, or some obstained from voting, as China will often do. However, there is no way to change the system, but I suppose this is a good thing. Because france is no longer as powerful as it was, its veto power can represent the voice of the smaller countries that have different views from the bigger ones like China and the US. It is a balance.

And despite what many think here, the UN does serve a purpose. It is the voice of the smaller countries. It is a forum in which all voices can be heard and issues brought up. Maybe not solved, but at least brought to world attention. Sometimes, for very poor nations, it is the only way to have thier voice heard. Just because the US does not always agree with the UN does not make it any less legitamate.

In fact, the current disagreements with the UN and the problem the US is having makes the UN more legitimate. It shows that even a hegemonic power has to go through a world entity to do things. 100 years ago this idea was unheard of. What does that say about the UN? If the US decides to go at it alone, without UN support, it would be doing so at its own risk, and at the same time increase the legitimate aspects of the UN. Why you may ask? Because then the global south (the poorer nations) would see that the UN is NOT a tool of the West, or of the US, and begin to use it more to address their own problems. US going at it alone will decrease the power of enforcement of the UN in some of its resolutions, not its legitimacy. It was never meant to enfringe on state soveignty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top