Why does veto power exist in the UN/NATO?

[StageLeft]

It seems to me that if you get a group of people together and they all vote on something, but any number of them (in the UN not anybody - but a lot of nations, and I'm not sure about NATO) can force a no-vote on anything, then you'll never get much done. This is exactly what happens in reality too.

So, what's the reasoning for veto power in the UN/NATO?

 

[Kipper]

To preserve the balance of power and prevent the organization from being 'overpowered' (lack of any better word) by any one nation.

Keep in mind that the UN and NATO are two different beasts...

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease
To preserve the balance of power and prevent the organization from being 'overpowered' (lack of any better word) by any one nation.

Keep in mind that the UN and NATO are two different beasts...

But being overpowered is exactly what a veto allows. A single nation can fight the whim of all the others and say no to anything it likes.

 

[Vadatajs]

link

Under the United Nations' founding rules, only the permanent members have the right of veto, a single blocking vote that outweighs any majority.

The veto system was established to protect the interests of the founding members of the United Nations, which were the countries that won World War II. At the UN founding conference in 1944, it was decided that the representatives of Britain, China, the Soviet Union, the United States and, "in due course," France should be permanent members. France, of course, had been defeated and occupied by Nazi Germany, but its role as a permanent member of the League of Nations, its status as a colonial power and the activities of the Free French forces on the allied side allowed it a place at the table with the Big Four.

 

[StageLeft]

The veto system was established to protect the interests of the founding members of the United Nations

I don't see how it protects the interests of the nations if a single nation bucks the trend and votes no though. If britain, US, soviets, etc. all want something and France (not to demonize france necessarily), says no, then the others get screwed.

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease
To preserve the balance of power and prevent the organization from being 'overpowered' (lack of any better word) by any one nation.

Keep in mind that the UN and NATO are two different beasts...

But being overpowered is exactly what a veto allows. A single nation can fight the whim of all the others and say no to anything it likes.

But I'm saying it keeps the balance of power in place. All the nations on the UNSC with veto power are nuclear powers, and therefore, are theoretically the 'most powerful nations.' Yes, it does shift the organization's actions in their favor, but that's what happens.

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

The veto system was established to protect the interests of the founding members of the United Nations

I don't see how it protects the interests of the nations if a single nation bucks the trend and votes no though. If britain, US, soviets, etc. all want something and France (not to demonize france necessarily), says no, then the others get screwed.

Not really. Look at US actions leading up to the invasion of Iraq. They didn't take the vote to the UNSC and bypassed the organization entirely, acting unilaterally. That is the 'beauty' of the UN, and also why it is as worthless as a guard dog with one leg.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease
To preserve the balance of power and prevent the organization from being 'overpowered' (lack of any better word) by any one nation.

Keep in mind that the UN and NATO are two different beasts...

But being overpowered is exactly what a veto allows. A single nation can fight the whim of all the others and say no to anything it likes.

But I'm saying it keeps the balance of power in place. All the nations on the UNSC with veto power are nuclear powers, and therefore, are theoretically the 'most powerful nations.' Yes, it does shift the organization's actions in their favor, but that's what happens.

It keeps the balance of power in place by tending towards never expressing that power. It does seem to induce paralysis, as you allude to in your next post The US didn't bring their final vote to the UN because france had already said it would veto, so what was the point? It removes any motivation to have a majority-rules vote on it, if a single nation will just step in and play sour grapes about it. Without veto power in certain nations the UN would have more power to act, and those countries who don't agree with it too bad.

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease
To preserve the balance of power and prevent the organization from being 'overpowered' (lack of any better word) by any one nation.

Keep in mind that the UN and NATO are two different beasts...

But being overpowered is exactly what a veto allows. A single nation can fight the whim of all the others and say no to anything it likes.

But I'm saying it keeps the balance of power in place. All the nations on the UNSC with veto power are nuclear powers, and therefore, are theoretically the 'most powerful nations.' Yes, it does shift the organization's actions in their favor, but that's what happens.

It keeps the balance of power in place by tending towards never expressing that power. It does seem to induce paralysis, as you allude to in your next post The US didn't bring their final vote to the UN because france had already said it would veto, so what was the point? It removes any motivation to have a majority-rules vote on it, if a single nation will just step in and play sour grapes about it. Without veto power in certain nations the UN would have more power to act, and those countries who don't agree with it too bad.

Well, it's not like the UN has any real power anyway...it's like a glorified Red Cross, IMHO.

"Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll."

 

[Dman877]

The victorious powers of ww2 gave themselves veto and thus, power. It's that simple, fundamental realist politics.

 

[Helenihi]

The UN is full of horrible little dictator run countries. Without veto power, they'd do all sorts of stupid crap. Why dictators should get to vote when their own citizens don't get to I have no idea, but that's the genius of the UN.

 

[znaps]

Because their own citizens have no idea about half the issues! We'd be voting every single week if they allowed us to!

 

[KB]

It is similar to our court system. If one jury member says "Not Guilty" then the jury is hung and the case must be re-tried or given up. It is an All or nothing system.

 

[Genx87]

What does the US supply 28% of the UN budget? What do the other members supply?
Maybe we should get double veto power or maybe we should cut our supply of cash to the thing to about 10%.

 

[znaps]

You're not thinking about it the correct way. Richer countries contribute more - 5% of $5 billion is going to be more than 5% of $100 million. (5% of Rich country's GDP vs 5% of Smaller/Poorer country's GDP)

Let's say the UN budget was $100 million. That means the USA supplied $28 million. How much of a percentage of the USA's GDP is that?

Now consider, say, Belgium. They contributed 1.138% of the UN's budget in 2001. Proportionally that was high because their GDP is much less than the USA.

It's the same as tax - higher earners pay a higher percentage of the goverments total income from taxes.

 

[znaps]

And read this too if you think the US gets a bum deal:

The EU had for some time been working towards a reform of the UN scales of assessment in order to share the costs more equitably. In 2000 regular negotiations on new scales of assessment were made more difficult and complicated by the US demand to reduce its share unilaterally due to new US budgetary legislation (the Helms-Biden Amendment). In return, the US announced its intention to pay outstanding contributions from former years. In concrete terms the Americans demanded a reduction of their share from 25% to 22% and a maximum contribution of 25% to the peacekeeping operations budget (formerly 31%). Now that the US has achieved its aims there is hope that it will carry out its promise to pay its arrears within a reasonable period of time.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Genx87
What does the US supply 28% of the UN budget? What do the other members supply?
Maybe we should get double veto power or maybe we should cut our supply of cash to the thing to about 10%.

It's a result of what the US originally agreed to.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
It seems to me that if you get a group of people together and they all vote on something, but any number of them (in the UN not anybody - but a lot of nations, and I'm not sure about NATO) can force a no-vote on anything, then you'll never get much done. This is exactly what happens in reality too.

So, what's the reasoning for veto power in the UN/NATO?

The Veto is so that the UN doesn't become too powerful. There are already some who erroneously feel that the UN controls US Domestic affairs(for example), if there was no Veto it could be true.

 

[HombrePequeno]

I'm pretty sure that the Soviets bitched until it was put in there. Don't quote me on that one though.

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: znaps
You're not thinking about it the correct way. Richer countries contribute more - 5% of $5 billion is going to be more than 5% of $100 million. (5% of Rich country's GDP vs 5% of Smaller/Poorer country's GDP)

Let's say the UN budget was $100 million. That means the USA supplied $28 million. How much of a percentage of the USA's GDP is that?

Now consider, say, Belgium. They contributed 1.138% of the UN's budget in 2001. Proportionally that was high because their GDP is much less than the USA.

It's the same as tax - higher earners pay a higher percentage of the goverments total income from taxes.

Too bad thats not the case. Take a look at fvcking China. They pay a puny little percentage of the UN budget but their GDP is ranked in the top 10.

The world's sole superpower still contributes the lion's share (22 per cent). Against this, France accounts for 6.5 per cent and the UK 5.57 while China and Russia "weigh in" with 1.54, and 1.2 respectively.

Text

GDP 2003

1 World $ 49,000,000,000,000
2 United States $ 10,400,000,000,000
3 China $ 5,700,000,000,000
4 Japan $ 3,550,000,000,000
5 India $ 2,660,000,000,000
6 Germany $ 2,184,000,000,000
7 France $ 1,540,000,000,000
8 United Kingdom $ 1,520,000,000,000
9 Italy $ 1,438,000,000,000
10 Russia $ 1,350,000,000,000

Text

 

[AnImuS]

Theres a veto so Israel will still exist today

 

[znaps]

The world's sole superpower still contributes the lion's share (22 per cent). Against this, France accounts for 6.5 per cent and the UK 5.57 while China and Russia "weigh in" with 1.54, and 1.2 respectively.

Yeah, it's not only GDP that determines it - there are other factors, but I don't know why China contributes so little.

My point was that the members cannot be expected to contribute equal numbers.

 

[DeeKnow]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
It seems to me that if you get a group of people together and they all vote on something, but any number of them (in the UN not anybody - but a lot of nations, and I'm not sure about NATO) can force a no-vote on anything, then you'll never get much done. This is exactly what happens in reality too.

So, what's the reasoning for veto power in the UN/NATO?

simple... the Allies won the war... so they got to make the rules...

sure we'll have a club and we can all vote. everybody gets one vote.
but since i'm the biggest, i get to say no if you guys agree on something i dont like

 

[DeeKnow]

Originally posted by: Genx87
What does the US supply 28% of the UN budget? What do the other members supply?
Maybe we should get double veto power or maybe we should cut our supply of cash to the thing to about 10%.

actually the US hasn't been paying its bills for decades...
they owe billions to the UN

 

[RabidMongoose]

How much does the US actually pay for the UN anyways? What kind of bills does it not pay and why? Is there a reason?

If the US actually does pay for 28% of the UN budget, then I think that some of the slack should be picked up by other countries. In addition, if a smaller country like Belgium doesn't provide equal raw number of funds, then it should have smaller resources at the UN.