News Stories

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

that much is to be expected from the U.N (since thats all they do anyway).

Especialy if Russia and China will still impose their veto to any real action.

[bladeofdarkness]

Israeli news media has the death toll at 337 by now.
I'm still not finding other western sources confirming such a number, but those numbers have been kicked around for a few hours now, so they might be true.

if so, this makes the U.N's security council inaction on the matter (not even condemnation mind you) all the more evidence that its just a useless organization that can be disassembled by now.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

Israeli news media has the death toll at 337 by now.
I'm still not finding other western sources confirming such a number, but those numbers have been kicked around for a few hours now, so they might be true.

if so, this makes the U.N's security council inaction on the matter (not even condemnation mind you) all the more evidence that its just a useless organization that can be disassembled by now.

Come to think of it, if we don't have the UN we'd be at total war now. It is a place for lonely politicians to vent about how much their people or another politician hate them.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Come to think of it, if we don't have the UN we'd be at total war now. It is a place for lonely politicians to vent about how much their people or another politician hate them.

You think than if they didn't spend their time at the UN they will have to find something else to spend their time ?

[Zakoo]

Not the organisation itself that sucks but the way it works, why is there 5 countries on the top that can decide nearly everything and two hundreds on the side that must watch?

There's only one party here that proposed to lose the veto, and they literally god booed, I don't doubt the slightest it would be the same in the four others countries.

It's fine to say the organisation is useless but if we continue to elect the same politicians with the same convictions, it won't get anywhere.

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by Zakoo

Not the organisation itself that sucks but the way it works, why is there 5 countries on the top that can decide nearly everything and two hundreds on the side that must watch?

There's only one party here that proposed to lose the veto, and they literally god booed, I don't doubt the slightest it would be the same in the four others countries.

It's fine to say the organisation is useless but if we continue to elect the same politicians with the same convictions, it won't get anywhere.

but YOUR method is even worse.
the only thing worse then the ability of the super powers to pass vetoes, is the horrible repercussion of NOT having it.

take one good look at the make up of the U.N human rights council - all of whom's members are elected by popular vote - and you get a pretty good idea of how fucked up international politics are.
having vetoes means having SOME checks in place to balance the stupidity of it all.

[Zakoo]

I don't see how you can say having 5 powers that use their vetoes only for their own advantages is a good thing.

And the fact of how they are elected doesn't matter since they take orders from their country, the representatives rarely do things of their own accord. So in what way how they are elected matters?

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by Zakoo

I don't see how you can say having 5 powers that use their vetoes only for their own advantages is a good thing.

it is once you recognize that if said countries can't protect their interests via vetoes, they'll have to do it militarily.
do you think THATS a good thing ?

And the fact of how they are elected doesn't matter since they take orders from their country, the representatives rarely do things of their own accord. So in what way how they are elected matters?

you missed the point,
I was talking about how said COUNTRIES are elected for the HRC, not the individual representatives.
if the majority of the worlds countries as represented in the U.N general assembly believe that Saudi Arabia belongs on a council aimed at protecting human rights - then the majority of the worlds countries DESERVE to have their opinions ignored when it comes to important stuff.

[Dhomochevsky]

These 5 countrys (and the alliances they represent) are also about the only ones who can enforce a decision to some extend.
Even if you had a popular vote on something, if you do not have the support of these countries, then you will not be able to do anything.
And none of them will ever agree into a binding contract to follow a UN vote. They will always reserve their right to decide on a case by case basis.

The only reason the UN has any impact on world politics (as weak as it may already be), is that if it gets to a decision, this decision is backed by all the super powers in this world.
If that was not the case, then everyone could just ignore it.
A different constuct may be more democratic and morally better, but it just can't work.

[Haak]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

if so, this makes the U.N's security council inaction on the matter (not even condemnation mind you) all the more evidence that its just a useless organization that can be disassembled by now.

"The UN's inaction due to Russia and China's veto is proof that it's a useless organization."

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

having vetoes means having SOME checks in place to balance the stupidity of it all.

"The vetoes are the only thing good about the UN".

Mind = Blown.

[Zakoo]

I think you understood why I stopped posting, I can't follow his logic or my mind is twisted. Or both.

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by Haak

"The UN's action due to Russia and China's veto is proof that it's a useless organization."



"The vetoes are the only thing good about the UN".

Mind = Blown.

My logic is perfectly reasonable, you're just not paying attention.
the idea of "cancel the vetoes" doesn't work because the U.N is, in and of itself, too f@#ked up to work properly.
removing them RIGHT NOW, is to do more harm then good.
the solution isn't to do away with the vetoes, but to do away with the U.N, and replace it with an organization whose very structure would negate most of the stupidity that make vetoes so necessary today.

for starters, set some standards as to which countries do and don't get a vote.
for example, you're country gets a vote in the general assembly provided that:
1)If you're Nominal GDP per capita is at least 5,000 $
2)your country is ranked at least 0.65 on the human development scale.
3)your country is ranked at least a 3 on the freedom scale by groups like freedom house.
and other such standards.
if a country doesn't rise up to those standards, it's granted an observer status, but isn't allowed to vote on resolution.
if you're a ruler of a country and you want your country to have a say in world events, elevate it to a position where its opinion is actually worth listening to.

once the replacement U.N is actually made to look like an organization that can be trusted to sit the right way on a toilet seat, THEN we can talk about whether or not the vetoes are needed.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Zakoo

Not the organisation itself that sucks but the way it works, why is there 5 countries on the top that can decide nearly everything and two hundreds on the side that must watch?

There's only one party here that proposed to lose the veto, and they literally god booed, I don't doubt the slightest it would be the same in the four others countries.

It's fine to say the organisation is useless but if we continue to elect the same politicians with the same convictions, it won't get anywhere.

Those 5 countries have a veto because those 5 countries are (or were) superpowers. Not only that, but those 5 countries all have nuclear weapons, and would likely be called upon to enforce any UN decision.

In International politics might makes right, and the UN reflects that.

Those countries can all de facto veto any UN legislation anyway, because they can threaten large scale military action.

But also, those countries are on the Security Council, the veto is only to do with matters of military action. Those countries do not have a veto in economic or cultural matters.

That veto prevents the UN from endorsing anything that would confrontational, and it allows all the great powers to maintain their spheres of influence.

So if Russia has an interest in maintaining the status quo in Iran, it can veto any action there.

That means if Western powers want to take action there, they must do it without the auspices of the UN, further to that, they no that in doing so they risk war with Russia at the same time.

If anything, it might be better to change who exactly has the veto. For instance, France and Britain are both rather small to possess the veto. Though britain does draw legitimacy from the commonwealth, and continental europe does need some kind of representation. You could argue that the UN seat should be taken from france and given to Germany. On the other hand, France has nuclear weapons, and greater military projection capabilities then Germany.

Likewise there's a very good argument that India should have a veto, and possibly Japan as well.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

You think than if they didn't spend their time at the UN they will have to find something else to spend their time ?

Yeah. They will rally their people, kill all detractors, and build a superpowered military. The League of Nations didn't even bother to include anyone, and attempted to marginalise Germany. Hitler, being a lonely little guy with no other politician to lock heads with, built up the third Reich.

[Zakoo]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Those 5 countries have a veto because those 5 countries are (or were) superpowers. Not only that, but those 5 countries all have nuclear weapons, and would likely be called upon to enforce any UN decision.

In International politics might makes right, and the UN reflects that.

I'm not asking for a justification, to begin with if there truly was one, it would simply be that they are the winner of WW2. There are others countries with H bomb, that doesn't give them the right to be on the closed circle.

Yes, i'm not asking for justification, I'm saying that it's a fucked way of doing things to give the all rights to 5 countries and saying to the others to deal with it. A good way to attain peace, indeed, to say to the others that we don't care of their point of view.

Now people have different way of attaining a good U.N, there for sure is others way to make this organisation works, blade ofdarkness said some (though I don't agree with the fact he says only country with IDH > 0.65 could enter for example) but the fact stays that it's impossible to have an organisation rulling the WORLD and that this organisation is controlled by 5 countries on hundreds.


Btw, what kind of stupidities make vetoes necessaries? Oh, i'm interested, so far vetoes only showed that it's used for the sake of these countries, not for the world's sake.

[monsta666]

The UN security council is not democratic as you have only a handful of nations that can essentially dictate international policy. It is not right and is an outdated model that is not relevant to our modern world; you just need to look at which countries have the veto to gain an insight on how outdated it is.

With that said, we should remember that one of the primary functions of the UN was to prevent any further World Wars which was a task that it's earlier incarnation of the League of Nations failed in. One of the ways it thought of achieving this end of preventing World War III was to provide the superpowers of the time with the power of the veto. That way those powerful nations could never feel threatened if the rest of the world ganged up on the said nation with threatening/harsh policies. This was a legitimate concern at the time because one of the chief reasons for World War II was the war reparations inflicted on Germany after the treaty of Versailles that eventually led to the collapse of the German economy which created the conditions for the rise of Hitler. The UN wanted to eliminate this danger so it granted each superpower the veto to prevent this from happening again even if the veto was not democratic.

Now removing the veto will be next to impossible as such a decision would have to go through the security council and it is almost certain one if not all nations would veto against this move. Removing members would be equally difficult. The most feasible scenario would be to add extra members to the security council but even that would meet significant resistance. However we should not forget that the UN does a lot of good things and the UN is not just about the security council.

[DonQuigleone]

You are all under the mistaken belief that the UN is intended to be a democratic institution.

It is not.

The UN is meant to be a forum for international diplomacy, and a means for countries to air their grievances against one another in an open manner, and hence diffuse potential conflict. It is a mediator. If you think about it, this role is vital, as there's nowhere else for all the countries of the world to meet and discuss matters. Though there is the G20 summit as well.

If the UN was intended to be democratic, half the members of the UN would not be part of it.

Don't view the UN as a world government, as that is not it's intended purpose. The UN only has as much power as it's constituent nations wish to give it, and any country is free to ignore a resolution. Of course, the UN also grants broad power to any country to enforce that resolution. And it enforces it's resolutions using action performed mostly by the great powers on the security council.

[andyjay729]

Dunno if this has been posted yet, but IMNSVHO, it should've been.

If Japan is Our Worst-Case Scenario, We're All Right

[Anh_Minh]

Also, saying the Security Council dictates anything through the UN is vastly overstating the latter's power. All a veto means is that, for example, countries can't go to war with the UN's blessing. It doesn't mean they can't go to war anyway.

[Darkbeat]

Shocking events in Syria, or perhaps not so much shocking given Assad has been ruthlessly killing his own people for almost a year now. Still the figures are horrific...totally horrific.

Even more scary is that this is the madman some Western countries tried to get Israel to give away the Golan to for "peace".