You have to decide if you believe there should be international law or not
The Nuremberg trials laid out a very simple idea: the supreme international crime is launching a war of aggression
The UN security council must be rebuilt from the ground up
UN must be wrestled from US control, it must not be allowed to use it as just another weapon, and we must work towards an actual system of international law, one where we are actually equal. the other option is global war
the UN does need to be rebuilt regardless of any other factors
the security council for example:
france and uk both having seats is a colonial era hangover. there should be one EU seat
russia inherited theirs from the USSR, this wasn't even legal. russia simply should not have a seat
india should have one
brazil should have one
nigeria or south africa should have one
australia or indonesia should have one
egypt or saudi arabia should have one
china and usa as usual
i disagree
the UN is a room for countries to discuss matters so things don't go to war
that we are going to war more and more is a function of the UN's antiquated structure from a snapshot of the world in 1945
in a new structure, if you exclude any of the regional powers from veto power, any decision simply won't be followed. and so: war
yes, it makes meaninful decisions hard
but they won't be binding without support of the regional powers anyways
but how?
say brazil has a seat and brazil vetoes a decision but their veto is ignored and this greatly upsets brazil
this CREATES conflict
you missed my point
1. if the regional powers don't get a veto, they won't buy in and there is no new UN
2. even if such a new UN came to pass, if you overrule a regional power they just ignore the UN. and the UN is not going to convince any country to expend much blood and treasure to go to the other side of the world and convince the regional power to conform
on issues of significance far away, not a problem. on issues near the regional power, their will dominates over the UN
i have zero argument
without the UN you have bullies picking on smaller countries
with the UN, you have bullies picking on smaller countries, codified into UN procedures
so there is no difference. this problem we're complaining about is not solved by the UN
it's just that the UN carries other benefits outside of this topic
but don't you see then you're creating conflict rather than resolving it?
if you have a UN force running around the world fighting with regional powers, this isnt an improvement over our current shitty situation, it's worse
nevermind who is manning this UN army?
no country can explain to its citizens why its soldiers are dying halfway around the world in a conflict they don't even understand
well, that's the USA 😩
but as you can see, that's a poor model
i totally understand that
and the UN is neutered now
but in the scenario you describe it is also neutered. because there is no capacity or will to enforce the resolution. and the recalcitrant country, that would have vetoed but is now overruled, will just ignore the resolution
so the scenario you describe is a UN that writes angry letters and the malicious of the world just laugh
sorry to be a cynic, but all that means is we reemerge the same some 10,000s of years from now
the thing to do is not be despondent, and keep improving, even if the effort is large and the payout is small
the fact we are even talking about the existence of something like a UN shows we are making progress (vanishingly small and painfully slow)
@benroyce here is a very long list of disputes, btw even your proposed Brasil does have at least one
right. they're everywhere
and so you can't do majority only
the regional power will just ignore the vote
and no one has the will or the capacity to force the regional power to comply
so you've essentially neutered the UN more than it even is by removing the veto
the UN just has to be a place for powers to meet
howabout a UN without a security council at all?
so all the good other topics UN does, and just avoid this issue entirely since we can't find a solution
exactly, it's a farce
you get bright spots like duterte of the philippines hauled before the court
but so the ICC only applies to middle and small powers
while large powers still act with impunity, and they are the largest defilers
good point about china
but china is the natural regional power
meanwhile russia is a joke of a country that is getting to be even more of a joke every day. it's irrelevancy will only grow
there has to be though
how does a decision decided on by small countries have any significance if the regional powers don't like it?
@benroyce @StarkRG @ekis It doesn't work either way apparently. We have tried the veto system and as long as it exists it absolves those countries who have a veto completely. Israel has long done whatever it wants because the US gives them a get out of jail card. The US does what it wants. It doesn't matter who you give the veto to it won't work...ever....
So what's the choice, two systems one of which clearly doesn't work (and it doesn't matter who has the veto) and the other that has never been tried but apparently won't work either.....
@SamanthaJaneSmith @StarkRG @ekis
i think it's matter of deciding on what the UN is
if we think it is just a room for discussing things and resolving conflict, then yes veto power
if we think it is for making binding decisions over the strenuous objections of a few countries, regardless of whether that is a good thing or a bad thing, then no veto power
but now you're saying the UN is for *creating* conflict
nevermind you won't get buy in to the idea from enough countries to make it work
@benroyce @StarkRG @ekis Who said the UN creates conflict? I didn't!
The council doesn't resolve anything tbh. It just does what those with veto power want. Any resolution against their interest is always defeated. Those policies are decided upon way before the UN gets hold of them and no amount of UN talking changes their mind.
There is no halfway house here. You either support the few, like the US, who do whatever they like or you at least have a semblance of democracy. It probably won't work either way.
As you say the powerful won't give up their rights so it's a mute point. But we need to understand it doesn't work now or whoever has the veto.
@SamanthaJaneSmith @StarkRG @ekis
so if there is no veto power. and a bunch of smaller countries make a decision, and the regional powers disagree, who do you think is going to enforce the decision?
the UN won't exist without the regional powers having a veto
your suggestion does create conflict, regardless of your intention, because now you have decisions that are imposed on countries that disagree and will fight the decision
i don't *like* the veto power
i recognize it as unavoidable
@benroyce @StarkRG @ekis What you don't seem to understand is that the present system is no better. Decisions are still imposed on countries and the bullied (looking at the good old us of a here) do what they want. The result is the same.
Easy example, the US has vetoed resolutions against Israel 45 times. How do you believe that works? It doesn't. It does enable Israel to say it has never had a security resolution against it for it's genocide. Want more examples?
It's a bullies cartel.
As I said at the start but you apparently missed it both veto and non veto have the same result in practice.
@SamanthaJaneSmith @StarkRG @ekis
so then the conclusion is:
we shouldn't have a UN at all
if you disagree, you need to accept there has to be buy in by regional powers with a veto. they won't join in without it, and so such a new UN will never even exist
i don't see any other way around the problem
however, without a UN, a room where countries can talk things out, we're talking a more dangerous world with more wars
@benroyce @StarkRG @ekis More dangerous world? For who... All the talking is done one to one beforehand. Policy is never decided by countries at the security council.
As I keep saying it doesn't matter what you do. Until the world stands up to the bullies then nothing will happen.
The only reason I think the non veto could have a slight edge is that it will stop countries hiding behind the argument that there is no UN mandate against them. It does nothing in reality of course. The bullies will do as they please.
@SamanthaJaneSmith @StarkRG @ekis
yes
bullies will do as they please
larger countries will push around smaller ones
that is the unfortunate reality of our world. i don't defend it, i acknowledge an ugly reality
indonesia will impose on east timor. east timor will not impose on indonesia
and if you look into my example a little more, you might notice my example is not random, and shows some value for the UN
@benroyce @StarkRG @ekis By the way do not confuse the UN as a whole with the UN security council.
The UN does good things in highlighting issues, little happens though as they are ignored. So it as a whole has value.
The question is only whether you give the bullies the right to bully? You clearly think they should after all what else can you do... Just let them do it. What can you do?
After all who gets hurt? Just the rest of the world.
IMHO a very sad approach.
@SamanthaJaneSmith @StarkRG @ekis
i have zero argument with you
perhaps what we should argue about is a UN without a security council
you know that might really be something valid
just the good things like WHO, UNICEF, WFP, etc
however it doesn't change the bully problem
@SamanthaJaneSmith @benroyce @ekis
The Security Council is mostly there to try to control the General Assembly, which is kind of the antithesis of the UN as a concept. It's not a governing body, it was never intended to be a governing body. Its power to enforce its treaties is limited to what the individual members are willing to do.
The Security Council is probably unnecessary, but the existence of permanent memberships definitely makes it actively malign.
then the regional powers won't join in
and so nothing is enforceable
you created a debate society for small countries
if indonesia has a seat and a decision is made that makes bahrain angry, that sucks
but there is no such thing as a UN where bahrain imposes a decision on indonesia. indonesia will just laugh and ignore it
i don't *like* that. that's just unavoidable
the problem with getting rid of the veto is that now you're envisioning a UN that *creates* conflict instead of resolving it
if a regional power strenuously objects to a decision and doesn't get a veto, they won't follow it
nevermind you won't get buy in from the regional powers to make such a new UN at all
as for indonesia vs australia, i think we can solve that problem by giving the ASEAN + oceania veto seat to palau 😅
there has to be
1. if you don't give regional powers vetoes, they won't join in. the new UN won't ever even exist
2. if this new UN still exists, without veto power, you have a situation where you create conflict instead of resolve it. if a resolution is passed over the strenuous objection of a regional power, they simply won't follow it. then what: the other powers enforce it on that regional power?
do you see the problem
i don't like the veto
we just can't avoid it
@benroyce
I get your point Ben, but I don’t see it that way. I look at the EU parliament and its associated offices/agencies/commissions as a working example of democratic processes working and evolving. The veto in the EU can be exercised by any member state (Hungary comes to mind) yet there are no ‘permanent members of the EU Security Council, etc…
There is no unbreakable connections between permanent council members and the right of veto, it’s all a matter of Constitutional/Treaty laws. There is no reason that would prevent the UN (Assembly voting) from evolving the right of veto to more closely resemble the EU structures (granted a lot of changes are needed - and a boycott of the Security Council by the Assembly absolute majority would need to support it - if it is
allowed by the UN Constitution? OR a UN Assembly revolution to overthrow the Council, a putch or coup if you will… Don’t take the latter too seriously, I’m just brainstorming here…
"There is no reason that would prevent the UN (Assembly voting) from evolving the right of veto to more closely resemble the EU structures"
i disagree because to join the EU you have to go through a rigorous process. for the UN you just have to exist (not technically true and there are exceptions). plus, yes, the EU has veto: by anyone. which is even more extreme than the UN. so i don't know how this argues against a veto
maybe in the distant future, sure
@benroyce
Come now Ben, I wasn’t advocating against a veto in my original toot or the following one, only arguing against having Permanent Members in the Security Council.
And yes, any changes to the structure and processes of the UN is an almighty challenge that I fear cannot be overcome without a total collapse of the institution and the birth of a new one (But Not The Board Of Peace !!!)
"only arguing against having Permanent Members"
right and i'm attacking that argument
germany isn't threatend by slovenia if slovenia is already in a rigorously conforming set of behaviors to be even in the EU
but indonesia is threatened by bahrain imposing on indonesia because bahrain has an agenda that lies well outside any set of norms indonesia operates under
indonesia should be able to veto bahrain. not because it's right, but because if it can't, it won't even join
@benroyce
The way I read you argument (because I am unsure of the Germany vs Slovenia and Bahrain vs Indonesia issues you are referring to) is that membership to the EU requires conformity with Statutes and Treaties, just as joining the UN requires a seal of approval (by the govt of the joining State). No differences per se, even though the UN has no ‘Treaty’ , only a ‘Convention’ that requires adherence to and often isn’t without much consequences. Which is why any ‘restructuring’ of the UN is bound to fail as adding substantial consequences for non-compliance with the Convention is highly problematic and totally unlikely.
I don’t see how permanent members of a supreme can be justified in a supposedly ‘democratic’ institution, a principle evident in the General Assembly but not in the Security Council precisely because of the permanent members (Let’s face it, the permanent members were demanded by the US to preserve their post-war imperial preeminence happily supported by the other world powers of the time). Policeman of the World - give me a break.
BTW, what time is it where you are? Do you ever sleep?
what's sleep? 😂
i think the way forward is to just get rid of the security council
why is it needed? the other un institutions are fine
it won't happen
regional powers won't join a system they don't have veto power in. so the new UN will never come to exist
even if such a UN existed, let's say they make a decision that india doesn't like but india's veto is denied
so india just ignores it
now what?
are other countries going to impose on india?
now you have a UN that creates conflict instead of resolves it
regional powers have to have a veto power
i don't like it. just no way around it
if such a political structure existed. but it doesn't
the absurdity is two european seats at the un
it should only have one
EU is the most obvious political entity choice to have it, that's all
uk/ not uk/ france/ not france/ etc
whatever
the point is europe doesn't deserve two seats
she hacked you
ᴮᵉⁿ ᴿᵒʸᶜᵉVOTE IN THE PRIMARIES
Bruce Heerssen 
Amorpheus
Jan Antoš
StarkRG
Sammi
ArchaeoIain
RaymondPierreL3
Belakor
💀 𝓕airchild 💀
I AM BANKSY ☕ / 🗑🔥