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
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
she hacked you
ᴮᵉⁿ ᴿᵒʸᶜᵉVOTE IN THE PRIMARIES
StarkRG
Sammi