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
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
she hacked you
ᴮᵉⁿ ᴿᵒʸᶜᵉVOTE IN THE PRIMARIES
RaymondPierreL3