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
@ekis sadly, I doubt this will be possible.
The world needs the power players to be willing to submit to international judgement/punishment...often by their adversaries.
I don't see China or Russia or India ever doing that. We know the US never did and certainly won't for a long time.
China really is the bear inside the tent - military strength can be bested. Beating an economic power of a country 5 times your size is a fools errand.
@PhoenixSerenity @ekis no argument. The same reason the West is learning that having one uber dominant partner isn't ideal, the world economy is about to learn the same thing regarding China.
Asymmetry is tough to control. Capitalism's chase of the cheapest everything for profit will be it's demise.
Call me a fool, but imho it starts with a paradigm shift, of all of us living on the principle of abundance instead of scarcity and of course the love for all our creatures in this world.
Hi Ms. Que Banh,
Yes, you are absolutely right - there are people who are selfish, but then again: these days they (still) have the luxury to be selfish.
They will not be once you need more then money to get by.
Moreover, if you want followers, if you want more followers or even everyone to follow you, I guess it makes sence to exclude none, does it not? 😉
@fdriesenaar I'm talking about more than money when it comes to most humans being inherently selfish. As a disabled person who never stopped masking up, I've seen selfishness in terms of caring about more than just yourself with being covid safe/masked up around the community. I've seen people who don't have much, harshly judge & refuse to help the homeless, while putting privileged jerks on pedestals. Those are selfish & ignorant personal choices.
I don't want everyone to follow me nor have I ever cared about numbers of followers. If I did, I wouldn't have deleted my previous Tiktok with over 30K followers or deleted my past FB photography biz page with over 14K followers. I prefer Mastodon/Fediverse without corporate controls or algorithms. I have deleted over 200 followers here, back in 2023, when I was on a different instance. If follower numbers truly mattered to me, I wouldn't have deleted anyone.
I tolerate most folks. I have basic standards of human decency for personal association though. I will definitely exclude bigots/Nazis & also ostracize folks who choose to sit with bigots/Nazis.
@PhoenixSerenity Hi,
Sorry if I offended you, I did not mean to do so.
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 😅
Patrick Dufour
she hacked you
Pusher of Pixels
Ms. Que Banh
Mysturji
Freekie
Fluffy Kitty Cat
ᴮᵉⁿ ᴿᵒʸᶜᵉVOTE IN THE PRIMARIES
Bruce Heerssen 
Amorpheus
Jan Antoš
StarkRG
Sammi
ArchaeoIain