Reform UN - Remove Permanent member Veto power?

DaSilva

I'd like to see what you guys think on removing the Permanent member Veto power in the UN. One of the reasons I think it's bad, apart from the obvious that it makes the power balance out of proportion, but that it's also used as a tool to get things through the UN that would normally be Veto'ed, Ie (Imagine France says to the UK, ill veto your latest resulotion unless you promise not to use it against us with our controvesial resulotion).

At the same time, I don't want to take too much of a side because I'm not completely sure how the UN council works, does each country other than the 5 Permanent Members only have one vote each? That would mean that in a sense if the Veto power was removed, power would swap hands and not really balance out, in the sense that small groups of nations who are friendly would gain a larger portion of power.

It's an interesting subject, especially since lately the Veto is being used a bit precariously by all sides, so I'd like to get more opinions.

P.S. I'm not studying politics or anything in college, I study IT so don't worry this aint my homework

Manic Moran

I think right now as it is it rather works out nicely, as the vetoes are split between countries which are pretty much diverse in their opinions and policies. If China, the US and Russia are all agreeing on something at the same time, the chances are that it's likely good for the world at large. The relative independence of the veto countries from each other is also probably good. For example, let's say that the security council by chance consists of the five permanent powers, and ten of the former Soviet states. The veto would the prevention of the 'Soviet Block' point of view from dominating.

NTM

Pazaz 21

Interesting thread, i don't know that much about the goings on of the UN myself either, but i would imagine that the reason that the permanent members have veto rights is to appease them and to keep them in the UN. I'm sure if their veto's were removed that they would threaten or actually leave the UN thus leaving the UN neglegable in the World as it would have no powers of persuasion or other, over the strongest countries in the world.

Also, as you stated, if all members had an equal vote we could see a repeat of the usual Eurovision Song Contest debacle where neighbours vote for each others acts so as not to annoy each other. They could in theory "gang up" and aquire enough votes to pass whatever bills/resolutions that they want if they so chose to do.

As for the "Don't veto my resolution, or else i will veto yours", it has been going on for years. The US will never give up its ability to block resolutions against Israel, China is using its veto power to help out Iran and Sudan, where it is getting most of it's oil from, so having a permanent veto is important for them.

To summarise the UN won't work without the five permanent members and the members won't remain members unless they have the ability to veto whatever they want.