Should veto powers of the UN Security Council be abolished?

cyberhog

Clearly, there is a problem with the current arrangement when a country that is the focus of a resolution condemning it's settlement activity as illegal can through it's numero uno veto wielding ally effectively prevent the UNSC from adopting the resolution even though all of the remaining UNSC members had voted in favour.
With veto power around, even if the majority agree about something, the minority object and win. So, what do you feel about it? Should veto powers be abolished?

Chimichangas

No. 'regrettably'. Somebody needs to stand up for the minority, whoever that minority might be.

Though I know where you're coming from and understand and appreciate your frustration at the levels of hypocrisy that are involved in certain vetoes.

I was a bit surprised that it took me about 5 minutes and a google search to find news on a recent veto(yesterday) regarding Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. I would have thought it was big news even if it has been an ongoing veto since the...60s or 70s??...but most of the headlines in yahoo middle east news related to democracy demonstrations across the middle east and what al quaida has to say....

JustinDee

When people quote councial resolutions they tend to handily forget 181.

My name is URL

Here's a list of UN resolutions vetoed by the US - http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa03.html

Pretty ridiculous imo

I don't necessarily think that veto powers should be abolished but there should be some mechanism which can be used to invalidate the veto in certain circumstances.

Nodin

Chimichangas wrote: »

No. 'regrettably'. Somebody needs to stand up for the minority, whoever that minority might be.

...its not really used to stand up for the minority in the protective Republican sense though, lets face it. It's there to protect the interests of the World powers, some of which are historical at this stage (Britain in particular).

And of course its not going to change in any realistic forseeable future, rather depressingly.

Manach

No. In that elements within the US are suspicious enough of the UN. If the veto was eliminated such elements would probably imitate the actions of their forbearers in regard to the League of nations by withdrawing from that body. Thus without a credible US membership, the UN does lose a great deal of its validity.

wes

The veto is imho a joke at this point. It has been abused by various powers to protect there own interests, but I don't see them giving up this power, so we will see this kind of shameful behavior on a ongoing basis.

blubloblu

Are there any situations of a veto being used and it being regarded as a good thing?

My name is URL

Manach wrote: »

Thus without a credible US membership, the UN does lose a great deal of its validity..

..he says without a single hint of irony. =p

bmaxi

At this stage it's debatable whether the UN serves any useful purpose and today's veto is evidence of this. At the same time as the U.S. is calling on the likes of Libya, Bahrain and Algeria to respect the human rights of their citizens they are condoning Israel's denial of human rights to the Palestinians. Pure hypocrisy but it's what we've come to expect of the U.S., it's their way or no way.

pablomakaveli

The vetos cripple the UN when it comes to dealing with certain issues. It's always used by security council members to protect their own interests and just makes a mockery of the UN. It's just become a case of the superpowers using their vetos as a way of one-upmanship and unfortunately a lot of cases where UN intervention is required are vetoed.

I'd personally love to see it abolished but i can't ever see the U.S, China, Russia and the others give up their vetos.

The Saint

JustinDee wrote: »

When people quote councial resolutions they tend to handily forget 181.

Security Council resolution 181, the one passed in 1963 calling on South Africa to end apartheid and calls on states stop arms shipments to the country?

hatrickpatrick

Absolutely.
IMO, permanent members should be abolished as well.
It's time for the age of a small group of Western countries prancing around acting like they rule the planet to end. The sooner the better.

US gov't sorely needs to realize that it has jurisdiction ONLY over US territory.

Iwasfrozen

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Absolutely.
IMO, permanent members should be abolished as well.
It's time for the age of a small group of Western countries prancing around acting like they rule the planet to end. The sooner the better.

US gov't sorely needs to realize that it has jurisdiction ONLY over US territory.

That's a very simplistic outlook you have there.

The power of western nations and America in particular is important. Who else would we look to to stop a genocide from happening if America one day decided whatever happens outside it's own borders is none of it's business?

Or maybe you see genocide as a domestic issue.

Nodin

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That's a very simplistic outlook you have there.

The power of western nations and America in particular is important. Who else would we look to to stop a genocide from happening if America one day decided whatever happens outside it's own borders is none of it's business?

Like it did in the 1990's with regard to Rwanda, or in the 1980's with regards to the Kurds?

hatrickpatrick

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That's a very simplistic outlook you have there.

The power of western nations and America in particular is important. Who else would we look to to stop a genocide from happening if America one day decided whatever happens outside it's own borders is none of it's business?

Or maybe you see genocide as a domestic issue.

That's be fine if the US generally intervened for the good of humanity, but it doesn't. The vast majority of US foreign policy (and nowhere is this more obvious than in the Middle East) follows a supremacist "if one American life is made easier, it doesn't matter if 10,000 foreigners die for it" principle. Look at what they did in Iraq for the sake of power and money?

If you truly believe the war in Iraq had anything remotely to do with making the lives of Iraqis better, you are extremely naive.