here's a compromise, we get rid of all the vetos, and let the general assembly make binding decisions. surely the majority of the world's population & nations would vote in support of Western Democratic interests
this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2023
265 points (96.2% liked)
World News
32048 readers
1160 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
How are you going to enforce those "binding" decisions?
how is zelensky going to get a country that can veto any motion to give up its veto? it's complete fantasy. i'm addressing the idea russia's veto is unfair or undeserved, but somehow everyone else's isn't.
load more comments
(4 replies)
🔫
Attempting to create a Supra National World Government like this would cause most, if not all, of the industrialized nations to immediately leave. Even China would pack up its office and walk out the door.
Correct no one wants to cede sovereignty to the UN
It's all about nuclear power. All nations in the Security Council have the power to end civilization with nuclear weapons. That's what this war is about as well, Russia is just showing it can do as it pleases. There can be no democracy with such disparity of bellic power, that's the reason that institution exists and it's foolish to assume Russia could be expelled.
Nah the real reason the UNSC seats are what they are is that they're the winners of WWII.
If anything, kick France out because they did fuck all.
Then India and North Korea should be on the Security Council 🤷♀️
Witness my bellic power 
You have a point. India and Pakistan are out of the Security Council because they are underdeveloped and are busy having their nuclear missiles aimed at each other. North Korea has at most only a couple of ICBMs and is unable to destroy our entire civilization, even though it can create a lot of destruction with those. That is the most troublesome of nations for the UN, because they don't give a fuck about rules and are slowly increasing their bellic power, thus all the fuss about them improving their nuclear program with the help of Russia. Geopolitics is fun.
There can be no democracy with such disparity of bellic power
You think it's democratic for other nuclear armed countries to lord over the rest, as long as they're not Russia? 
Nuclear power is unrelated to the security Council permanent members. They were simply the world powers that won WWII. At the time, many of them didn't have nukes yet.
May not be how it started, but it's what it's become.
It is, however, one of the reasons people occasionally agitate to remove Russia because it wasn't Russia that won WW2.
It was the USSR, a major component of such being Ukraine.
I dunno how they're gonna go about that considering Russia could just veto that attempt to strip them lol and citing PRCs permanent security councils seat is just silly.
There is, however, precedent: the UN General Assembly in 1971 stripped Taiwan of the veto power it held as the representative of China, handing it instead to the communist government of the mainland.
Strip Russia of its veto power and give it to the PRC. Xi can have two vetoes, as a treat.
Because that is not Russia's seat. It's the Soviet Union's seat. They left the Soviet Union in 1990. In fact, Ukraine left after them, so they have a better claim to the UN seat.
Russia took on all the debts and obligations if the USSR so they got the seat.
They got the seat because they said they did, and no one challenged it:
Boris Yeltsin, the Russian President, informed the United Nations Secretary-General that the membership of the Soviet Union in the Security Council and all other UN organs would be continued by the Russian Federation with the support of the 11 member countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Union
The UN could kick them off the Security Council if they want. They are not the same country and they are not contributing to world security. This their membership on the Security Council is tenuous.
Russia is breaking current rules that outline which wars are legal and which are not. Wars of aggression are illegal. Even Putin agrees with me. Here's Putin's opinion on war and the UN:
Russian President Vladimir Putin, in a televised conference before a meeting with the US envoy to Iraq, said on 19 December 2003 that "The use of force abroad, according to existing international laws, can only be sanctioned by the United Nations. This is the international law. Everything that is done without the UN Security Council's sanction cannot be recognized as fair or justified."
Those 11 nations consented to them taking on that role. Realistically no one else could have afforded taking responsibility for debts or maintenance of the nuke stockpile.
Those are not qualifications for world leadership. Even if they were, Putin has not met his own qualifications for a legal war. Since he and his country are engaged in an illegal war, they should be removed from the Security Council.
They are qualifications for taking over the position of the USSR which member nations approved of at the time.
Under the illegal war logic most permanent members of the security council should be renoved.
None of the other Security Council members have both problems though. You do not get to be a leader based on a technicality. You have to display leadership.
Russia can't even lead their own troops in their own country. They just had unfriendly tanks outside Moscow and Putin had to run away. How can they claim international leadership?
If by "debts and obligations" you mean nukes. That makes total sense.
That's part of it
Good thing we already have a precedent to change what state the UN recognizes as representative of a country without going through the security council then.
That argument might have made sense if it were being made in like 1992 but it's been Russia's seat for over 30 years
Because that is not Russia’s seat.
It is.
It’s the Soviet Union’s seat.
And the Russian Federation (formerly the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic) is the legal successor to the Soviet Union.
They left the Soviet Union in 1990.
The Russian SFSR never "left" or "declared independence from" the Soviet Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_State_Sovereignty_of_the_Russian_Soviet_Federative_Socialist_Republic
they have a better claim to the UN seat.
The UN disagrees, sorry.
Of course they declared independence. They're no longer part of it.
Russia left the USSR on June 12 1990 and declared independence on December 12 1991.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Union
The CIS replaced the USSR. Russia was only one of the signatories. They are not the only successor entity.
The Belovezha Accords were signed on 8 December by President Boris Yeltsin of Russia, President Kravchuk of Ukraine, and Chairman Shushkevich of Belarus, recognizing each other's independence and creating the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) to replace the Soviet Union.
Because of this war, they've lost their legitimacy and can no longer credibly lead the world.
Of course they declared independence.
So you should be able to show me this alleged declaration of independence, right?
Because of this war, they’ve lost their legitimacy and can no longer credibly lead the world.
According to whom, you?
For both dates:
The Declaration was adopted by the First Congress of People's Deputies of the Russian SFSR on 12 June 1990. It proclaimed the sovereignty of the Russian SFSR and the intention to establish a democratic constitutional state within a liberalized Soviet Union.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belovezha_Accords
The main obligations of the parties to the Agreement, ratified by all former Soviet republics except Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, includes the following:
- The end of the existence of the USSR, with the "setting up of lawfully constituted democratic… independent states… on the basis of mutual recognition of and respect for State sovereignty".
Clear enough for you? The CIS is the successor to the USSR, not Russia.
It proclaimed the sovereignty of the Russian SFSR and the intention to establish a democratic constitutional state within a liberalized Soviet Union.
within a liberalized Soviet Union
So they didn't declare "independence" from the USSR like the other republics, thanks for making my point for me.
Correct, not until the second document they signed in 1991 and agreed that the Soviet Union was dissolved and the CIS was its successor. Not Russia.
CIS was its successor
Where is this written? Can you give me a direct quote instead of pretending that your interpretation of the documents (which goes against the interpretation by all CIS parties and the United Nations at the time) is correct?
Kazakhstan will rise again!
It's discouraging to hear that the President of Ukraine understands how the UN works about as well as the average redditor.
He never stopped being a comedian this Zelensky
I am going to guess that Russia would veto that resolution...
The only way to get rid of the veto powers would be to setup a completely different institution. That would be nice but it will never happen.
He thinks Ukraine is anything more than a condom for Anglo empire to have a sex intercourse session with Russia. Has he not learnt anything from the recent celebrity meet/conference he went to, where he was standing alone like a grumpy creepy loner?
He know his Nazi friends will kill him if he tries to make peace.
Hallelujah (lol)
view more: next ›