• cosmicrookie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        So the only way to get the big guys to the table is by giving them the option to have it their way by force

        I know that there are pro’s and cons to this but IMO its too much power

        Critics say that the veto is the most undemocratic element of the UN,[5] as well as the main cause of inaction on war crimes and crimes against humanity, as it effectively prevents UN action against the permanent members and their allies.[6]

        (From wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_veto_power)

    • force@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      He didn’t say all nations have the same power in the UN. He said the opposite. Read the comment before you reply to it

      “Like it or not, a UN where Monaco and the US (…) have the same power at the table is a UN where the big players reject its authority and form their own clubs.”

      • cosmicrookie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Ah I see. I misread. It still stands though that to bring the big guys to the table, we give them the chance to have it their way and therefore get nowhere with the big questions

    • mkwt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 month ago

      Only the five permanent members have a veto power on the security council. USA, China, Russia, UK, and France.

      No one else has the power to veto.

      In fact, I think grandparent was talking about a hypothetical and counterfactual world where every nation had the same powers at the UN.