• queermunist she/her
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Not what I said.

    It’s a nail in the UN’s coffin because it destroys its legitimacy as an institution. The UN isn’t really an international body it’s just a US puppet and unable to do anything the US opposes.

    No nation can have veto power, it destroys the whole system. So, like the League of Nations, it is going to fail and be replaced.

    • UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      OHH BRUHH. Sorry, was reading while walking.

      Eh yeah, the UN’s basically a country group chat. Nothing more, nothing less. The security council are the 5 group admins. Countries just come up and say, “we need to make the world a better place, guys!”. Everyone agrees, but doesn’t do shit

      • queermunist she/her
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        The UN actually does have the power to do stuff when everyone agrees, but the problem is the veto nations keep the UN from ever exercising power. It’s a busted system and it’s going to collapse.

        • UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          I don’t know about the collapse part (we’ve seen much worse shit happen throughout its history). The main purpose of the UN effectively is to protect the former allied powers from a power that is against them all. Oh, and also to prevent genocides where none of the allied powers can profit off of. And also as a group chat.

          • queermunist she/her
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            What do you think the League of Nations was? The problem the UN faces now is legitimacy - the world has to treat the UN like it’s important and not just an arm of a few powerful countries. International law ceases to have meaning if the UN is revealed as a group chat.

            Without that legitimacy we’re going to see a breakdown of the post-WW2 era of limited conflict and enter another world war.

            • UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              Wasn’t one of the biggest reasons for the League of Nations failing, the US not joining? A collapse of the UN would mean member states leaving. How would leaving be in the interest of any member state?

              • queermunist she/her
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                If the UN imposes something on one of those member states that they disagree with while refusing to impose something on a US ally that everyone else agrees with. You know, like how the UN has voted to denounce Russian aggression in Ukraine and penalized them for it, but is unable to do the same for Israel’s aggression in Palestine (and Lebanon and Iran etc). Consequences for thee, not for me!

                So if the African countries rebelling against ECOWAS and the countries involved in China’s belt-and-road and the countries in Russia’s envelope and all the so-called “pariah states” like Venezuela and Cuba decide they will not respect UN resolutions anymore…