• Venia Silente@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    8 months ago

    Justify how there would be no UN without such veto. Because, honestly, an agreement council where you can only agree as a group to do something if the big players don’t say otherwise to me looks like it just compounds the eternal problems we already have and is nothing more than just another flavour of “feel free to protest in a way that does not importunate me” Capitalism.

    • huginn@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      Because there isn’t a UN without America, China and Russia.

      France and the UK could leave and the UN could exist but those 3? Not a chance.

      Each of those larger nations carries so much weight that their influence on global politics would outshine any body that tried to legislate without them.

      The UN could exist technically but it would have no teeth at all. It has few enough as is.

      • Venia Silente@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        Still, doesn’t sound like a good argument to give those nations veto power over all decisions. Like, currently the way things are reading a motion could come it to have the UN acknowledge that, say, Palestinians are still human beings, and the US could veto that - and then what?

        • huginn@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          That can’t happen - go read the declaration on human rights. The question is never if they’re humans: it’s if the state is recognized. Their rights as humans aren’t contested.

          Taiwan is still not recognized as a country only because China refuses to do so.

          This is better than the alternative.

      • 520@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        The League of Nations failed because it was toothless, and basically did have extreme veto powers built in for world powers.

        Countries weren’t abiding by their obligations to directly intervene with attacks on member nations when a world power was an aggressor because doing so would create severe political problems for them. To this end the UN have their own armed forces for such issues.

        • _tezz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          8 months ago

          Do you honestly think the UN is that effective when it concerns international human rights? They approved a ceasefire in Gaza and nothing happened. There’s a two-year long genocide in Ukraine and the UN just let’s the Russian Ambassador carry on, and they’ve done nothing to stop them.

          Things like food aid and whatnot they’re obviously helpful with, but if the League of Nations was toothless then the UN is wearing dentures in my mind lol