• archiotterpup@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Okay, but he was right about this part:

    "Lula said the United Nations had failed to assume its “responsibility” because permanent members of the Security Council “are the ones who foment wars.”

    The UN security council is a joke and there shouldn’t be permanent members. It’s just neo imperialism.

    • nogooduser@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I imagine that when it was formed there were two options - allow permanent members or form without the most important members.

      • anytimesoon
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is it. How to do bring super powers to a group of nations and tell them they’ll have the same voice as tiny countries. Why would they bother showing up?

        The world has changed since then, though. I dont think it makes much sense anymore to have France and the UK as permanent members though. Even Russia has shown itself to be more of a minnow than we thought…

        • Fazoo
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Nukes. That’s all it is.

        • MarxMadness@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Even Russia has shown itself to be more of a minnow than we thought…

          Russia is currently stalemated in a limited war against a substantial (but similarly limited) chunk of the NATO arsenal. As a point of comparison, in the last 20 years the U.S. has lost two wars against non-state actors where it used everything but nukes.

          The U.S. hasn’t fought a war like the Russian-Ukranian War since Vietnam or Korea, and the results there weren’t a lot better than what Russia is seeing now (despite the U.S. doing far more indiscriminate strategic bombing).

    • bluGill@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      The permanent members are, or at least were so powerful that if they didn’t agree nothing could stop them .

    • Kata1yst@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      The point of the permanent members of security council was to bring superpowers to the table and keep them there. Otherwise they could play their games and the smaller countries would all suffer for it.

      Of course there are still problems, but through the security council and MAD we now have proxy wars and culture wars rather than a World War every couple decades.

      • WolfhoundRO@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        In the perspective of actually preventing a new World War by drawing lines between superpowers instead of appeasement, I believe that the UN actually fulfills its role the best they can. Unlike its predecessor, the League of Nations, which went so much into the “appeasement against war” from its founding members (Britain and France) that it functionally collapsed in thw wake of WW2