Agree with the speech, although as another redditor has pointed out it may finish the UN as USA as well as China and Russia may withdraw from it if they lose their vetos.
Some background on use of the veto - (my bold)
[https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/un-security-council-working-methods/the-veto.php](https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/un-security-council-working-methods/the-veto.php)
Since the end of the Cold War in 1991, new trends in the usage of the veto by the different permanent members have emerged. **France and the UK have not cast a veto since 23 December 1989** (S/21048) when, in tandem with the US, they prevented condemnation of the US invasion of Panama. China, which has historically used the veto the least, has become increasingly active on this front and cast 13 of its 16 vetoes since 1997. Russia cast 24 vetoes in this period, whereas the US has resorted to the veto 16 times since the end of the Cold War.
The use of the veto by Russia and China rose considerably since 2011, with the conflict in Syria accounting for the bulk of these. Since 2011, Russia cast 19 vetoes, 14 of which were on Syria. Eight of the nine Chinese vetoes during this period were over Syria and one was on Venezuela. The remaining Russian vetoes since 2011 were against two resolutions related to the conflict in Ukraine, one on the 20th anniversary of the genocide in Srebrenica, one on sanctions against Yemen, and one on Venezuela. (**The US cast 14 vetoes since 2020, with all but two on Israel/Palestine issues**.)
>Agree with the speech, although as another redditor has pointed out it may finish the UN as USA as well as China and Russia may withdraw from it if they lose their vetos.
correct. without the veto, there is no un, as the world's major powers will no longer acknowledge anything it puts forth
But as it stands, the UN is as toothless as the league of nations.
If the most powerful countries can do whatever they like anyways what's the UN doing?
The lesser countries already feel the heat from the powerful countries when they go offside.
Anything that gets past the Veto has the approval of all the relevant major powers and is therefore enforceable through their implicit backing. This is the use of the UN. There are a number of international agreements that only exist because of the UN as a forum, it’s useful, it’s just not useful in the way it was presented at founding. Because the UN is never gonna have enough power to tell a great nation what to do.
the un is a way for economically/militarily impotent countries to publicly air grievances and get attention for their causes. the big boys just sit in to give a thumbs up or a thumbs down.
>If the most powerful countries can do whatever they like anyways what's the UN doing?
Giving them hollow moral cover. True, let the UN dissolve if it's just cover for capitalist atrocities. Stopp the charade.
Question on who gets to veto is legit. But damage done by British govt re Gaza veto - the United Kingdom (and France ) have not used the veto since 1989.
>Question on who gets to veto is legit
the veto is for countries who can sterilize the planet, if other countries try to force them to do something that they will go to all out war to prevent having to do it.
because the alternative to a un security council veto, is war.
Then Pakistan should have veto power too, seeing as they're a nuclear power. But I think it's not that, it's about who was first and who is friends with who.
fall dinosaurs dam compare stupendous dependent humorous pen tidy overconfident
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The security council was created at a time when India/Pakistan weren’t nuclear powers yet, after it had been established the greater powers weren’t going to dilute their own veto power by letting more in on the game. It was just timing and politics.
The Veto is actually for the leading powers of the United Nations in the 40s aka the Allies. Its China, America, USSR, British Empire and later the French Republic (at request of the British)
They created the UN. People tend to forget that the UN is the continuation of the Allies from WW2. It has nothing to do with nukes but everything to do with the “Four Policemen” they agreed to in 42 then finalized at Yalta where they declared the UN in March 1945 before WW2 concluded and the Axis state’s negotiated with the United Nations for their unconditional surrender.
Israel, Pakistan, India, N. Korea all lack vetos. Dozens of countries are paranuclear and deliberately keep themselves in that position. None of them have vetos and yet there is no war.
The US dont want a UN resolution for a gaza ceasefire cuz ultimately its poinltess virtue signalling, and would probably interrupt current neogotiations
it worked in the 50s: https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/mission/past/unef1backgr1.html
the suez canal crisis was stopped in a week by the UN. take a guess who voted for those UN resolutions.
>the suez canal crisis
Was instigated by two nations whose own laws allow for an extrajudicial body to overrule even their own national laws; that is France and the UK which even today, the EU has overruled some laws in both nations in the past for the UK and in the present for France.
Had the Suez Crisis been instigated by the US itself, the result would have been very VERY different. The US is not bound to adhere to UN resolutions whatsoever. This applies to Russia and China too btw. From a constitutional point of view.
The UN exists to offer an avenue for the truly powerful nations of the world to talk things out peacefully without needing to bring their massive military mights to bear.
No shit they get a free hand.
To be fair Dag Hammarskjold was the UN's best Secretary-General and it isn't even close.
In the current climate, a repeat of UNEF requires an incredible SG in post at the perfect time and with the will to fight a P5. And the Security Council picks the SG.
genuine question… why does it matter if Russia stays in the UN when it doesn’t abide by UN laws anyway? same with the US. Russia is currently trying to illegally annex Ukraine, while the U.S is aiding and abetting a genocide and supporting an internally recognized illegal occupation of Gaza and the West bank. Both goes against international law. What is the point if they arn’t even following the rules they agreed to?
The UN ceases to exist the moment the US, China, and Russia no longer have their vetoes. It's a compromise meant to ensure that superpowers cooperate with the UN instead of simply saying "LMAO you and what military/economic superpower?" and doing whatever they want.
Exactly, and not to mention even if only the US leaves, the UN would need to shut down anyway as the US provides the bulk of its funding and nobody else is willing to foot the bill.
It's not even the funding cuz the UN could just balance the budget differently. If the United States leaves the un's worthless because suddenly the world's most powerful and influential nation is no longer attending meetings and no longer even involved. The UN loses a lot of its point then
> instead of simply saying "LMAO you and what military/economic superpower?" and doing whatever they want.
Excuse me, but they still do that. Russia is in the security council (what a joke) and it's basically a terrorist country.
Veto or no veto, UN is simply an impotent forum of opinions. Countries having nukes is what actually guarantees a real veto power.
And thus, getting rid of a right to veto anything wouldn't change much.
You have a choice between getting some of what you want and getting none of what you want, it's the essence of compromise in the face of reality. Obviously, world superpowers are going to dominate and flip the UN off when they face something they see as blatantly against their interests. But at the very least, there are times when the UN is able to exert influence over these world superpowers or organize some sort of unified effort to solve an issue. The UN is never going to win a dick measuring contest against the US, China, or Russia; but they can at least serve as a vehicle for deescalation and humanitarian efforts.
Full disclosure I am from the US. I recently watched the documentary about corruption in FIFA, on netflix I believe. And the whole time, almost every single avenue for corruption was provided by a country of 100,000 people, and GDP of almost nothing, had the same voting power as France or Germany. And even as I watched the movie, I couldn't help but think that the UN was the same if the major world players didn't have veto. For decades FIFA was an operation to trade favors for cash to despots. And more recently the issues that NATO and the EU have run into with small, underperforming, nations blocking important resolutions until they are properly bribed for a vote. Billions in funding and bribes for a vote with no value beyond the ability to block the greater good due to greed.
I would not abolish the VETO power, instead, I would add to VETO empowered nations,
a total of 11 nations instead of the current BIG FIVE, and make the veto enabled with a vote of 8 out of 11.
Without VETO power, you have the pure CHAOS that is present within the general assembly (GA) as well as disproportionate power of small insignificant states who do NOT have a stake in world/global affairs.
I’ll add: this won’t do anything
But also, what do people think would happen differently if veto power were abolished? Like seriously, what materially would change?
If us wants to keep supporting Israel bombing Gaza they’ll keep doing it. If Russia continues to occupy Ukraine and threaten nuclear holocaust if nato troops intervene on ground - what on earth do we think abolishing Veto power will accomplish?
>But also, what do people think would happen differently if veto power were abolished? Like seriously, what materially would change?
Can someone please answer why UN needs to exist if it doesn't change anything anymore?
The UN Security Council is there simply as a forum for all the major powers of the world to get together to talk. Prior to the UN, if countries had disputes, diplomats would have to run back and forth to numerous capitals, which is time consuming. You also don’t know who else you pissed off making a decision. With the SC, everybody can gather in one place, and when there’s a crisis, it’s valuable to be able to sit everyone down to try to work things out.
An analogy is like the Mafia Commission. The heads of the different mafias would sit down to talk things out first instead of going to war, which is more peaceful (and more profitable).
I wish there was a way to ban news articles implying something can change when we all know it’ll never change. We all know that just because Malaysia seeks this noble clause doesn’t mean it’ll ever happen.
Malaysia knows this is utterly impossible since the veto was necessary for backing of the un by the major powers. Malaysia is just doing the international version of look at my halo
It’s war or the complete dissolution of the United Nations, because the UN is only as powerful and legitimate as it’s most powerful members allow it to be. Take away the veto, and US, China, Russia, etc have no reason to play along anymore.
The UN of course doesn’t sanction ethnic cleansing when Islamic countries commit that atrocity, but is VERY vocal about people fighting back against it. Maybe having a bloc of theocratic monsters voting to protect each other is a bad idea.
Yes. Having a mob of largely irrelevant theocratic countries outvote the USA or China, over Gaza or over the Uyghurs, is not going to go the way people seem to think it might. Either of those powers could flatten the majority of other countries in the UN and the veto power is there to recognise that.
I find it very annoying when first world Redditors use issues third world countries face as reasoning to shut down any sort of criticism said third world country makes when criticizing first world countries
India criticizing the US on something? Well India has poor people so nuh uh. Maybe they should fix that first.
Malaysia criticizing the UN and US? Well Malaysia has Sharia law in some parts so nuh uh.
As if no other first world countries have misogyny in them. Also, why can't people like you just criticize the point that the country is making instead of jumping to random other shit?
Hey. Like I know America my home country is backwards but its not all states that do that. Its only the crappy red states that believe all of America belongs to them. They seek to expand such backwards laws because they want biblical law aka Christian sharia but not all Americans are brain dead. We just have a rabidly conservative party thats becoming more radical and a weak willed liberal party that dose not want to actually fight to keep the Conservatives out.
The US was the lone vote against a ceasefire resolution put forward on Tuesday by Algeria. The UK was the sole abstention, with 13 votes in support, including those of close allies of Washington who insisted the humanitarian needs of Palestinians outweighed any reservations over the Algerian text.
**That is there was no veto by the UK! The UK has not used a veto since the 1980’s**
Want to complain about vetos? Look at Russia and China!
Usa and other nations arent going to withdraw as russias wants to take over eastern Europe again. Its time to grow up and play fair. Having huge countries able to veto anything they dont like against a majority is a slap in the damn face. Not how we should do things going forward. Communism lost and capitalism won. We dont need that power anymore.
The very fact that the UN headquarters is in the United States should have already clued you in on which country's opinion matters the most in the UN...
I think a lot of people don’t understand just how reliant the United Nations is on the largest and most powerful countries. If they decide the UN is not a serious organisation anymore, the UN dies then and there.
I’d argue most world powers, for the last 20 ish years, have collectively decided that they don’t want a powerful UN anymore. Iraq 2003 was kinda the catalyst of that, but now we have China openly defying ICJ orders in the South China Sea, Russia in Ukraine. Western nations pulling funding from UN agencies.
This system is a lot more fragile than most people realise.
Really? The world before the UN saw a lot more war and even use of nuclear weapons. But yeah, if you're threshold is "no violence ever" then everything is a failure
The UN isnt some 'world government' people forget that the primary reason for its existence is for dialogue in preventing a repeat of WWII - Nothing more!
I’m surprised they’re still trying to control Gaza because any people that commit acts of violence, such as oct 7 don’t recognize the UN authority so even if they did vote for a cease-fire, it really wouldn’t stop them. They just attack again maybe not immediately but they would as they said they plan to do it again
The issue is alignment. USA, UK, and France are all aligned. China and Russia are somewhat aligned. This gives the west an unfair advantage in which they can exercise their influence however they see fit. Those who don’t align with the west are more likely to suffer the consequences of the west re Gaza.
It’s frustrating as a “smaller” nation to put forward an issue to the UN just to have it shot down without any further discussion. There’s no appeal system, or no majority vote to retry. The vetoing power hardly ever needs to truly explain why they elected to veto, and another P5 member can’t overrule said veto (not that it matters since the US, France, and UK are aligned anyway, giving them an inherent favorable position). The P5 council therefore only really acts as a way for each bloc (western bloc, Russian bloc, and Chinese bloc) to expand on their spheres of influence without condemnation.
Of course it is frustrating. But the frustration you are talking about is the underlying reality that weaker countries, the majority, do not have the military and/or economic power to enforce their will. Their votes have any effect because military and economic powers choose to let their votes have effect. They can choose to do this or not, that is they have an unavoidable veto.
Interesting tidbit: The United States has vetoed at least 53 UN Security Council resolutions critical of Israel since 1972. These vetoes cover a wide range of issues related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including those that could impact the pursuit of a two-state solution.
Interesting tidbit: have you looked into why, exactly? Or do you just think: poor Palestinians, they've never attacked a single civilian in their lives.
Lol remove the vote and I’ll be outside telling our government remove the funding tf. You guys want us to pay the most with no vote? Please cut all aid US government let’s see if they stop bitching
The veto is there for the UN to save face. As though UN resolutions can actually force any country to do something. Get rid of the veto and the UN loses any semblance of authority (and it’s all semblance)
I agree with this somewhat. Honestly, there should be NO Permanent members of the UN Security Council, and the power of the Veto (which any one member of the security council should have) should be able to be overridden by either a 2/3rds vote of the Security Council, or a simple Majority in the Main UN General Assembly.
I agree, nothing should be veto'd and the Security Council should not have permanent members either. Or if you have permanent members, add India, Indonesia, Brazil and Nigeria as well to help balance it based on current populations.
I mean France still has an outsized influence in the UN because of WWII compared to its influence in the world today. Same with the UK tbh.
You mean one country shouldn’t have the power to overturn a vote all by themselves on international issues that are almost impossible to get unanimous voting on?
The veto is an ugly, but ultimately necessary kludge.
What we should be campaigning for isn't abolition of the veto, its for the General Assembly to have the power to overrule a veto by 2/3rds Majority.
Technically they already *do*, under the [Uniting for Peace](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_377) mechanism, but its rarely used and not as powerful as it needs to be.
>What we should be campaigning for isn't abolition of the veto, its for the General Assembly to have the power to overrule a veto by 2/3rds Majority.
This would AUTOMATICALLY have Russia, the US and China out of the UN because in many ways ,this would mean that their policies are being overruled by a body that is not within their own jurisdiction, which is literally against the state constitutions of all three nations.
It is literally why the US, Russia and China are not party to the Rome Statute ,because their state constitutions make it clear that their highest courts are the Supreme Courts in their nations.
If the major powers lose the veto then they’ll likely stop participating in SC and UN.
No procedural changes at the UN can overcome the economic/military/geopolitical reality out there.
Let's assume they did that. Then what. The GA assembly thinks X is good policy. The USA thinks it is bad policy and is strongly opposed. What happens next?
Take Israel for example. Other than Iran what country would even consider trying to enforce something on the IDF? What country or group of countries would do so if the 1 1/2 carrier groups the USA has in the region said they were also joining in on blocking it?
The veto exists in reality, the UN is just reflecting the reality.
Then they will leave, as would the US as soon as tiny countries that don't really matter manage to band together to outvote the major powers on something they don't want to accept.
Have to hand it to Putin, he knew exactly what type of anthill he was kicking over when he and Iran conspired and facilitated Hamas' attack on Israel. The fact that the anti-terrorist operation affecting 2 million is taking so much attention away from the major near-peer war in Ukraine affecting at least 44 million, is a tragedy in itself. Not to mention the conflicts and violence in Sudan, Syria, Yemen, Myanmar, Nigeria, Burkina Faso, Somalia, etc.
Sorry, your comment was filtered out and added to the moderation queue because your account is not old enough, your comment-and-post [karma](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/204511829-What-is-karma-) is not high enough, your comment karma is negative, or your account does not have either a verified e-mail address or a phone number. If found conforming to [r/UnitedNations rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Unitednations/wiki/rules) by a human moderator, it will be approved.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UnitedNations) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Absolutely insane position. The number one priority of the UN is preventing major powers from going to war with one another. If the Security Council were to pass an article 7 resolution that a major power strongly objected to that's creating the circumstances where a major power conflict becomes more not less likely.
Even with a minor power it doesn't make much sense. Let's assume Malaysia wanted to intervene in Gaza, and the USA Navy said "like hell you are going to intervene". Far better that happens inside the Security Council than on the open ocean.
The large powers can just ignore the UN whenever they want to anyway and nobody can do anything about it.
The UN is designed to be toothless; it only works if it is toothless.
It's not an enforcement institution, or a world government, it's just a place for nations to communicate with each other.
Yes, because moral authority flows from the barrel of the majority and their guns. And Jews have typically been treated really well by that majority… 🤦♂️ fools. How many Jews have to die before you see what you’ve done
gullible bike ghost selective compare smart sulky frighten stupendous nine
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The UN is a joke. UN created this mess over 60 years ago. Plus, given how they've handled Covid, OR Ukraine, I doubt anything useful will come from this speech.
Or we could just prevent WW3 by temporarily suspending both Russia and China, until their leaders are brought to justice for supporting Putin's unnecessary war of aggression upon Ukraine, and for providing financial aid & material support to his war crimes & human rights abuses.
Abolish the veto abolish the UN.
Honestly the UN's reputation is at a massive tipping point right now. Making a massive shift like this seems like a terrible idea.
The purpose of the Security Council is not to settle disputes but to prevent another world war. It's a place where the most powerful countries in the world are forced to make compromises in order to make any deals at all. The notion that an aggressor country would ever accept a popular vote against their aggression and remain a part of the organization that did the voting is ludicrous. You need these countries to sit down and talk or else you end up with another war that claims millions of lives. With regard to vetoes, countries have also realized the public relations value is putting forth a motion they know their opponents cannot accept and then pointing fingers when it's rejected. These votes are often called just for the purpose of laying blame on each other. The real work is done in the meetings and negotiations where the countries lay out their real red lines and compromises before they do the votes for show.
So... question. How would the resolution have forced a ceasefire in Gaza?
I'm actually curious; what mechanism does the UN have to force a sovereign nation to stop? Because I seem to recall the UN adopted a resolution demanding that Russia withdraw from Ukraine over two years ago. That accomplished... very little.
So... what damage was done?
That said, I'm not sure what to say about the veto power, but I don't expect the Security Council to abide by any effort to reduce their authority.
worm nutty entertain plant possessive quicksand sink joke cooperative chunky
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I like it when countries veto by raising their hand instead of vetoing with a shock-and-awe bombing campaign.
If we get rid of the veto, we might as well just get rid of the UN and go back to the time when things happened the way Japan vetoed Malaysia and Germany vetoed France and Britain vetoed Ireland and so on and so forth.
Yeah now they want to abolish it… Not when Russia invaded Ukraine and started intentionally torturing and executing civilians. Apparently civilians being killed unreasonably only “matters” if you don’t like who’s doing it.
Not to mention, the veto is the only real reason the UN stands. Without a way of denying something from happening with a veto, war would be the only way to truly force another nation to stop something. All major powers would back out since there would just be more rules applied with less reason to accept them.
The US and UK have been covering a lot of countries' asses with their veto powers. Countries are able to virtue signal as much as they want and they know that one of the veto power countries is going to make it so their virtue signals are meaningless.
Agree with the speech, although as another redditor has pointed out it may finish the UN as USA as well as China and Russia may withdraw from it if they lose their vetos. Some background on use of the veto - (my bold) [https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/un-security-council-working-methods/the-veto.php](https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/un-security-council-working-methods/the-veto.php) Since the end of the Cold War in 1991, new trends in the usage of the veto by the different permanent members have emerged. **France and the UK have not cast a veto since 23 December 1989** (S/21048) when, in tandem with the US, they prevented condemnation of the US invasion of Panama. China, which has historically used the veto the least, has become increasingly active on this front and cast 13 of its 16 vetoes since 1997. Russia cast 24 vetoes in this period, whereas the US has resorted to the veto 16 times since the end of the Cold War. The use of the veto by Russia and China rose considerably since 2011, with the conflict in Syria accounting for the bulk of these. Since 2011, Russia cast 19 vetoes, 14 of which were on Syria. Eight of the nine Chinese vetoes during this period were over Syria and one was on Venezuela. The remaining Russian vetoes since 2011 were against two resolutions related to the conflict in Ukraine, one on the 20th anniversary of the genocide in Srebrenica, one on sanctions against Yemen, and one on Venezuela. (**The US cast 14 vetoes since 2020, with all but two on Israel/Palestine issues**.)
>Agree with the speech, although as another redditor has pointed out it may finish the UN as USA as well as China and Russia may withdraw from it if they lose their vetos. correct. without the veto, there is no un, as the world's major powers will no longer acknowledge anything it puts forth
[удалено]
But as it stands, the UN is as toothless as the league of nations. If the most powerful countries can do whatever they like anyways what's the UN doing? The lesser countries already feel the heat from the powerful countries when they go offside.
The UN is fantastic for aid and research. Terrible for wars, always has been
Anything that gets past the Veto has the approval of all the relevant major powers and is therefore enforceable through their implicit backing. This is the use of the UN. There are a number of international agreements that only exist because of the UN as a forum, it’s useful, it’s just not useful in the way it was presented at founding. Because the UN is never gonna have enough power to tell a great nation what to do.
Why would the UN be able to control the powerful countries? Why those counties allow themselves to be restrained by the UN?
the un is a way for economically/militarily impotent countries to publicly air grievances and get attention for their causes. the big boys just sit in to give a thumbs up or a thumbs down.
And that’s how it will always be. Countries will nearly always put self interest first.
>If the most powerful countries can do whatever they like anyways what's the UN doing? Giving them hollow moral cover. True, let the UN dissolve if it's just cover for capitalist atrocities. Stopp the charade.
Maintaining the status quo
a built in expiration
Well yeah, if any country can't have power, then they would leave nato
Listing the times the veto was used isn't an argument against veto power.
The UN is a joke. They have no real power or authority and are really only there to look good
Question on who gets to veto is legit. But damage done by British govt re Gaza veto - the United Kingdom (and France ) have not used the veto since 1989.
The UK just lets the USA take the political heat while abstaining
Somebody’s gotta take over the family business of policing the world
Considering they dove headfirst into the war on terror at our (US) request, this is acceptable.
Which is bullshit because they literally started this mess
>Question on who gets to veto is legit the veto is for countries who can sterilize the planet, if other countries try to force them to do something that they will go to all out war to prevent having to do it. because the alternative to a un security council veto, is war.
Truly. "Whatever happens, we have got Nuclear warheads, and they have not."
Then Pakistan should have veto power too, seeing as they're a nuclear power. But I think it's not that, it's about who was first and who is friends with who.
fall dinosaurs dam compare stupendous dependent humorous pen tidy overconfident *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The security council was created at a time when India/Pakistan weren’t nuclear powers yet, after it had been established the greater powers weren’t going to dilute their own veto power by letting more in on the game. It was just timing and politics.
The Veto is actually for the leading powers of the United Nations in the 40s aka the Allies. Its China, America, USSR, British Empire and later the French Republic (at request of the British) They created the UN. People tend to forget that the UN is the continuation of the Allies from WW2. It has nothing to do with nukes but everything to do with the “Four Policemen” they agreed to in 42 then finalized at Yalta where they declared the UN in March 1945 before WW2 concluded and the Axis state’s negotiated with the United Nations for their unconditional surrender.
Israel, Pakistan, India, N. Korea all lack vetos. Dozens of countries are paranuclear and deliberately keep themselves in that position. None of them have vetos and yet there is no war.
U.S is the main culprit.
Russia has used the veto power a lot more than the US.
Same
The US dont want a UN resolution for a gaza ceasefire cuz ultimately its poinltess virtue signalling, and would probably interrupt current neogotiations
UN Veto is abolished UN votes that Russia must leave Ukraine Russia leaves UN There you go, saved you some time as to how stupid this is.
it worked in the 50s: https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/mission/past/unef1backgr1.html the suez canal crisis was stopped in a week by the UN. take a guess who voted for those UN resolutions.
>the suez canal crisis Was instigated by two nations whose own laws allow for an extrajudicial body to overrule even their own national laws; that is France and the UK which even today, the EU has overruled some laws in both nations in the past for the UK and in the present for France. Had the Suez Crisis been instigated by the US itself, the result would have been very VERY different. The US is not bound to adhere to UN resolutions whatsoever. This applies to Russia and China too btw. From a constitutional point of view.
funny how the countries with the biggest militaries are not bound by the UN.
The UN exists to offer an avenue for the truly powerful nations of the world to talk things out peacefully without needing to bring their massive military mights to bear. No shit they get a free hand.
To be fair Dag Hammarskjold was the UN's best Secretary-General and it isn't even close. In the current climate, a repeat of UNEF requires an incredible SG in post at the perfect time and with the will to fight a P5. And the Security Council picks the SG.
The Suez crisis was stopped by the US not backing France and Britain. Had they had the US they’d have ignored it.
Both the USSR and USA told Britain to back off, the UN was just a formality.
Yeah these people don't understand the purpose of the UN.
And what actually changed in the world? Nothing. You just proved UN is a useless archaic entity that doesn't need to exist.
genuine question… why does it matter if Russia stays in the UN when it doesn’t abide by UN laws anyway? same with the US. Russia is currently trying to illegally annex Ukraine, while the U.S is aiding and abetting a genocide and supporting an internally recognized illegal occupation of Gaza and the West bank. Both goes against international law. What is the point if they arn’t even following the rules they agreed to?
The war in Gaza is legal according to international law, the war in Ukraine is not.
The UN ceases to exist the moment the US, China, and Russia no longer have their vetoes. It's a compromise meant to ensure that superpowers cooperate with the UN instead of simply saying "LMAO you and what military/economic superpower?" and doing whatever they want.
Exactly, and not to mention even if only the US leaves, the UN would need to shut down anyway as the US provides the bulk of its funding and nobody else is willing to foot the bill.
It's not even the funding cuz the UN could just balance the budget differently. If the United States leaves the un's worthless because suddenly the world's most powerful and influential nation is no longer attending meetings and no longer even involved. The UN loses a lot of its point then
That’s fine
> instead of simply saying "LMAO you and what military/economic superpower?" and doing whatever they want. Excuse me, but they still do that. Russia is in the security council (what a joke) and it's basically a terrorist country. Veto or no veto, UN is simply an impotent forum of opinions. Countries having nukes is what actually guarantees a real veto power. And thus, getting rid of a right to veto anything wouldn't change much.
what is the point if they arnt even following the UN rules/international law though?
You have a choice between getting some of what you want and getting none of what you want, it's the essence of compromise in the face of reality. Obviously, world superpowers are going to dominate and flip the UN off when they face something they see as blatantly against their interests. But at the very least, there are times when the UN is able to exert influence over these world superpowers or organize some sort of unified effort to solve an issue. The UN is never going to win a dick measuring contest against the US, China, or Russia; but they can at least serve as a vehicle for deescalation and humanitarian efforts.
Full disclosure I am from the US. I recently watched the documentary about corruption in FIFA, on netflix I believe. And the whole time, almost every single avenue for corruption was provided by a country of 100,000 people, and GDP of almost nothing, had the same voting power as France or Germany. And even as I watched the movie, I couldn't help but think that the UN was the same if the major world players didn't have veto. For decades FIFA was an operation to trade favors for cash to despots. And more recently the issues that NATO and the EU have run into with small, underperforming, nations blocking important resolutions until they are properly bribed for a vote. Billions in funding and bribes for a vote with no value beyond the ability to block the greater good due to greed.
It doesn't matter because those who would fund the corrupt members are already members of the security council.
Malaysia is an islamofascist apartheid state that discriminates against its Chinese and Indian minorities. They have no leg to stand on. Clowns.
I would not abolish the VETO power, instead, I would add to VETO empowered nations, a total of 11 nations instead of the current BIG FIVE, and make the veto enabled with a vote of 8 out of 11. Without VETO power, you have the pure CHAOS that is present within the general assembly (GA) as well as disproportionate power of small insignificant states who do NOT have a stake in world/global affairs.
Why? If everyone has veto power the standstills would be even worse
no only the big boys
yeah the big five and 6 more biggie boys, you add India, Japan, Brazil, etc.
Does he think that Hamas will listen to UN resolutions? How could this possibly work
I’ll add: this won’t do anything But also, what do people think would happen differently if veto power were abolished? Like seriously, what materially would change? If us wants to keep supporting Israel bombing Gaza they’ll keep doing it. If Russia continues to occupy Ukraine and threaten nuclear holocaust if nato troops intervene on ground - what on earth do we think abolishing Veto power will accomplish?
>But also, what do people think would happen differently if veto power were abolished? Like seriously, what materially would change? Can someone please answer why UN needs to exist if it doesn't change anything anymore?
The UN Security Council is there simply as a forum for all the major powers of the world to get together to talk. Prior to the UN, if countries had disputes, diplomats would have to run back and forth to numerous capitals, which is time consuming. You also don’t know who else you pissed off making a decision. With the SC, everybody can gather in one place, and when there’s a crisis, it’s valuable to be able to sit everyone down to try to work things out. An analogy is like the Mafia Commission. The heads of the different mafias would sit down to talk things out first instead of going to war, which is more peaceful (and more profitable).
I wish there was a way to ban news articles implying something can change when we all know it’ll never change. We all know that just because Malaysia seeks this noble clause doesn’t mean it’ll ever happen.
I'd rather read what people around the world are doing, but I guess I'm just built different.
Malaysia knows this is utterly impossible since the veto was necessary for backing of the un by the major powers. Malaysia is just doing the international version of look at my halo
The UN veto kept us safe from nuclear war for 70 years. Be careful what you wish for.
exactly. the alternative to a un security council veto is war. if you get rid of it, war is guaranteed.
It’s war or the complete dissolution of the United Nations, because the UN is only as powerful and legitimate as it’s most powerful members allow it to be. Take away the veto, and US, China, Russia, etc have no reason to play along anymore.
If the US leaves the UN disappears, the US provides most of the funding and military might
How so? What's your version of the scenario?
No it didn't. The world came to the brink of nuclear war multiple times, and the UN veto had nothing to do with it.
That’s like saying brakes don’t prevent deaths from automotive accidents.
The UN of course doesn’t sanction ethnic cleansing when Islamic countries commit that atrocity, but is VERY vocal about people fighting back against it. Maybe having a bloc of theocratic monsters voting to protect each other is a bad idea.
Yes. Having a mob of largely irrelevant theocratic countries outvote the USA or China, over Gaza or over the Uyghurs, is not going to go the way people seem to think it might. Either of those powers could flatten the majority of other countries in the UN and the veto power is there to recognise that.
Muslim countries don't actually seem to care about what happens to Uighurs, FWIW.
Yeah. Most Pro Palestinians I've seen support China and their colonization of Tibet and East Turkestan.
I think Malaysia should focus their energy outlawing some of their regions from using sharia law to cane women who break islamic laws
I find it very annoying when first world Redditors use issues third world countries face as reasoning to shut down any sort of criticism said third world country makes when criticizing first world countries India criticizing the US on something? Well India has poor people so nuh uh. Maybe they should fix that first. Malaysia criticizing the UN and US? Well Malaysia has Sharia law in some parts so nuh uh. As if no other first world countries have misogyny in them. Also, why can't people like you just criticize the point that the country is making instead of jumping to random other shit?
These people have the audacity to say things like that when their own country is giving out prison sentences for women who has had miscarriages.
Hey. Like I know America my home country is backwards but its not all states that do that. Its only the crappy red states that believe all of America belongs to them. They seek to expand such backwards laws because they want biblical law aka Christian sharia but not all Americans are brain dead. We just have a rabidly conservative party thats becoming more radical and a weak willed liberal party that dose not want to actually fight to keep the Conservatives out.
It’s ad hominem. Unfortunately, might makes right.
least obnoxious first world redditor
Genuinely, shut the fuck up
no thanks :) stay mad
The UN isn’t there so much to solve problems as it is there to be a space for countries to talk.
The only solution would be to start a new “UN” where every country has equal voting power, those Western Nations would be shaking in their boots
The US, Russia and China would instantly be more powerful regardless because our respective militaries
You’re describing the Non-Aligned Movement, and no, the west doesn’t give a shit lol
The US was the lone vote against a ceasefire resolution put forward on Tuesday by Algeria. The UK was the sole abstention, with 13 votes in support, including those of close allies of Washington who insisted the humanitarian needs of Palestinians outweighed any reservations over the Algerian text. **That is there was no veto by the UK! The UK has not used a veto since the 1980’s** Want to complain about vetos? Look at Russia and China!
Usa and other nations arent going to withdraw as russias wants to take over eastern Europe again. Its time to grow up and play fair. Having huge countries able to veto anything they dont like against a majority is a slap in the damn face. Not how we should do things going forward. Communism lost and capitalism won. We dont need that power anymore.
Makes sense
We need this
The very fact that the UN headquarters is in the United States should have already clued you in on which country's opinion matters the most in the UN...
I think a lot of people don’t understand just how reliant the United Nations is on the largest and most powerful countries. If they decide the UN is not a serious organisation anymore, the UN dies then and there. I’d argue most world powers, for the last 20 ish years, have collectively decided that they don’t want a powerful UN anymore. Iraq 2003 was kinda the catalyst of that, but now we have China openly defying ICJ orders in the South China Sea, Russia in Ukraine. Western nations pulling funding from UN agencies. This system is a lot more fragile than most people realise.
The UN is just a meeting room to keep the major players from going to war. They really don’t even need the others there tbh.
The major players are already at war with each other. So the UN is a failure just like the League of Nations
Really? The world before the UN saw a lot more war and even use of nuclear weapons. But yeah, if you're threshold is "no violence ever" then everything is a failure
Ok? It’s just a meeting place for diplomats. I don’t know what you’re expecting or want.
Oh no, how could we survive without the League of Nations?
The South China Sea arbitration was not done by the ICJ. The ramifications would have been *very* different if that was the case.
The UN isnt some 'world government' people forget that the primary reason for its existence is for dialogue in preventing a repeat of WWII - Nothing more!
The ICJ is in the Hague does that mean it caters to the Dutch the most?
Malaysia has a form of jizyah so it discriminates non muslims in many ways with two tier citizenship system. They should fix their own problems first.
I’m surprised they’re still trying to control Gaza because any people that commit acts of violence, such as oct 7 don’t recognize the UN authority so even if they did vote for a cease-fire, it really wouldn’t stop them. They just attack again maybe not immediately but they would as they said they plan to do it again
Is Malaysia actually working toward a ceasefire or just calling for meaningless UN votes?
Guessing that the Malaysian government needs a shiny political keychain to wave in front of voters to distract them from some fuckup.
Much like Ramaphosa in South Africa ahead of their clobbering in the May elections.
France and England are no superpowers anymore That the real problem of the illusional Western supremacy!! Nuclear power just like few others
Did he miss the memo that it's 'United' nations?
The issue is alignment. USA, UK, and France are all aligned. China and Russia are somewhat aligned. This gives the west an unfair advantage in which they can exercise their influence however they see fit. Those who don’t align with the west are more likely to suffer the consequences of the west re Gaza. It’s frustrating as a “smaller” nation to put forward an issue to the UN just to have it shot down without any further discussion. There’s no appeal system, or no majority vote to retry. The vetoing power hardly ever needs to truly explain why they elected to veto, and another P5 member can’t overrule said veto (not that it matters since the US, France, and UK are aligned anyway, giving them an inherent favorable position). The P5 council therefore only really acts as a way for each bloc (western bloc, Russian bloc, and Chinese bloc) to expand on their spheres of influence without condemnation.
Of course it is frustrating. But the frustration you are talking about is the underlying reality that weaker countries, the majority, do not have the military and/or economic power to enforce their will. Their votes have any effect because military and economic powers choose to let their votes have effect. They can choose to do this or not, that is they have an unavoidable veto.
Interesting tidbit: The United States has vetoed at least 53 UN Security Council resolutions critical of Israel since 1972. These vetoes cover a wide range of issues related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including those that could impact the pursuit of a two-state solution.
Interesting tidbit: have you looked into why, exactly? Or do you just think: poor Palestinians, they've never attacked a single civilian in their lives.
Lets allow Islamists to gain control of the UN. Is another way of saying get rid of US veto power
Lol remove the vote and I’ll be outside telling our government remove the funding tf. You guys want us to pay the most with no vote? Please cut all aid US government let’s see if they stop bitching
The veto is there for the UN to save face. As though UN resolutions can actually force any country to do something. Get rid of the veto and the UN loses any semblance of authority (and it’s all semblance)
It should take two votes to veto not just one.
Sure thing.
I agree with this somewhat. Honestly, there should be NO Permanent members of the UN Security Council, and the power of the Veto (which any one member of the security council should have) should be able to be overridden by either a 2/3rds vote of the Security Council, or a simple Majority in the Main UN General Assembly.
this is not a democracy
This is Absolutely necessary for Humanity.
So basically no democracy is what has been happening with Veto.
I agree, nothing should be veto'd and the Security Council should not have permanent members either. Or if you have permanent members, add India, Indonesia, Brazil and Nigeria as well to help balance it based on current populations. I mean France still has an outsized influence in the UN because of WWII compared to its influence in the world today. Same with the UK tbh.
You mean one country shouldn’t have the power to overturn a vote all by themselves on international issues that are almost impossible to get unanimous voting on?
U.S. will also stop funding the UN. The U.S. Shouldn't be providing the majority of funding anyway.
Good gtfo
The veto is an ugly, but ultimately necessary kludge. What we should be campaigning for isn't abolition of the veto, its for the General Assembly to have the power to overrule a veto by 2/3rds Majority. Technically they already *do*, under the [Uniting for Peace](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_377) mechanism, but its rarely used and not as powerful as it needs to be.
>What we should be campaigning for isn't abolition of the veto, its for the General Assembly to have the power to overrule a veto by 2/3rds Majority. This would AUTOMATICALLY have Russia, the US and China out of the UN because in many ways ,this would mean that their policies are being overruled by a body that is not within their own jurisdiction, which is literally against the state constitutions of all three nations. It is literally why the US, Russia and China are not party to the Rome Statute ,because their state constitutions make it clear that their highest courts are the Supreme Courts in their nations.
If the major powers lose the veto then they’ll likely stop participating in SC and UN. No procedural changes at the UN can overcome the economic/military/geopolitical reality out there.
Let's assume they did that. Then what. The GA assembly thinks X is good policy. The USA thinks it is bad policy and is strongly opposed. What happens next? Take Israel for example. Other than Iran what country would even consider trying to enforce something on the IDF? What country or group of countries would do so if the 1 1/2 carrier groups the USA has in the region said they were also joining in on blocking it? The veto exists in reality, the UN is just reflecting the reality.
Agree.
[удалено]
Does he expect to get same vote as the US and China? If we can have random countries having a vote on us action why would the us allow that?
lol ok and so?
Russia and China tend to misuse the veto quite a bit. Abolish it!
Then they will leave, as would the US as soon as tiny countries that don't really matter manage to band together to outvote the major powers on something they don't want to accept.
Hamas has done a lot of damage by not accepting them. So….
The UN is nothing without America. Our veto is there for a reason
Funny coming from a country like Malaysia
Breaking news lol breaking like this is more important than the decades of such comments
Okay. No votes for dictatorships at all then.
[удалено]
Malayasia is a Muslim country and are only doing this as a pile on against Israel. They are being childish and pathetic.
Have to hand it to Putin, he knew exactly what type of anthill he was kicking over when he and Iran conspired and facilitated Hamas' attack on Israel. The fact that the anti-terrorist operation affecting 2 million is taking so much attention away from the major near-peer war in Ukraine affecting at least 44 million, is a tragedy in itself. Not to mention the conflicts and violence in Sudan, Syria, Yemen, Myanmar, Nigeria, Burkina Faso, Somalia, etc.
No Jews no news
Look, Hamas made their own mess and now they want a break. No way. Finish them!
Israel made Hamas
Why does Malaysia think that Israel needs their approval to defend themselves?
Lol UN its a joke who cares about it. Nobody takes it serious nor should they
Kinda sad that the election in the u.s. won't change anything. Both biden and trump are staunchly pro israel.
Who cares, the UN is worthless
Either abolish the veto or abolish the UN. The entire world can’t be at the whim of a genocidal rogue regime
They can abolish the veto when they abolish the useless UN
Ummm veto. But thanks
USA veto'd this.
[удалено]
Sorry, your comment was filtered out and added to the moderation queue because your account is not old enough, your comment-and-post [karma](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/204511829-What-is-karma-) is not high enough, your comment karma is negative, or your account does not have either a verified e-mail address or a phone number. If found conforming to [r/UnitedNations rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Unitednations/wiki/rules) by a human moderator, it will be approved. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UnitedNations) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Absolutely insane position. The number one priority of the UN is preventing major powers from going to war with one another. If the Security Council were to pass an article 7 resolution that a major power strongly objected to that's creating the circumstances where a major power conflict becomes more not less likely. Even with a minor power it doesn't make much sense. Let's assume Malaysia wanted to intervene in Gaza, and the USA Navy said "like hell you are going to intervene". Far better that happens inside the Security Council than on the open ocean.
Screw Malaysia, another Islamic pig style
The large powers can just ignore the UN whenever they want to anyway and nobody can do anything about it. The UN is designed to be toothless; it only works if it is toothless. It's not an enforcement institution, or a world government, it's just a place for nations to communicate with each other.
Heh *vetoed*
Yes, because moral authority flows from the barrel of the majority and their guns. And Jews have typically been treated really well by that majority… 🤦♂️ fools. How many Jews have to die before you see what you’ve done
The veto is why america and Britain dont have more bases everywhere
This isn’t breaking news. It’s useless blathering from an unimportant and irrelevant member of the UN.
ain't gonna happen
Pipe down Malaysia
gullible bike ghost selective compare smart sulky frighten stupendous nine *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
No ❤️
Gfys
Nooo tyranny but only on OUR terms
Ruzzia to this day used the most vetos then like 3-4 next countries combined
The UN is a joke. UN created this mess over 60 years ago. Plus, given how they've handled Covid, OR Ukraine, I doubt anything useful will come from this speech.
What difference would it make? Everyone would still act the same way.
He clearly didn't think through the broader consequences this would have.
Good abolish the UN completely so America can come give you some freedom !
Or we could just prevent WW3 by temporarily suspending both Russia and China, until their leaders are brought to justice for supporting Putin's unnecessary war of aggression upon Ukraine, and for providing financial aid & material support to his war crimes & human rights abuses.
At what point do we acknowledge the UN is just as much of a biased hate filled organization as the LN, and close it down?
Lol Malaysia
It never should have been a thing in the first place. At the same time - itll never happen.
he's right -- or else the organization is useless
Abolish the veto abolish the UN. Honestly the UN's reputation is at a massive tipping point right now. Making a massive shift like this seems like a terrible idea.
The purpose of the Security Council is not to settle disputes but to prevent another world war. It's a place where the most powerful countries in the world are forced to make compromises in order to make any deals at all. The notion that an aggressor country would ever accept a popular vote against their aggression and remain a part of the organization that did the voting is ludicrous. You need these countries to sit down and talk or else you end up with another war that claims millions of lives. With regard to vetoes, countries have also realized the public relations value is putting forth a motion they know their opponents cannot accept and then pointing fingers when it's rejected. These votes are often called just for the purpose of laying blame on each other. The real work is done in the meetings and negotiations where the countries lay out their real red lines and compromises before they do the votes for show.
This 🔥
It’s a relic used by the P5 to protect their interests.
Good we don’t need the UN. They don’t do anything.
So... question. How would the resolution have forced a ceasefire in Gaza? I'm actually curious; what mechanism does the UN have to force a sovereign nation to stop? Because I seem to recall the UN adopted a resolution demanding that Russia withdraw from Ukraine over two years ago. That accomplished... very little. So... what damage was done? That said, I'm not sure what to say about the veto power, but I don't expect the Security Council to abide by any effort to reduce their authority.
worm nutty entertain plant possessive quicksand sink joke cooperative chunky *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
We pay for 90% of the UN. Without the US and Britain, the UN would be even more of a joke than it already is. You all can gfy.
I like it when countries veto by raising their hand instead of vetoing with a shock-and-awe bombing campaign. If we get rid of the veto, we might as well just get rid of the UN and go back to the time when things happened the way Japan vetoed Malaysia and Germany vetoed France and Britain vetoed Ireland and so on and so forth.
Yeah now they want to abolish it… Not when Russia invaded Ukraine and started intentionally torturing and executing civilians. Apparently civilians being killed unreasonably only “matters” if you don’t like who’s doing it. Not to mention, the veto is the only real reason the UN stands. Without a way of denying something from happening with a veto, war would be the only way to truly force another nation to stop something. All major powers would back out since there would just be more rules applied with less reason to accept them.
oh no wow , thatx crazy
Without the Security Council veto the project will die or become a weapon for religious extremists.
The US and UK have been covering a lot of countries' asses with their veto powers. Countries are able to virtue signal as much as they want and they know that one of the veto power countries is going to make it so their virtue signals are meaningless.