The core issue with the UN is that it’s an artifact of the Kisinger-esque “great powers” geopolitical mentality - specifically, that a handful of fuck-off powerful formerly (sometimes barely) colonial/imperialist nations “know best”. And sure - sometimes that collection of countries does push concepts that are genuinely constructive and helpful. But very often, it also devolves into simply preserving the vestiges of imperial-powers-of-old.
Until and unless the UN is able to reform itself in a way that the General Assembly has some sort of mechanism to actually override the UNSC (or, more specifically, whatever country on the UNSC decides to cast a veto - particularly permanent members), the UN will remain essentially impotent.
I do think it would be a fantastic idea if UNSC vetos required another SC member to second said veto for it to actually go into effect, and even then allowing some sort of override mechanism in the UNGA provided there’s an overwhelming majority… but I don’t see that happening, because the parties that would have to sign off on that sort of procedural amendment are the same parties that would lose unilateral power under that arrangement, and that’s simply not going to happen.
I completely agree and would love reforms but one reason they have veto power is to stop great power wars. And I think that one is still valid. The countries who have veto power aren’t the good countries. They’re the ones who can cause civilizational collapse.
I think one thing we forget about WWII is that it was worse than what’s happening in Gaza, Ukraine, and the Horn of Africa right now but basically global. A lot of the systems setup after were not so much “How do we make something ideal?” as “How do we never get to this point again?”
That would still be an improvement. France is more European aligned than American - so they’re not a reliable yesman… and even the UK is better now than the days of Blair.
Russia and China both want to avoid political isolation but they disagree on a lot of stuff.
Allowing a two member veto would probably be much more stable.
The core issue with the UN is that it’s an artifact of the Kisinger-esque “great powers” geopolitical mentality - specifically, that a handful of fuck-off powerful formerly (sometimes barely) colonial/imperialist nations “know best”. And sure - sometimes that collection of countries does push concepts that are genuinely constructive and helpful. But very often, it also devolves into simply preserving the vestiges of imperial-powers-of-old.
Until and unless the UN is able to reform itself in a way that the General Assembly has some sort of mechanism to actually override the UNSC (or, more specifically, whatever country on the UNSC decides to cast a veto - particularly permanent members), the UN will remain essentially impotent.
I do think it would be a fantastic idea if UNSC vetos required another SC member to second said veto for it to actually go into effect, and even then allowing some sort of override mechanism in the UNGA provided there’s an overwhelming majority… but I don’t see that happening, because the parties that would have to sign off on that sort of procedural amendment are the same parties that would lose unilateral power under that arrangement, and that’s simply not going to happen.
deleted by creator
Preventing war by allowing powerful assholes do as they please sounds like preventing bullying by punching yourself.
deleted by creator
Semantics. The truth is, couple countries have the UN “hijacked” by threatening violence.
I like you analogy better, tho.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
UN is nothing but a joke.
I completely agree and would love reforms but one reason they have veto power is to stop great power wars. And I think that one is still valid. The countries who have veto power aren’t the good countries. They’re the ones who can cause civilizational collapse.
I think one thing we forget about WWII is that it was worse than what’s happening in Gaza, Ukraine, and the Horn of Africa right now but basically global. A lot of the systems setup after were not so much “How do we make something ideal?” as “How do we never get to this point again?”
Until the UK backed every US veto and China backed every Russian veto.
That would still be an improvement. France is more European aligned than American - so they’re not a reliable yesman… and even the UK is better now than the days of Blair.
Russia and China both want to avoid political isolation but they disagree on a lot of stuff.
Allowing a two member veto would probably be much more stable.
It would be nice if these vetos were more like a dissenting opinion.