Democracy and the UN veto
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
Challenger78
Valued Senior Member
Might (money, power, strength) makes right.
In principle, it is democratic. But you know how "principle" gets all fucked up, right? Might makes right ...and that's been going on since man first stood upright on the African plains. Accept it, SAM, it's human nature ...or are you out to change human nature?
Baron Max
It's certainly not Democratic in that the nations with veto power are arbitrary, they happen to have been the most powerful ones.
Yes. So... What? Would you prefer a different system?
Yes indeed.
Yes, to disolve the U. N. or at least limit the nonsense.
SAM, the masses sometimes do stupid things and bad things...wittness the French Revolution. The idea of veto is similar to the concept of the Senate. Senators are there to be the voice of reason. The lower house is there to be the voice of the masses....all conceptual.
But the veto power does have value. Has it been abused by member states including The United States, yes. But that I dont think is reason to get rid of it. Additionally there is a rotating membership.
no joe there isnt, the rotating seats on the SC DO NOT carry the right of veto, if they did maybe the whole thing would work. The only nations who can veto something are the US, England, China, Russia, France. Out of interest anyone guess where else these 5 names apear?
Pandaemoni
Valued Senior Member
Everyone wanted a way to establish a Security Council and have it work, unlike the League of Nations. In order to do that people had to take note of the realities of the world, which included the existence of four major powers (and France, which was rebuilding). It wasn't a colonial matter, it was an acknowledgment of geopolitics of the late 1940's. Those geopolitics had colonialist overtones, but the vetoes were not a conscious effort to extend colonialism. In fact, colonialism cracked at around the same time.
Vetoes can be important in democracies, although they are counter-majoritarian. Whenever the minority has rights (or capacities) that the majority may ignore (or seek to exploit without recompense), a veto or other counter-majoritarian feature is often a good solution.
Is the US President's veto democratic?
SAM the problem is thus, you have aproximately 220 member countries in the UN. If each of those countries were a democracy, your arguement would have merit. But such is not the case. If 115 or so of those countries were dominated and controlled by a single source, say the Soviet Union (now non existent) you would in effect have a UN dominated by one country.
I do not think we have evolved enough to get rid of the Security Council. The Security Council is certianly an imperfect vehicle. But it is the best we have. The world is a very dynamic place. Political power is in a constant state of flux. What exists today, may not exist in the future. So we need some stability if the UN is to have any impact at all.
I do not think we have evolved enough to get rid of the Security Council. The Security Council is certianly an imperfect vehicle. But it is the best we have. The world is a very dynamic place. Political power is in a constant state of flux. What exists today, may not exist in the future. So we need some stability if the UN is to have any impact at all.
Challenger78
Valued Senior Member
You and I both know that the U.N. is a farce, and that really, it's not going to happen.
SAM when are you going to accept that European nations are just economically stronger, militarily stronger, and in general have the highest of education. America, Britain...will always have countries like India, Pakistan, Iraq, Egypt...in a grip. Not by force, the intelligent powers are too good for that. They're not only going to control these nations...these nations will WANT to be controlled...and do.
no joe there isnt, the rotating seats on the SC DO NOT carry the right of veto, if they did maybe the whole thing would work. The only nations who can veto something are the US, England, China, Russia, France. Out of interest anyone guess where else these 5 names apear?
Did I say rotating members had the right to veto?
The thing about vetos is that if you have too many countties with veto power, nothing will ever get done. On the other hand, powerful countries have no incentive to participate in the first place, if they do not enjoy veto power. To make the whole thing work, then, you have to find a minimal number of vetos that will keep enough powerful countries on board, without creating total gridlock.
I think the whole idea behind the UN is to get nations talking to each other rather than fighting each other...a noble goal but difficult to make practical.