636
submitted 7 months ago by FenrirIII@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] veniasilente@lemm.ee 8 points 7 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 24 points 7 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.

[-] veniasilente@lemm.ee -1 points 7 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 3 points 7 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.

[-] takeda@lemmy.world 18 points 7 months ago

Wasn't that why the League of Nations failed?

[-] 520@kbin.social 7 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 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 6 points 7 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

this post was submitted on 19 Apr 2024
636 points (96.4% liked)

World News

39102 readers
2189 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS