Calls are growing for the UN Security Council to be reformed after the US became the only member to use its veto power to block a Gaza ceasefire resolution, a move welcomed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The UN chief says he will keep pushing for peace.
The problem in this case is depending on the security council to act on an issue it isn’t designed to address.
The main purpose of the UN is to prevent global war, and the Security Council is the primary way in which that goal is achieved.
In that context, the P5’s veto power makes sense. It prevents resolutions pitting the world against one of the superpowers that can sustain that kind of war.
How does the security counsel prevent global war? They’re powerless to do anything to any of the super powers and by proxy also won’t do anything to anyone else either.
Because everyone with a veto can still step in an “veto” things if the UNSC doesn’t let them, but it’s much more violent when they do it that way.
This way of vetoing does the same thing, much more peacefully.
That’s the neat part! It doesn’t!
Or the wonky intertwinement is the peace mechanism? How much more bloody would the world have been without it?
deleted by creator
That’s actually pretty impressive if you think about it. We survived the height of the cold war so hopefully we won’t wipe ourselves out now.
we won’t wipe ourselves out now.
We literally can’t. I don’t think there’s a multi-cellular species that would be harder to wipe out than humanity. We live on all contients and enough humans have their own bunkers. Even the 100k nuclear bombs they had in the cold war wouldn’t be remotely sufficient to kill us all. We’d need ** at least** a thousand times that many.
We may however end up bombing us back into the dark ages and the collapsing food supply could kill most humans. I personally don’t think that’s much better than getting wipee out.
“Global War” isn’t all war on the globe. It’s war that pulls in the whole world. Having 4 of the P5 gang up on the 5th in a military campaign authorized by the UN would very likely result in WWIII.
The veto power prevents the UN from taking military action against a country the interest of countries that can sustain a war against the rest of the world.
Nobody is surprised and that’s a bad sign. The UN was invented to give the nations of our world a shared forum to talk things out and find a “resolution” before genociding each other. The thing is we can’t expect the UN to stop conflict.
Edit: Some people seem to confuse the UN security council with the UN. The SC has only 15 members (5 permanent member nations, 10 rotating member nations) and is usually asked to vote on intervention once a resolution was passed. It can’t act with a veto.
Yeah, this is something people don’t quite understand. The UN primarily provides platform to initiate diplomatic discourse.
Even when there is demand to reform the UN to give it more power, most people will object because “'muh sovereignty”.
This is the point exactly. The UN is a voluntary forum for signatory nations to meet and talk shit out.
What some people think of instead is the UN security council made up of 5 permanent members (US, UK, France, China, Russia) and 10 rotating members (every two years) deciding on intervention in conflicts, but there can be no veto on resolutions. That’s been a problem in the past, because rival nations just cancel each other out on some issues, making meaningful progress difficult.
People shouldn’t blame the UN for initiating talks. We now know, 121 nations are in favor of a ceasefire, 44 abstained or are too afraid to take sides and only 14 veto’d it and wanna continue bombing, that sends a pretty clear message about what the majority of nations thinks should happen.
Instead blame the nuclear powers for not being able to talk to each other anymore, blame the radicals in any conflict. Don’t blame the diplomacy.
If the UN was serious about promoting peace, they’d have occupied Gaza themselves over a decade ago.
This vote, like all votes, is political. It’s not for some higher purpose
Or even better, come up with a solution that’s more than “unconditional ceasfire right now, you figure out the rest”. How is any country supposed to follow that.
Besides, the UN shits on Israel as a pastime, that should be the first thing addressed in a UN reform.
Which is hilarious because this split state was basically created by them. Anyone could see the tensions as a result of it and the only reason that Israel wasn’t pushed out on multiple occasions was they won. They exist because they ignored the UN beyond the initial state creation.
To be fair, it’s the same countries that ignored the UN’s resolution to create the two states and instead went to war against Israel that are also the cause of the constant petty resolutions against Israel. The system was broken from day 1.
American here, I support this call.
I mean, same. The ability of certain blocs to railroad the UN is obscene. We should protect our veto tho
We should protect our veto
The countries that currently have a veto make less sense the way the world is developing.
France and the UK have a veto, but Germany doesn’t? China has a veto but India doesn’t?
I get that it’s based on historic disputes after the war, but it doesn’t fit the current world well.
To be fair, India was offered a veto but turned it down.
The veto power was given to those who won WW2, which is why Germany doesn’t have it.
I didn’t know India was offered! After some reading (skimming) the US offer in 1950 was to replace China, but Nehru didn’t want to stir up controversy. The Soviet offer in 1955 might not have made any headway, but I’m not sure why that’s the case.
If there’s one country that could demand it today, India has the best chance.
Besides the history, 1 billion threatening to leave the UN would make the whole institution that much less legitimate.
It’s a fair argument, but at this point, I suspect China would push back given their relationship with India isn’t the best. The major powers also probably don’t want to destabilize South Asia seeing as India’s rival has nukes and would feel extremely threatened. Idk I may be wrong.
If the UN isn’t reformed, there’s nothing stopping these rising states from starting their own UN
from
startingignoring their ownUN
Our veto is the problem here. Vetoes in general are the problem.
Because of “one nation one vote,” it is trivially easy for the more hardcore Muslim bloc or authoritarian nations to shove things through that should absolutely not be shoved through.
And basing it off population would essentially give China and India the power to vote themselves whatever they wanted. It’s the US legislative problem all over again and do we really want one world government in the end?
Yeah, many people fail to realize that the places in the world where individual rights are (mostly) respected are actually few, with only a minor portion of the world population.
Globalization gives us a one world government whether we acknowledge it or not.
A military hegemony or MNC coalition will be the government if nothing else steps in.
PR will phrase it in corporate doublespeak instead of calling themselves “The Government”.
That and all the British mini island countries with less than a million people and full sovereignty.
deleted by creator
Which will be vetoed by all permanent members of the security council.
So there were no “calls for reform” after a similar Russian veto about Artsakh in 2020 or recently. If nobody cares about that, then why should I care about anything else really.
There has been “calls for reform” almost every time Russia has vetoed
I haven’t seen any in those cases I mentioned. In others - yeah.
deleted by creator
Not sure how to help you with that one. People call for an end to vetos literally every time it’s used
There shouldn’t be a security council
It’s less a council of nations who actively keep the world secure, but moreso a council to keep the world secure from those nations. The security council is there so the world’s most dangerous countries don’t just go to war, and it makes them maintain a dialogue.
It’s unfortunately functioning as needed. The vetoes may piss others off, but it keeps them at the table. The ability to veto anything is a great incentive to stick around.
How are they supposed to cater to the MIC if some random bunch of countries can cut off their markets like that?
deleted by creator
Israel only exists in its current form because the advocate for the original UN plan was assassinated by a zionist terrorist. Israel was born an enemy of the UN.
How about we disband the Disunited Abominations?
We don’t need UN.
This is far from perfect, even far from functional at times. But without it we don’t have a forum. Without a forum, how do you deal with adversaries? It’s not words… This UN is better than no UN
Things just dont make sense. Hamas, a very weak power, sneak attacks Israel, a relatively strong power, then hides amongst the civilian population with military targets scattered throughout neighborhoods and municipalities.
Is Hamas surprised by the mass civilian casualties or are you (the reader) the one who is surprised? Is Hamas actually weaponizing their civilians by showing the world how many are dying and being an agent of change in the UN?
Is Hamas considering these civilian deaths as martyrs? Because martyrdom is not the same as innocent death.
You’re god damn right I’m surprised.
If terrorists hid in your family’s basement and then your family home and all those in it, plus their whole neighborhood, was wiped off the face of the earth, you’d sing a real different tune then.
Try to imagine Palestinians as real people, instead of faceless terrorists who “sealed their fate” when they “supported the wrong side” (basically just by existing).
Yeah I’d be pretty fucking pissed at the terrorists there, ngl
Unfortunately the residents of Gaza are prevented from importing weapons
I mean that’s an extremely strong positive right now.
Why are you acting like Hamas and Israel are the only parties in the conflict? That makes no more sense than talking about a war between Palestine and Likud.
Pretending Hamas is the same as Palestinians is anti-Palestenian, which to any person with a moral compass is just as bad as antisemitism, the same as being hateful towards any ethnic group.
Hamas wants dead civilians. That’s how resistance/terrorism movements work (your choice of descriptor, it’s the exact same thing).
IRA, Tamil Tigers, Viet Cong, etc. They all benefit from civilians on “their” side dying, that’s just the game they are choosing to play. Acting like you’re pwning somebody by pointing out an obvious fact won’t get you far.
And for the record, fuck Hamas.
You left out the part where Israel, of their own accord, goes in and kills these civilians to retaliate against what you’ve stated as a “very weak power.”
What? I was asking questions and they are not rhetorical.
Gotcha. Asking questions is the new wild accusation these days. It’s a good way to avoid critical thought.
Yes now that some wiki somewhere has published it, it is now a fact that those asking questions are troublemakers.
Maybe we should look at parallels between the Warsaw Ghetto uprising and the Gazan resistance.
Yeah all those Holocaust survivors who flooded the nearby villages to rape murder and kidnap random folks back to the ghetto oh wait that parallel actually makes no sense whatsoever.
What about collaborators?
For decades we had the IRA and we didn’t level Northern Ireland. The IRA were a terrorist organisation and repeatedly bombed civilians in UK.
The IRA didn’t target civilians though, they targeted the military or they tried doing economic damage.
Removed by mod
Point taken. However Hamas isn’t just a terrorist organization, they are the elected political party of Gaza. They are the government. So not really apples to apples.
Elected years ago, by people who are mostly dead?
Answering that question is a whole rabbit hole I will not go down. Just wanted to point out that comparing Hamas with any other terrorist organization is imo not really possible.
Comparing them to the Taliban or Hezbollagh is pretty possible.
Hamas might be, but the millions of non-terrorist Palestinian’s lives are worth more than to end as collateral damage.
What’s surprising to me is that Hamas was able to succeed in the attack in the first place.
Also that people are actually starting to think for themselves and find nuance in a situation that is filled to the brim of it.
Hamas isn’t surprised by the casualties, because the casualties are a desired goal for Hamas. They shot civilians who tried to flee south at the start of the war. They tell civilians to stand on the roofs of buildings that have been “knocked.”
Mass death is their goal, because they know it will do shit like manipulate the UN into protecting them.
Picture a bank hostage situation. Police officer comes in with a fully loaded gun. A bank teller is being held at gunpoint by the robber. Never once in the history of ever has the police officer shot the bank teller.
That’s what Israel is doing.
Thanks for clarifying for me. Didn’t realize it was such a simple scenario like a bank robbery.
You clearly can’t grasp the real complicated scenario so he gave you a simplified version to make it easier to understand.
Anyone with even an ounce of empathy understands why Israel bombing children is always unacceptable. Nobody should need to explain it to you really
So, which is less acceptable:
Hamas, a military threat to Israel who hides behind children.
Or
Israel, a country with a military who is responding to military threats in a way a military would.
BTW, my original post is asking questions, but you Lemmy Users just keep making it seem I’m pro Israel just for asking.
But is Israels actions appropriate? Indiscriminate bombing across all of Gaza? Collective punishment? If they really wanted to A) save hostages and B) take out those responsible, they could do a surgical strike with special forces. Raining hellfire upon innocent people just because their might be hamas there is absolutely disgusting.
Before I answer your questions, you answer mine. Which is less acceptable?
Israel commiting genocide is awful. Hamas is just a response to that.
We could save so much money if we just disbanded the UN.
Th UN gives all countries the ability to have a voice on the world stage, yeah the security council can suck sometimes but not having the UN would be so much worse than having it
If only we had some global communication system that allowed people to post their opinions. Maybe a packet based one.
We already had world leaders tweeting their opinions at other, but they still meet in person to discuss issues and form agreements.
A structured system is necessary when you have meetings with representatives for nearly every person on the planet
And again how is that working?
Instead of replying with that same comment again, why don’t you explain what alternative you have in mind. Don’t just vaguely mention ‘packets’
Oh I am sorry I wasn’t aware that I had to come up with a solution if I point out the current solution isn’t working. Shit. Better say nothing ever again and just keep giving my money to a corrupt institution that fucks up everything it touches. Sorry for pointing out the emperor has no clothing here is free fucking money
An imperfect system doesn’t mean we need to throw out the whole system. And if we did throw it out, you can’t just not have a replacement for it.
People making posts on the Internet is not equivalent to real people meeting and being forced to at least give an answer.
Last I heard we haven’t descended into nuclear war in the last 75 years.
Or having gone into another World War.
Are you familiar with the failure of the League of Nations? I’d look into it if you’re not.
Could you not say thats because of MAD from nuclear weapons?
No, MAD seems to be a failed philosophy as it assumes that aggressive actions are attributable to clearly defined parties. MAD got shook the fuck up as soon as we realized dirty bombs could exist.
I hope that our long standing mostly peace is due to the UN and media innovations… I cynically suspect that it’s due to neoliberalism and globalization making a grand war too economically costly.
I used to think the same way. But with UN, at least someone “official” has a responsibility to “raise the voice”. It is better than nothing, I guess.
And how is that going for us? The Middle East doing fine now?
Why do you think it would not be worse without the UN?
Do you think this is the only thing the UN does? Or that everything else it does does not matter?
The UK and the US voluntarily walked in to that. Multiple times. That has less than nothing to do with the UN.
I see. So the UN has had no impact on the region?
Just because it isn’t 100% effective that doesn’t mean it has no impact.
In the global scheme of things the UN is so fucking cheap. I can’t understand your point at all.
Those parking spaces must be worth thousands of dollars!
Don’t you think it would be possible to just operate it more cheaply?
Or have some conception as to its value? I mean we could save so much money if we never paid for anything. And yet we do pay for things. The question is, why? If we could save money by never paying for anything, why not?
Oh right. Things have value.
Yeah but like, what’s the ‘value’ in their expensive forums? I’m sure there is a lot of fat to trim that only exists so the public servants get to live like kings.
