 |
|
|
|
| The Veto Powers Of The P5 Should Be Abolished |
| The P5 or 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council ; the United States, the United Kingdom, China, France, and Russia, hold the power of veto over any decision. It's not fair for other countries, therefore, the veto powers should be abolished. For relevant information, please watch this vedio |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Absolutely. In a world where we and our allies preach democracy, how can we have fourteen countries
held to ransom by one. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Hell, yes.
There should be 15 SC seats, 3 for each continental body: North America, South America, Africa,
Australasia, and Europe.
The three seats should rotate throughout the countries in each continent, one year per country, and
only one has veto power. That means countries like the US wouldn't even BE on the security council
for long periods of time, never mind having veto power.
The whole reason for many of the world's problems is the five members protecting certain countries
at the expense of others and of peace - Israel, North Korea, Sudan, etc. - such corrupt countries
need to be brought to heel and stop their terrorism against their neighbors or citizens, whichever
the case may be. |
| |
 K9  20 Apr 2008 10:50
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The UN is set up as a defacto world government and if we want the world to move toward democracy we
should emulate the grounds of democracy in the UN. Democracy is based on majority rule and giving
the most powerful countries in the world the most authority over the UN is not only undemocratic but
is basically a totalitarian way of policing the world using power and influence. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The veto power currently enjoyed by the US, the UK, Russia, France and China should be abolished, as
it was based on historical realities than no longer apply to the contemporary world. Out of these
countries, only one is still a superpower and one is rapidly rising to this status. French, British
and Russian dominance is long over and these countries are not world powers by any standard. British
and French dominance collapsed along with the crumbling of colonialism, beginning in the late 1950s,
while Russia's position as a world leader came to an end in 1991, with the break-up of the Soviet
Union.
The main problem, however, with the security council veto is that it makes swift political action on
the part of the UN impossible. Veto-holders can obstruct the process or stand in the way of the
majority of countries at any point, leading to prolonged and unnecessary debates. Russia's fervent
opposition to the independence of Kosovo is the most recent illustration of this problem. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
It's clear that the UN needs reform but I don't think just abolishing the veto power is the right
way to go about it. If each country had equal votes, the most powerful countries would quickly lose
all interest in the institution. If the vote of the United States or Germany counted for no more
than that of, say, Liberia, it would be hard for anyone to take the UN's deliberations and
pronouncements seriously.
I think the Security Council should be expanded a bit, possibly with more permanent members. The
rules could be changed to that it took two (or three) countries together to exercise a veto and
possibly the non-permanent members should be given a veto too. Doing this would make it impossible
for a single country to act as a roadblock for a generally agreed-upon change. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
No, those are the most successful countries in the world. They should not have to approve Third
world country petitions such as " Get the UN out of Darfur"- Sudanese prime minister. Although they
listened.
Furthermore, Are they abusing their power? I would like to see examples. AND the UN would most
likely have ended up like the League of Nations if it weren't for some of those countries. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 For and Against Recent Activity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sign In
