United Nations security council is a joke...

ladygooddiva

and that why i think they should stop talking and do something now!!!!

RockinInCanada

jeffbr wrote:

Won't happen. The US isn't going to sarifice sovereignty to the whims of 3rd world countries.

Because the US should ultiamtely make all the necessary decisons...why?

Give me a break there is more than one freaking country in this world.....

Bryznie I agree it should be a majority rules and expanded to include a better proportion of the world's countries....America needs to stop believing they are the world police....

I guess since Canada does not hold a permanent seat we are then a 3rd world country....

thankyougrandma

jeffbr wrote:

Won't happen. The US isn't going to sarifice sovereignty to the whims of 3rd world countries.

USA will do what they're told to if there's a reform, some "3rd world" country are just doin better than the USA on the world scale, USA could take example on them...

RockinInCanada

thankyougrandma wrote:

USA will do what they're told to if there's a reform, some "3rd world" country are just doin better than the USA on the world scale, USA could take example on them...

You know the age old saying...."ignorance is bliss".....and this is not directed at you.....

CaterinaA

Byrnzie wrote:

What needs to be done is that the power of automatic veto needs to be withdrawn so that countries like the U.S won't be able to, for example, veto every resolution critical of Israel, or every resolution asking for a two state solution.

Hmm, that would be great. However, but it is never going to happen. None of the UN permanent members (not just the US) have the least intention of giving up their veto powers. The problem with veto trascends the US, really. Every country has used his veto power to block decisions/resolutions contrary to his interests...for example, before to the Iraq Invation the Security Council held meetings. Well, prior to such meetings France, Russia and the US stated they would veto whatever proposal the other members had...hence the reunion was blocked before it started.

I'm positive about the fact that not one of those countries will give away the veto power, however the veto could be reframed in order to prevent a decision/ressolution from being banned.

RockinInCanada

CaterinaA wrote:

Hmm, that would be great. However, but it is never going to happen. None of the UN permanent members (not just the US) have the least intention of giving up their veto powers. The problem with veto trascends the US, really. Every country has used his veto power to block decisions/resolutions contrary to his interests...for example, before to the Iraq Invation the Security Council held meetings. Well, prior to such meetings France, Russia and the US stated they would veto whatever proposal the other members had...hence the reunion was blocked before it started.

I'm positive about the fact that not one of those countries will give away the veto power, however the veto could be reframed in order to prevent a decision/ressolution from being banned.

You see the essence of the veto is pointless....should be resolved....all countries have agenda's and will abuse this power....it shoudl be modified to give equal representation...I was under the impression that the UN was supposed to represent the world...not a handful of coutries that happen to have large nuclear arsenals.....

thankyougrandma

CaterinaA wrote:

Hmm, that would be great. However, but it is never going to happen. None of the UN permanent members (not just the US) have the least intention of giving up their veto powers. The problem with veto trascends the US, really. Every country has used his veto power to block decisions/resolutions contrary to his interests...for example, before to the Iraq Invation the Security Council held meetings. Well, prior to such meetings France, Russia and the US stated they would veto whatever proposal the other members had...hence the reunion was blocked before it started.

I'm positive about the fact that not one of those countries will give away the veto power, however the veto could be reframed in order to prevent a decision/ressolution from being banned.

How about a veto that would only imply the said country affair? Mean if the French don't want a resolution on Rwanda, then they step aside using their veto, but that wouldn't prevent others from doing something.

Also they must give some obligations to those who have a veto at the UN, right now the Veto is an advantage that seem to come with no obligation, other than discussing and negociating...

RockinInCanada

thankyougrandma wrote:

How about a veto that would only imply the said country affair? Mean if the French don't want a resolution on Rwanda, then they step aside using their veto, but that wouldn't prevent others from doing something.

Also they must give some obligations to those who have a veto at the UN, right now the Veto is an advantage that seem to come with no obligation, other than discussing and negociating...

Its a power tool IMHO.....and a misued one at that.....

CaterinaA

jeffbr wrote:

Won't happen. The US isn't going to sarifice sovereignty to the whims of 3rd world countries.

First of all, the term third world has been out of use for, hmmm, like 20 years. Really, as an inhabitant of a developing country I can assure you we're in the same world as everybody else. It is actually very disrispectful to refer like that to those countries. And one more thing, it is not like we always have "whims", you know, sometimes we actually deal with real conflicts, problems, etc

Second, giving away veto power at the UN Security Council does not translate into sacrificing sovereignty, not at all. It just shows a willingess to negotiate/discuss possible solutions for international conflicts, which is why the Security Council was created. However, I'm not that naive, as I've stated in my previous post, I know such powers won't be given up. So, the UN Security Council reform must take into account this issue.

jeffbr

Rockin'InCanada wrote:

Because the US should ultiamtely make all the necessary decisons...why?

The US should ultimately make all of the desicions it needs to for its own self-determination and not surrender sovereignty to Bryznie's system where a country the size of Desmoines, Iowa would have the same voting power as the US or Russia.

Rockin'InCanada wrote:

Give me a break there is more than one freaking country in this world.....

Bryznie I agree it should be a majority rules and expanded to include a better proportion of the world's countries....America needs to stop believing they are the world police....

I guess since Canada does not hold a permanent seat we are then a 3rd world country....

You'll have to point to the part of my post which states that those without permanent seats are 3rd world countries. Maybe you have some sort of national inferiority complex that led you to read that into my post.

And I'd be more than happy to no longer have the US considered the world police.

surferdude

But its a necessary tool to allow countries to maintain their sovereignty and UN membership. Without the veto option the US will pull out of the UN immediately. There's no way that the biggest powers are going to be dragged into military disputes they want nothing to do with. And I don't blame them.

Just take a look at a lot of Canadians stance regarding NATO missions. But NATO doesn't provide the veto option for Canada. We want all the protection NATO provides but we want to pick and choose when we join NATO operations. It's not right to be able to pick and choose your missions when you've signed on for full membership..

jeffbr

CaterinaA wrote:

First of all, the term third world has been out of use for, hmmm, like 20 years. Really, as an inhabitant of a developing country I can assure you we're in the same world as everybody else. It is actually very disrispectful to refer like that to those countries. And one more thing, it is not like we always have "whims", you know, sometimes we actually deal with real conflicts, problems, etc

I don't care. I still occasionally use the term bum, too, when it is appropriate.

CaterinaA wrote:

Second, giving away veto power at the UN Security Council does not translate into sacrificing sovereignty, not at all. It just shows a willingess to negotiate/discuss possible solutions for international conflicts, which is why the Security Council was created. However, I'm not that naive, as I've stated in my previous post, I know such powers won't be given up. So, the UN Security Council reform must take into account this issue.

The veto is a check for when those negotiations and discussions produce something counter to our interests. The only way removing veto power doesn't translate to lost sovereignty is if there are no teeth behind the matter being voted on, in which case it seems like a waste of time and dollars.

thankyougrandma

jeffbr wrote:

The US should ultimately make all of the desicions it needs to for its own self-determination and not surrender sovereignty to Bryznie's system where a country the size of Desmoines, Iowa would have the same voting power as the US or Russia.

Own self determination, not world self determination. USA are imperialist, that won't change, but when it comes to peoples getting killed in Lebanon and Israel, it has nothing to do with USA self determination, just USA political agendas. That should stop, and change.

One country blocking a WORLD resolution is sure to lead into an organisation innefectiveness, and that's not only a USA problem, that's the Security council problem.

jeffbr wrote:

You'll have to point to the part of my post which states that those without permanent seats are 3rd world countries. Maybe you have some sort of national inferiority complex that led you to read that into my post.

And I'd be more than happy to no longer have the US considered the world police.

You'll have to point out what you consider a third world country first.

You sound like you have a national SUPERIORITY complex, nothing new...

jeffbr

thankyougrandma wrote:

USA will do what they're told to if there's a reform, some "3rd world" country are just doin better than the USA on the world scale, USA could take example on them...

What gives you the notion that the US would "do what they're told" if it isn't in our interest? We'd pack it up, reclaim that pricey chunk of NYC real estate, and take away a huge (disproportionally huge) piece of funding. Don't fool yourself.

CaterinaA

Rockin'InCanada wrote:

You see the essence of the veto is pointless....should be resolved....all countries have agenda's and will abuse this power....it shoudl be modified to give equal representation...I was under the impression that the UN was supposed to represent the world...not a handful of coutries that happen to have large nuclear arsenals.....

Ohh totally, veto power as it is working right now is generating a zero-sum game, which many times result in deadlock situations. I agree with you on this. But at the same time I acknowledge that these countries could leave the UN if stripped of their veto powers. So, there has to be an option. As we speak there are tons of experts working every day at the UN Reform.

Well, of course the UN represents the world, that is the role of the UN General Assembly and most of th UN System's organizations. However (it's been a while since I read the founding charter of the UN Security Council) the UN SC was created in order to debate and reach agreements about how to deal with international conflicts. Why the members are the 5 we know? Well, for starters you have the winners of WW2 and China, which -even back then- as a country with huge political and militar influence.

As I've said before this Cold War framework is no longer in tune with the international geopolitical arena. For example: India, Japan, Canada, Italy, Germany and Brazil are countries whose GDP and political influence are big enough to be a permanent member...

jeffbr

thankyougrandma wrote:

You sound like you have a national SUPERIORITY complex, nothing new...

I'm just a realist.

thankyougrandma

jeffbr wrote:

What gives you the notion that the US would "do what they're told" if it isn't in our interest? We'd pack it up, reclaim that pricey chunk of NYC real estate, and take away a huge (disproportionally huge) piece of funding. Don't fool yourself.

You won't do anything different than what other country will, you're not superior or different because of your big guns and fat wallets, you're just one country like the others, so USA will take part in the reform negotiations, then they'll do like the rest agreed to do, if not then yes, the USA should get out and form their own world police, anyway that wouldn't make a huge difference to the current situation.

CaterinaA

jeffbr wrote:

I don't care. I still occasionally use the term bum, too, when it is appropriate

OK, just thought you did not know. Many people still say 3rd world 'cause they are not aware of the fact that such term comes from Colombo's times. Right now I believe we're positive about the fact that the Middle East, Africa, South East of Asia and Central and Southern America are all in the same world as Europe and North America...

jeffbr wrote:

The veto is a check for when those negotiations and discussions produce something counter to our interests. The only way removing veto power doesn't translate to lost sovereignty is if there are no teeth behind the matter being voted on, in which case it seems like a waste of time and dollars.

Well, the veto it is not for what you are saying, it is outside SC limits to discuss economic matters, unless are economic sanctions directed to a country breaking UN ressolutions. There are other bodies at the UN to deal with such issues.

So you know, the SC was created only for conflicts/menaces of war, and not to counteract threats to the USA. Actually, it was created to prevent another world war. Here's an useful link:
http://www.un.org/docs/sc/

Peace from Argentina
Caterina

CaterinaA

jeffbr wrote:

The US should ultimately make all of the desicions it needs to for its own self-determination and not surrender sovereignty to Bryznie's system where a country the size of Desmoines, Iowa would have the same voting power as the US or Russia.

Well, in politics, economics, international affairs, etc, the size/relevance of a country usually has little to do with the ammount of territory, usually it is related to a country's GDP, relevance in international markets, military expenditure, etc. So that is why a country like Switzerland is considered "bigger" than let's say Chile. Or for example these days Israel is much more important than Brazil (needless to say Brazil is huge in terms of Km2/miles)

jeffbr wrote:

You'll have to point to the part of my post which states that those without permanent seats are 3rd world countries. Maybe you have some sort of national inferiority complex that led you to read that into my post.

shiraz

Local media reports a new US-France cease-fire draft which includs french armed forces + UNIFIL + the lebanese army forces gradually getting into southern Lebanon insead of the IDF, prisoners exchange & getting Hizbullah out of that area, keeping them from gettig more weapons. Of cousre, the shooting from both side will stop as soon as the Int forces will get in (the French soliders are already in the mid-east, so they can arrive quickly).

Note, there's nothing about Hizbulah's disarming, but at the moment I personaly don't care about it. I want that offer to be on the UN table ASAP, so I can get my life back.