Political Crossfire Forums

Does the ability of one member of the security council to block a draft resolution through a veto weaken the ability of the UN to deal with international issues? Whether it is Russia and China vetoing sanctions against Syria, or the US constantly vetoing any condemnation of Israeli activity.

I think the Israel-Palestine situation could be in a better position if Israel didn't feel like they had virtual immunity from any action they take, it may make them reconsider some of their actions before they take it. Likewise, are the people of Syria being let down by Russia & China playing politics?

What are the potential drawbacks of scrapping the veto?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nat ... veto_power

Without the veto, members would simply drop out. The whole point is to be able to check each other, and thus...kinda...get along.

I don't think the Security Council should have a strong ability to do much of anything. If everyone can agree, then great. If not, then its a matter for unilateral action on the part of individual states.

Well I think there should be a check and balance to it like being able to override the veto by say 7o% majority vote with all members present.

The veto is really nothing more than a way for the more powerful members to strike down the majority for the sake of their own interests.

Maybe a limit to the amount of vetos a permanent member can make in a year? Or not have permanent members at all? France has only once used their veto I think.

UN SC would not survive without the veto.

HTH

So, basically, the UN is useless.