- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
He’s not wrong.
Russia has neither the hard nor soft power to continue having a UN veto.
Unfortunately Russia is going to veto anything that would strip that power from them.
Couldn’t the general assembly just acknowledge that the RF does not inherit the Soviet Union veto? Same way that they stripped Taiwan of their veto. I don’t think that would require a security council vote.
Oh no, what an insurmountable problem. Everyone knows if you break the rules of the UN, the UN rules enforcers will come from on high to stop you.
The reason Russia isn’t going to be stripped of a veto is naked realpolitik, not because the rules and procedures say you can’t do it.
We need to get them to boycott the UN somehow so then we can pass such legislation.
Members of the UN Security Council with veto power
Countries ranked by number of nukes
Those vetos exist to avoid the countries from using nukes instead.
Those vetoes existed before most of these countries had nukes.
Exactly, vetoes are from countries that have won wwii. Other countries cannot build nuclear weapons ( and if they do so they are defined rogue states )
deleted by creator
And Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, soon Iran …
The general idea was the same though. An international organization is useless unless all the great powers are voluntary participants. But the great powers won’t participate in a organization that works against their interests. Therefore, the organization needs to kowtow to the interests of all the great powers.
The only thing about that that’s changed from 1945 to 2023 is the criteria for being a “great power”. Then, it meant being a winner of WW2. Now, it means having a large nuclear arsenal. The fact that there’s a very strong correlation there is of course not a coincidence.
The only thing about that that’s changed from 1945 to 2023 is the criteria for being a “great power”. Then, it meant being a winner of WW2. Now, it means having a large nuclear arsenal.
No, the criteria didn’t change, it’s still the original set of countries with the permanent seat and veto power. It’s also unlikely to change.
I wish. That seat and the structure of the Security Council is in the UN’s charter. You need a new UN to get rid of Russia and put the correct China back in place.
The UN has not resolved that the Russian Federation is the Soviet Union w.r.t. veto powers. It’s just been assumed. For the PRC there was an actual vote.
Ukraine legally has just as much of a right to the Soviet Union veto.
The Russian Federation is a direct successor state; the PRC was a much murkier issue at the time.
I don’t think the RF can count as a direct successor state when Ukraine was also a member of the USSR.
You mean West Taiwan or the real Taiwan?
What exactly do you think is going to happen if the rest of the UN decides to break the UN charter? Is Russia going to sue?
I mean, no. There is no such thing as international law as there is no superior power to forcibly require compliance. However your statement and the argument within fails fatally at a fundamental level as you simultaneously acknowledge the lack of a formal framework of hierarchy while appealing for that absent hierarchy to act.
There is no formal framework, it’s simply an exercise in power, and the anti-Russia nations hold enough power to redefine how they act with respect to Russia (i.e., dismissing them from the Security Council or simply ignoring their attempts to veto). Just because the rules are not naturally enduring has no bearing on their ability to have an impact while the majority powers support them.
I never understood the idea of allowing non democracies in a democratic organization.
UN is a total waste of resources, it means nothing and it does more harm than good.
If there were no neutral forum for countries to come together and air their grievances, we would have had a nuclear war by now.
Spoken like somebody who has literally never opened a book.
