Amnesty international to UN security council: Surrender your veto!

[alhoon]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-31617141

"Amnesty International has urged the five permanent members of the UN Security Council to give up their power of veto in situations of mass atrocities."
" the council's five permanent members - the UK, China, France, Russia and the US - had used their veto to "promote their political self-interest or geopolitical interest above the interest of protecting civilians," Mr Shetty said."



That would admittedly help stop genocides, it would stop the UN from being practically useless but it would move us a bit closer to large wars.
For example, in the case of Syria if the UN over-rode Russia\China and intervened militarily, they would find Russian soldi- I mean Russian citizen volunteers, fighting for Assad.
The same in other cases, most of them sensitive and because I don't want to derail the thread with "How you DARE say that ABC's actions against DEF accounts for genocide! First, DEF's casualties are over-rated, second ABC had no other choice!" I won't mention them.

Personally... I'm kind of pro-surrendering veto in the case of genocide. Yes, it has downsides but it also has the upside of tying one knot of from the rope that ties UN's hands.

Please, don't derail the thread devoting pages about specific genocides that have their own threads already.

[Caligula's_Horse]

It would probably make the UN a much more effective body, capable of doing something other then looking on at disasters wishing it had a mandate to do more.
It'll also never happen. The five permanent security council members would sooner up and leave the UN before giving up their special privileges.

[Alastor]

I would also be in favour of sth like that happening. The UN would be much less of a sad joke then. But I doubt it will. I mean, I really doubt it will. It is a far more likely that more states will gain the veto priviledge, than it is for the ones that already have it to surrender it.

[mrmouth]

Let's read between the lines: It's almost entirely a Russia/China problem.

[hellheaven1987]

Let's read between the lines: It's almost entirely a Russia/China problem.

Until the issue is relating with Israel and Palestine.

[Dr Zoidberg]

Let's read between the lines: It's almost entirely a Russia/China problem.

Until the issue is relating with Israel and Palestine.

You're both right. Partial credit each.

[snuggans]

Until the issue is relating with Israel and Palestine.

no problems there, hamas is a terrorist organization daylighting as a welfare state, i don't lose any sleep whenever the US vetoes them in particular or whatever their Iranian/Qatari overlords want to achieve.

also it's kinda hilarious that you guys also keep bringing up the US's relations with Saudi Arabia as a way to get in several jabs at the US, but when the US acts against their proxies like hamas, that's also heinous! damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[Påsan]

Let's read between the lines: It's almost entirely a Russia/China problem.

Yes because the only side that is ever morally right is our side... right?

[Thorn777]

Let's read between the lines: It's almost entirely a Russia/China problem.

And lets read between the lines a Little further and call AI for what it has become.

[conon394]

Um no it is a silly ideal - period. How is the "UN" going to intervene anywhere. I suppose it might free up the issue of slapping around sanctions but unless to really change the nature of the organization and treaties - would syria be any better as it or as a US/NATO vs Russia proxy war?

It would probably make the UN a much more effective body, capable of doing something other then looking on at disasters wishing it had a mandate to do more.

How? Who is going to right the checks supply troops and officials etc?

Let's take Rwanda - nobody cared to intervene and nobody did... so much for that Veto problem.

Outside of say adding Germany, Japan and India the SC does its job since it more less prevents the kind of alliances and escalation that lead to WW1. I also as constructed provides a nice kabuki therater of the reality of the world. Say the US did not have a veto... what happens to every government who really could care less about Palestinians don't get there free votes for it independence or right of return etc. So now the vote matters - do they do it - even thought the US will back Israel to the last?

[alhoon]

It'll also never happen. The five permanent security council members would sooner up and leave the UN before giving up their special privileges.

UK haven't said no when they responded. They haven't said yes either.

Let's read between the lines: It's almost entirely a Russia/China problem.

Not in all matters. There are certain stuff USA blocks. And if I check, I'll probably find French and UK veto stuff.

Say the US did not have a veto... what happens to every government who really could care less about Palestinians don't get there free votes for it independence or right of return etc. So now the vote matters - do they do it - even thought the US will back Israel to the last?

Condemnations could pass and perhaps sanctions for the blocade and West Bank.

[Stavroforos]

Not going to happen, let's move on.

[conon394]

Condemnations could pass and perhaps sanctions for the blocade and West Bank.

Enforced by whom?

Yes because the only side that is ever morally right is our side... right?

Nope, but the veto does help big nations with lots of guns and interests from colliding.

It also useful to look at lone Vetoes... and the political cover they offer clients, and China's rising use of their own veto rather just the numbers.

[conon394]

I mean take a look at the say this vote:

http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_...mbol=S/PV.5565

First the US made it clear it was going to veto so what follows is political theater.

The UK and other US allies can simply abstain, China and Russia vote yes even if they have no intent to do anything and France can snub the US cost free for domestic consumption. And leaves Congo, Ghana? Yep they are going enforce UN action against Israel good luck with that while the US ignores it.

Secondly w/o a veto from the nations that have money and the ability to intervene whats the point if a bunch tiny nations votes yes and nobody does anything?

[Derpy Hooves]

​I support this

[Costin_Razvan]

If you want the UN to become a meaningless organization which has zero political relevance then please do remove the veto power of every permanent security council member and watch as every single one of them stops caring in any way about the UN.

The only reason the UN is even remotely relevant right now is that it's a forum for nations to talk to each other but no major nation like the US, Russia or China would ever accept having the same voting power as....Chad. They would pull out of the UN which only has the power given to by member states.

I want to like Amnesty International I really do but episodes like these remind me just how much narrow minded naivety they have.

[conon394]

If you want the UN to become a meaningless organization which has zero political relevance then please do remove the veto power of every permanent security council member and watch as every single one of them stops caring in any way about the UN.

The only reason the UN is even remotely relevant right now is that it's a forum for nations to talk to each other but no major nation like the US, Russia or China would ever accept having the same voting power as....Chad. They would pull out of the UN which only has the power given to by member states.

I want to like Amnesty International I really do but episodes like these remind me just how much narrow minded naivety they have.

Essentially correct the veto and permant seats keep the UN relavent unlike the failed league of nations. Again the only reform I can realy see is add a couple of new permanent members and maybe if the EU gets it s--t together rotating a seat for it. To eliminate veto make the body irrelevant and worse dangerous. What happens a when a veto free SC imposes arms restrictions on Assad and the US decides to enforce them and Putin decides to ignore them. I thought we played that game once and nobody liked where it was heading.

[Sphere]

Who gets to vote on whether or not "mass atrocities" have occurred?

[Phier]

Who gets to vote on whether or not "mass atrocities" have occurred?

Hopefully not Amnesty International

[hellheaven1987]

http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc...l=A/RES/67/238

I say the five seats should give to the top five who contribute men and fund to UN mission most.