Does anyone here think that certain privileged countries should have the power of the veto at the UN ?

Question

Or should all questions be settled by a majority vote? At the moment any country with the veto can put the brakes on any subject they do not like, America has used it dozens of times against questions critizing Israel and now Russia and China have stopped further sanctions against Zimbawe

Answer 1

When the UN was founded, the only way the powerful countries would participate is if there was some way to protect them from being ganged up on by the little countries.  The security council veto was what they came up with, and it still works that way.

Answer 2

Only the original Rose.

With " United we stand divided we fall"

Sometime do have faulty communication problems.

Among their own kind.

With misintrepretation, miscommunication , communication failures and communication break-down.

Living in misery out there.

Genesis 11.6

What do you think?

Answer 3

Tough one. The rules are that voting has to be unanimous, which means two things: Diplomacy and debate has to convince and persuade all parties, but it also means that one nation can disrupt proceedings for ill-placed political reasons.

From another point of view, what if it were Britain (or Bulgaria) that was blocking Israeli sanctions, how would you and I feel then?

My view is that it should be by majority vote - if one (and only one) country voted against, the votes of the other countries would still count and mean the resolution was passed.

Answer 4

There are the permanent the council which are the Republic of China, French Republic, Union of  Soviet Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and the United States who must be present to vote at the United Nations. There the elected members which are Belgium, Burkina Faso, Costa Rica, Croatia, Indonesia State, Panama. South Africa and Vietnam. The permanent member selected under  chapter five the  United Nations. The elected members are under Amend ant Five of the United Nations.

Answer 5

It's tough but, at the end of the day humanity is still ruled, at it's highest echelon by might. If you have the biggest stick, you get to ultimately dictate what happens- if we deny the veto from the most powerful countries (esp in regards to nuclear missile ownership) we are in for instability- humanity- threatening instability.

So we play the game.