Failings of the United Nations

1. 73

   Miebakagh57posted 2 years ago

   It seems the United Nations has failed in preventing the war in Ukraine? Preventing war among nations of the world is one of its many missions?

   replyreport
   1. 93

      Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Yep, its a bit difficult when Russia is one of five permanent members of the UN Security Council, and can exercise its veto. 
      
      Ideally, to protect against such situation it would be far better if it worked on a 'qualified majority' basis e.g. 4 votes required out of the 5 - that would still allow China to block action, but at least China is more willing to engage in discussion with the West than Russia.

      replyreport
      1. 80

         Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         wow!  Can you explain with examples? What types of things do they vote on?
         
         ... well, I can read up:
         https://www.un.org/en/

         replyreport
         1. 93

            Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            The five permanent members of the UN’s Security Council are China, France, Russia, UK and USA.
            
            The sort of things they vote on includes whether the UN should intervene in a war; the Libyan war in 2011 being a prime example where on that occasion the vote required in the UN Security Council in favour of action was at least 9, with no veto.  Usually Russia and China tend to use their veto.
            
            However on this occasion it was the five permanent members (China, France, Russia, UK and USA) and 10 other countries (non-permanent members to the Security Council), 15 votes in total, with a majority of 9 required, and no veto.
            
            The final result was:
            
            Countries voting in favour of military action to protect Libya:-
            USA; UK; France; Bosnia and Herzegovina, Columbia; Gabon; Lebanon; Nigeria; Portugal; South Africa.
            
            Countries Abstaining from the vote:-
            Russia; China; Germany; Brazil and India.
            
            As soon as the vote was carried France, Britain, Australia, the USA, and other countries were in Libya bombing the tanks; France was the first to arrive and starting bombing tanks because they’d already taken the decision to act regardless to whether the UN made the action legal or not e.g. lives were at stake.
            
            Now comes the crunch; if there is a desire for the UN to get involved with the war between Russia and Ukraine, Russia as a permanent member of the UN’s Security Council will exercise its right of veto.
            
            Hence, that’s why the UN isn’t as effective as it could be.

            replyreport
            1. 73

               Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

               Arthur, thank you. I realize this you comment also answer my earlier questi6n.

               replyreport
         2. 93

            Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Another example is the UN Security Council Resolution 913 on the 22nd April 1994 made it legal for NATO to defend Bosnia in the Bosnian war, even though Bosnia was not a NATO country!
            
            On that occasion, the vote was 15 in favour of action with no votes against and no abstentions.
            
            The 15 UN countries who voted in favour of NATO defending Bosnia in 1994 were:-
            
            China; France; Russia; UK; USA; Argentina, Brazil; Czech Republic, Djibouti, New Zealand; Nigeria; Oman; Pakistan; Rwanda; Spain.

            replyreport
         3. 73

            Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Well, thanks for read.                                                       And I took a step further to read an update on abortion.                                        Critically, the veto power which the 'Big Five' initially holds somehow seems to impede this function of the UN.

            replyreport
            1. 93

               Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

               Yeah, that's why I would favour just a qualified majority e.g. two thirds or three quarters, or even 80% (4 of the 5 permanent members) and ditch the veto altogether.
               
               It may seem an impossible task, and it may never happened.  But it was archived in the EU to a large extent e.g. initially each member country had the power of the veto on all new EU laws; but over time that was largely replaced with the requirement for a 'qualified' majority, which in most cases is 55%; albeit each Member State in the EU still does hold the power of the veto for Constitutional Changes.

               replyreport
               1. 73

                  Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Thank you.

                  replyreport
      2. 73

         Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

         Arthur, I completely agree with you in that.                                        In spite of that, couldn't the UN pressurize Russia to withdraw from  Ukraine?

         replyreport
         1. 93

            Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Last week the United Nations has voted overwhelmingly for a resolution deploring Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and called for the immediate withdrawal of its forces, in a global expression of outrage that highlighted Russia’s increasing isolation.
            
            In an emergency session of the UN’s general assembly, 141 of the 193 member states voted for the resolution, 35 abstained, and five voted against. The only countries to vote no in support of Moscow were Belarus, North Korea, Eritrea and Syria.
            
            Longstanding allies of Russia, Cuba, Nicaragua and China actually abstain in the vote.
            
            The UN already has done what it can do at this time; although, economically, most of the world is now applying stiff sanctions on Russia, which may in time have a positive effect?

            replyreport
            1. 73

               Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

               That's good news indeed. When Russians lacks began to bread, then they rise up against the avhority?

               replyreport
               1. 80

                  Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  When Russians lack bread, then they rise up with anchovies,
                  Huh?
                  
                  I think you mean when they lack anchovies they rise up with really delicious whole wheat loaves of bread. They might even stock their tanks with them.

                  replyreport
                  1. 73

                     Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                     Thanks. I didn't see these much typo. Seems I'm sleeping or something 'Athorities' no archoves. Much thanks again.

                     replyreport
2. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

   "When Russians lacks began to bread, then they rise up against the authority."
   - still don't get it.

   replyreport
   1. 80

      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      what authority?

      replyreport
      1. 73

         Miebakagh57posted 2 years agoin reply to this

         My Katy, forgive me of the typo. Here's the correct rendering. When the Russians began to lack bread, then they'll rise up against the Authority. You get it now?                                         An hungry person is an angry person. Still don't get it? Thank you.

         replyreport