UN Security Council veto power

Status
Not open for further replies.

PG1995

Active Member
Hi

I'm trying to understand the rationale for the veto power vested in P5 - five super powers of the world, namely, Russia, China, USA, UK, France. If any one of the these P5 veto (or, vote against) a resolution, then that resolution cannot be passed or adopted. To me, it's a kind of hegemony and totally undemocratic, oligarchic policy. Please let me know your opinion on this. Thank you.
 
All nations must meet a unanimous decision, otherwise back to the discussion table. A veto does not mean the end of a discussion, only it must be rediscussed until all parties come to a mutual agreement that satisfies all parties. To do otherwise would create a possible breakdown of a unity. Well that is my take.
 
Last edited:
The birth and setup of the UN must be seen in the historical contex of the tumultuos time after WW2. The powers to defeat Germany and Japan formed a club, sort of like the League of Nations after WW1 (that did not work all that well eather) before. As anyone of the 5 powers has the ability to veto a motion they can't even dissolve the club! I guess any of the 5 could just take it's marbels and leave....fat chance! E
 
From wikipedia.

Seems logical enough.
 
To me, it's a kind of hegemony and totally undemocratic, oligarchic policy. Please let me know your opinion on this. Thank you.

I agree.

Screw the UN! The USA is a Republic that should never have ceded any sovereignty to any global body or any other Nation beyond our own native peoples. Roosevelt and Truman were in grievous error, along with the Congress that ratified the Bretton Woods Agreement and the UN Charter.

Get US out of the UN and get the UN out of the US!

My humble opinion!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…