You have to decide if you believe there should be international law or not

[fluffykittycat@furry.engineer]

@ekis I'd build a global coordination org bottom up after nation states are gone

[pixelpusher220@dmv.community]

@PhoenixSerenity @ekis would the UN even exists without veto power? The major powers wouldn't join without it.

[phoenixserenity@beige.party]

@pixelpusher220 @ekis I don't know since it's never happened before. If it's kept the way it is - there's no real point in having UN security council at all anymore. It is a farce of international law.

[fdriesenaar@mastodon.nl]

@PhoenixSerenity @ekis

Call me a fool, but imho it starts with a paradigm shift, of all of us living on the principle of abundance instead of scarcity and of course the love for all our creatures in this world.

[pixelpusher220@dmv.community]

@PhoenixSerenity @ekis no argument. The same reason the West is learning that having one uber dominant partner isn't ideal, the world economy is about to learn the same thing regarding China.

Asymmetry is tough to control. Capitalism's chase of the cheapest everything for profit will be it's demise.

[phoenixserenity@beige.party]

@fdriesenaar @ekis I believe we need that too. I also realize most humans are inherently selfish & that kind of societal shift requires a lot less selfishness & a lot more selflessness. I support folks doing their best to personally consume less, strive to contribute more to their community & actively resisting capitalist temptations.

[phoenixserenity@beige.party]

@pixelpusher220 @ekis There are a few good reasons that I've been saying China is the sleeping dragon who will emerge as new global superpower - since early 1990s. They are sitting back, waiting, while watching USA destroy itself - domestically & internationally.

[pixelpusher220@dmv.community]

@PhoenixSerenity @ekis yep. Purely from a political anthropology angle, China is fascinating. They seemingly have found the magic touch between some economic freedoms while still maintaining central party control. And for long enough to get embedded into western economies almost to the point of catastrophic levels of risk to said economies.

[benroyce@mastodon.social]

@ekis

the UN does need to be rebuilt regardless of any other factors

the security council for example:

france and uk both having seats is a colonial era hangover. there should be one EU seat

russia inherited theirs from the USSR, this wasn't even legal. russia simply should not have a seat

india should have one

brazil should have one

nigeria or south africa should have one

australia or indonesia should have one

egypt or saudi arabia should have one

china and usa as usual

[bruce@darkmoon.social]

@benroyce @ekis

Single member veto powers are a bad idea. I get that it was probably the only way to get the UN started, but it makes it difficult to make meaningful decisions.

[janantos@f.cz]

@benroyce and no VETO.

[starkrg@myside-yourside.net]

@benroyce @ekis The People's Republic of China also took over their seat from their predecessor, the Republic of China, which still exists today as Taiwan. Really there just shouldn't be any permanent seats on the Security Council at all.

[benroyce@mastodon.social]

@bruce @ekis

i disagree

the UN is a room for countries to discuss matters so things don't go to war

that we are going to war more and more is a function of the UN's antiquated structure from a snapshot of the world in 1945

in a new structure, if you exclude any of the regional powers from veto power, any decision simply won't be followed. and so: war

yes, it makes meaninful decisions hard

but they won't be binding without support of the regional powers anyways

[benroyce@mastodon.social]

@janantos

but how?

say brazil has a seat and brazil vetoes a decision but their veto is ignored and this greatly upsets brazil

this CREATES conflict

[benroyce@mastodon.social]

@StarkRG @ekis

good point about china

but china is the natural regional power

meanwhile russia is a joke of a country that is getting to be even more of a joke every day. it's irrelevancy will only grow

there has to be though

how does a decision decided on by small countries have any significance if the regional powers don't like it?

[samanthajanesmith@lgbtqia.space]

@benroyce @StarkRG @ekis It doesn't work either way apparently. We have tried the veto system and as long as it exists it absolves those countries who have a veto completely. Israel has long done whatever it wants because the US gives them a get out of jail card. The US does what it wants. It doesn't matter who you give the veto to it won't work...ever....

So what's the choice, two systems one of which clearly doesn't work (and it doesn't matter who has the veto) and the other that has never been tried but apparently won't work either.....

[benroyce@mastodon.social]

@SamanthaJaneSmith @StarkRG @ekis

i think it's matter of deciding on what the UN is

if we think it is just a room for discussing things and resolving conflict, then yes veto power

if we think it is for making binding decisions over the strenuous objections of a few countries, regardless of whether that is a good thing or a bad thing, then no veto power

but now you're saying the UN is for *creating* conflict

nevermind you won't get buy in to the idea from enough countries to make it work

[archaeoiain@archaeo.social]

@benroyce @ekis get rid of the veto. Australia should cede to Indonesia.

[benroyce@mastodon.social]

@ArchaeoIain @ekis

the problem with getting rid of the veto is that now you're envisioning a UN that *creates* conflict instead of resolving it

if a regional power strenuously objects to a decision and doesn't get a veto, they won't follow it

nevermind you won't get buy in from the regional powers to make such a new UN at all

as for indonesia vs australia, i think we can solve that problem by giving the ASEAN + oceania veto seat to palau 😅

[samanthajanesmith@lgbtqia.space]

@benroyce @StarkRG @ekis Who said the UN creates conflict? I didn't!

The council doesn't resolve anything tbh. It just does what those with veto power want. Any resolution against their interest is always defeated. Those policies are decided upon way before the UN gets hold of them and no amount of UN talking changes their mind.

There is no halfway house here. You either support the few, like the US, who do whatever they like or you at least have a semblance of democracy. It probably won't work either way.

As you say the powerful won't give up their rights so it's a mute point. But we need to understand it doesn't work now or whoever has the veto.