You have to decide if you believe there should be international law or not
Uncategorized
41
Posts
16
Posters
0
Views
-
there has to be
1. if you don't give regional powers vetoes, they won't join in. the new UN won't ever even exist
2. if this new UN still exists, without veto power, you have a situation where you create conflict instead of resolve it. if a resolution is passed over the strenuous objection of a regional power, they simply won't follow it. then what: the other powers enforce it on that regional power?
do you see the problem
i don't like the veto
we just can't avoid it
-
@SamanthaJaneSmith @StarkRG @ekis
so if there is no veto power. and a bunch of smaller countries make a decision, and the regional powers disagree, who do you think is going to enforce the decision?
the UN won't exist without the regional powers having a veto
your suggestion does create conflict, regardless of your intention, because now you have decisions that are imposed on countries that disagree and will fight the decision
i don't *like* the veto power
i recognize it as unavoidable
@benroyce @StarkRG @ekis What you don't seem to understand is that the present system is no better. Decisions are still imposed on countries and the bullied (looking at the good old us of a here) do what they want. The result is the same.
Easy example, the US has vetoed resolutions against Israel 45 times. How do you believe that works? It doesn't. It does enable Israel to say it has never had a security resolution against it for it's genocide. Want more examples?
It's a bullies cartel.
As I said at the start but you apparently missed it both veto and non veto have the same result in practice.
-
You have to decide if you believe there should be international law or not
The Nuremberg trials laid out a very simple idea: the supreme international crime is launching a war of aggression
The UN security council must be rebuilt from the ground up
UN must be wrestled from US control, it must not be allowed to use it as just another weapon, and we must work towards an actual system of international law, one where we are actually equal. the other option is global war
@ekis veto should be abolished for UN to have any meaningful significance
-
@benroyce @StarkRG @ekis What you don't seem to understand is that the present system is no better. Decisions are still imposed on countries and the bullied (looking at the good old us of a here) do what they want. The result is the same.
Easy example, the US has vetoed resolutions against Israel 45 times. How do you believe that works? It doesn't. It does enable Israel to say it has never had a security resolution against it for it's genocide. Want more examples?
It's a bullies cartel.
As I said at the start but you apparently missed it both veto and non veto have the same result in practice.
@SamanthaJaneSmith @StarkRG @ekis
so then the conclusion is:
we shouldn't have a UN at all
if you disagree, you need to accept there has to be buy in by regional powers with a veto. they won't join in without it, and so such a new UN will never even exist
i don't see any other way around the problem
however, without a UN, a room where countries can talk things out, we're talking a more dangerous world with more wars
-
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?
@benroyce @ekis All the seats on the Security Council should be elected by the general assembly. Otherwise the UN exists primarily to serve the permanent members who got their positions by being the most powerful nations at the time it was created, controlling all the less powerful nations. For the UN to do what it was ostensibly created to do, everyone has to be treated equally, there can't be permanent seats,
-
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
-
@benroyce @ekis All the seats on the Security Council should be elected by the general assembly. Otherwise the UN exists primarily to serve the permanent members who got their positions by being the most powerful nations at the time it was created, controlling all the less powerful nations. For the UN to do what it was ostensibly created to do, everyone has to be treated equally, there can't be permanent seats,
then the regional powers won't join in
and so nothing is enforceable
you created a debate society for small countries
if indonesia has a seat and a decision is made that makes bahrain angry, that sucks
but there is no such thing as a UN where bahrain imposes a decision on indonesia. indonesia will just laugh and ignore it
i don't *like* that. that's just unavoidable
-
@SamanthaJaneSmith @StarkRG @ekis
so then the conclusion is:
we shouldn't have a UN at all
if you disagree, you need to accept there has to be buy in by regional powers with a veto. they won't join in without it, and so such a new UN will never even exist
i don't see any other way around the problem
however, without a UN, a room where countries can talk things out, we're talking a more dangerous world with more wars
@benroyce @StarkRG @ekis More dangerous world? For who... All the talking is done one to one beforehand. Policy is never decided by countries at the security council.
As I keep saying it doesn't matter what you do. Until the world stands up to the bullies then nothing will happen.
The only reason I think the non veto could have a slight edge is that it will stop countries hiding behind the argument that there is no UN mandate against them. It does nothing in reality of course. The bullies will do as they please.
-
it won't happen
regional powers won't join a system they don't have veto power in. so the new UN will never come to exist
even if such a UN existed, let's say they make a decision that india doesn't like but india's veto is denied
so india just ignores it
now what?
are other countries going to impose on india?
now you have a UN that creates conflict instead of resolves it
regional powers have to have a veto power
i don't like it. just no way around it
-
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 @StarkRG @ekis More dangerous world? For who... All the talking is done one to one beforehand. Policy is never decided by countries at the security council.
As I keep saying it doesn't matter what you do. Until the world stands up to the bullies then nothing will happen.
The only reason I think the non veto could have a slight edge is that it will stop countries hiding behind the argument that there is no UN mandate against them. It does nothing in reality of course. The bullies will do as they please.
@SamanthaJaneSmith @StarkRG @ekis
yes
bullies will do as they please
larger countries will push around smaller ones
that is the unfortunate reality of our world. i don't defend it, i acknowledge an ugly reality
indonesia will impose on east timor. east timor will not impose on indonesia
and if you look into my example a little more, you might notice my example is not random, and shows some value for the UN
-
"There is no reason that would prevent the UN (Assembly voting) from evolving the right of veto to more closely resemble the EU structures"
i disagree because to join the EU you have to go through a rigorous process. for the UN you just have to exist (not technically true and there are exceptions). plus, yes, the EU has veto: by anyone. which is even more extreme than the UN. so i don't know how this argues against a veto
maybe in the distant future, sure
-
@SamanthaJaneSmith @StarkRG @ekis
yes
bullies will do as they please
larger countries will push around smaller ones
that is the unfortunate reality of our world. i don't defend it, i acknowledge an ugly reality
indonesia will impose on east timor. east timor will not impose on indonesia
and if you look into my example a little more, you might notice my example is not random, and shows some value for the UN
@benroyce @StarkRG @ekis By the way do not confuse the UN as a whole with the UN security council.
The UN does good things in highlighting issues, little happens though as they are ignored. So it as a whole has value.
The question is only whether you give the bullies the right to bully? You clearly think they should after all what else can you do... Just let them do it. What can you do?
After all who gets hurt? Just the rest of the world.
IMHO a very sad approach.
-
@benroyce @StarkRG @ekis By the way do not confuse the UN as a whole with the UN security council.
The UN does good things in highlighting issues, little happens though as they are ignored. So it as a whole has value.
The question is only whether you give the bullies the right to bully? You clearly think they should after all what else can you do... Just let them do it. What can you do?
After all who gets hurt? Just the rest of the world.
IMHO a very sad approach.
@SamanthaJaneSmith @StarkRG @ekis
i have zero argument with you
perhaps what we should argue about is a UN without a security council
you know that might really be something valid
just the good things like WHO, UNICEF, WFP, etc
however it doesn't change the bully problem
-
"only arguing against having Permanent Members"
right and i'm attacking that argument
germany isn't threatend by slovenia if slovenia is already in a rigorously conforming set of behaviors to be even in the EU
but indonesia is threatened by bahrain imposing on indonesia because bahrain has an agenda that lies well outside any set of norms indonesia operates under
indonesia should be able to veto bahrain. not because it's right, but because if it can't, it won't even join
-
You have to decide if you believe there should be international law or not
The Nuremberg trials laid out a very simple idea: the supreme international crime is launching a war of aggression
The UN security council must be rebuilt from the ground up
UN must be wrestled from US control, it must not be allowed to use it as just another weapon, and we must work towards an actual system of international law, one where we are actually equal. the other option is global war
-
undefined oblomov@sociale.network shared this topic
Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
-
@peterkotrcka your sentence is perfect. The AI is wrong (as usual).
-
Spero che la guerra con l'Iran parti a un "regime change"
Di tutte le nazioni coinvolte
-
@andre123 ma si! Dedichiamo un po di tempo a questa novità ... tanto abbiamo un sacco di tempo libero...😱🎼
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 @snow
-
@0xabad1dea there's a word for that in every language, and English chose "cowardice".
-
@0xabad1dea ok now i'm imagining the opening strike of a war being on us-east-1
-
Non si può continuare a stare a guardare l'umanità che si suicida
-
@mkj @0xabad1dea ah yes. Of course
-
@0xabad1dea@infosec.exchange
Which is weird, because UAE would seem more like "Middle East East" or at least "mec-2" (since I'd assume the first AZ in "central" would be someplace more central to the region like, say, Riyadh).
