Talk:United Nations Security Council veto power

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Veto system in the United Nations should be abolished. It is obsolete and undemocratic. It does not reflect the global power dynamics of the international system of our time. As an international body promoting global peace and democracy, the Security Council's Veto powers is greately endangering democracy and good governance around the world. For instance the Veto is often used not to protect the interest of peace and international security, the purpose for which the UN was established in 1945, but to preserve the interests of the Veto holders (5 Permanent members of the council). This has caused the world a great deal of problems. Some of which is still confronting us today. United States for instance has extensively used its veto powers to block any resolution against Israel. Some of this resolutions might have mitigated the problems confronting the world regarding the Arab-Israeli affair, thus saving us life and limb. If the U.S had allowed the UN resolution calling on Israel to withdraw from occupied Palestinian territories. The hardliners in the Arab world and muslims in general would not have perceived the world as uniting against them. Hence global problems such terrorist and wanton loss of life that ensued would have been prevented. I will challenge the world to abolish the Veto system because it is counter-democratic. An example of failure of the security council and its Veto system is Rwandan genocide in 1994. While a genocide was happening in Rwanda, the UN security was busy playing politics. It allows the interest of the few to override those of the majority. It also denies a great number of countries a voice in the United Nations System. I will propose that the veto be replaced by a propotional respresentive system where countries that contributes more to UN system both in terms of money and personal for UN operation have fair amount of representives than those who do not. I will also propose that the perminent membership be expanded to include new and emerging powers in the international system. This should include regional powers. Countries such as Japan, Germany, India, Brazil, South Africa and Nigeria deserve a place in the United Nations Security Council. Russia's permanent membership should seriously be examined. Not only is Russia less viable as a global power, its influence has been deminishing since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Not to mention the next to nothing contribution of the Russians to UN system. It is therefore prudent to replace Russia as a perminent member of the council. Reforming the United Nations is very important now, not only for the viability of UN in our ever changing world, but for it legitimacy as body capable of withstanding changing circumstances of all times, and promoting global peace and security. Reforming the UN is very important.

Abdul agolu16@hotmail.com

I agree. Scrap the Veto system. It's a system that allows a few players to cripple the UN over important issues such as Rwanda, allowing genocide to take place (actually it was the threat of veto aka Hidden veto in Rwanda's case). When the big players cripple the UN with Vetos or the threat of veto, the UN is criticised for being ineffective instead of the countries responsible for the inaction. What's more there should be no permanent members of the Security council at all. Is it supposed to be a democracy or a 5-fold dictatorship? Even if you accept the idea of 5 permanent members, the current crop look pretty silly. Russia is pretty crippled and the UK (my country) is just a pipsqueak trying to be more important that it really is.
Agreed, the veto system is shit, but we gotta make sure this article isn't. -The monkeyhate 19:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Why do people keep saying that the composition of the Security Council reflects the realities of 1945?? France and China were not major powers in 1945. If anything, it reflects the realities of the early 60's or so (when all of the five and only these five had nuclear weapons). AnonMoos 17:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


The requirement of only a single vote to veto a UN resolution is wrong; I do understand there is a need for a system to prevent rash discisions made by the UN council. The UN has five permanent members with Veto power; it should take a majority of that five to veto a resolution proposed by the UN; that way at least it there is some element of democracy - Delimeats, October 9, 2006

This isnt a forum keep your opinions to yourself


[edit] Veto Power Reform

I've made changes to veto power reform. It needs some citation and the like, and may not be in the style needed; as this is my first contribution to Wikipedia, I understand if it needs to be reverted. Methulah 02:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rwanda

I removed the reference to Rwanda as I don't see how the reference indicates that UN inaction was due to the veto. If there had been no veto, then the UN probably would have been just as slow to react.

Roadrunner 15:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UN against war because of vetoed Israel Issues?

"[The United States] has become by far the most frequent user of the veto, mainly against resolutions criticising Israel. This has been a constant cause of friction between the General Assembly and the Security Council, as seen with the 2003 Iraqi war which was not endorsed by the UN." -- Is that really the reason most of the general assembly didn't endorse the invasion? If it really was then the statement really needs references (as it sounds implausible otherwise). Lionfish