Shahter wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Shahter wrote:
diplomacy doesn't really work when one party has the other by the balls.
FFS, Shahter. Think about it. Remove the veto, then you don't have that situation. The great powers have to work with the others on the SC to get the necessary votes to get their agenda(s) passed, and vice versa.
when one side has ten times as many cards to play in the game as all the others combined, the outcome would be quite predictable.
Right now, all they have to do is sit back and say, "Give me what I want, or I'll veto your shit."
i never said i approve of the way it is now. un's been a joke ever since there was no ussr to counter-balance usa & co in it. i dunno, maybe china will take that place in the future, but right now removing the veto would immediately render un completely pointless.
The veto is what makes the UN completely pointless, as it is. Removing it would actually force real diplomacy to occur--the entire point of the UN to begin with.
The other aspect of the UN that makes it relatively pointless is that nations cannot be expected to subjugate their own interests to some amorphous collective's interests, which may or may not match their own--which is exactly what the UN expects its members to do. As long as a UN initiative or resolution matches a given country's interests, it will back it. If it doesn't, it won't. If the majority goes with it, the countries that voted against it will just ignore it, as there is (normally) no enforcement mechanism, since the UN doesn't normally practice coercive diplomacy. And the UN has no real resources, so there's no carrot-stick diplomacy, either. All the UN can do is say, "It would be really great if you did something that you don't want to do."
Works out really well.
That's why the individual countries involved--particularly the great powers--need to have the cushion of the veto removed. Then they have to perform more real diplomacy. Only they have the resources to actually make things happen (unlike the UN).
