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

[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