Political Crossfire Forums

[RIP]

Any suggestions? What should be done about veto-power if expanded?

[Eonve]

RIP wrote: Any suggestions? What should be done about veto-power if expanded?

damn, you people just love to start stupid UN threads one right after another, don't you? i think that this topic has been discussed way too many times. it's BORING!!!

[RIP]

Eonve wrote:

damn, you people just love to start stupid UN threads one right after another, don't you? i think that this topic has been discussed way too many times. it's BORING!!!

mmm...... yes because I've been on this site for so long, I've seen every topic about it. :roll: :roll:

[Eonve]

RIP wrote: Eonve wrote:

damn, you people just love to start stupid UN threads one right after another, don't you? i think that this topic has been discussed way too many times. it's BORING!!!

mmm...... yes because I've been on this site for so long, I've seen every topic about it. :roll: :roll:

look at the international section only and i guarantee you that you will find at least 5 threads for the past couple of months. and if i am not mistaken you have even posted on some of them. :-D

[RIP]

Eonve wrote:

look at the international section only and i guarantee you that you will find at least 5 threads for the past couple of months. and if i am not mistaken you have even posted on some of them. :-D

Point being, I'm lazy. I do not want to waste my time searching through old threads, read all responses, then bring them back to life. I'd rather get to the point, and re-open the issue, for anyone who would like to discuss, especially people like me who have not been around here long. Even if it has been discussed a million times, there are a million more ways to discuss the issue. It's not that clear-cut.

And yes, you are mistaken. This might be my second post in this part of the forums. :wink:

[Eonve]

RIP wrote: Point being, I'm lazy. I do not want to waste my time searching through old threads, read all responses, then bring them back to life. I'd rather get to the point, and re-open the issue, for anyone who would like to discuss, especially people like me who have not been around here long. Even if it has been discussed a million times, there are a million more ways to discuss the issue. It's not that clear-cut.

And yes, you are mistaken. This might be my second post in this part of the forums. :wink:

ok, i will honor you with my short, honest response. even though it should be reformed in order to make it more efficient instrument in bringing about peace to the troubled parts of the world, at the present moment there is not enough substantial data to define the exact type of changes needed. as for the functioning in the present form, it is the states' failure that it does not act in a proper way. i think that if states (especially P5) had more political will to bring about real improvement in the conflict regions a lot of the existing problems would be solved by now. so in essense i view it as a problem of states will and slack. we have to pressure our national governments to take more action within the existing framework. if we are successful, then the need for reform is likely to dissapear as the SC will deliver more "goods" and everyone will be satisfied. by reforming the framework you would in a way acknowledge the states' impotence and lack of desire to act.

veto should be retained for the present five memebers. any other decision will be unfeasible and is likely to disturb the delicate balance of power - and it is widely acknowledged that sudden shifts in power distribution lead to increased interstate tension and conflict, which would be contradictory to the purpose of the UN - that is to bring peace.

[bradadair]

This is easily one of my favorite topics. As a model un team member for three years and the current President of my schools chapter of the Untied Nations Association of the United States, this is a topic that I discuss frequently. I believe that there needs to be signifigant reforms to the entire United Nations system, not just the Security Council. Right now it is an almost pointless body. Anything that is passed by a group other than the Security Council is non-binding on the member states and the binding resolutions passed by the Security Council are hardly ever enforced. Why? Because the Security Council does NOT have enforcement powers.

Dealing with the vetos there is no choice but to leave them alone. Any change to the Security Council must be approved by the Security Council and any attempt to remove the veto power would be vetoed.

[The_Right_Honourable]

Remove the vetos but make it so that all the countries must come to a compromise solution. For instance say you need 90% to pass a resolution.

Also the UN does need more clout. Peace Keepers should be able to aggressively defend themselves regardless of the specific mandate.