Diplomats walk out on Israeli prime minister’s speech at UN to protest against devastating war on Gaza and latest attacks on Lebanon
Diplomats walk out on Israeli prime minister’s speech at UN to protest against devastating war on Gaza and latest attacks on Lebanon
The veto power in the UN makes it not functional. When China, Russia, France, The United Kingdom, or the United States veto something it’s done, without debate or “peaceful resolution.”
Veto power in the UN.
US using it’s veto power 34 times against ending the war in Gaza.
Russia using it’s veto power against using war in Ukraine.
When the big kids in the playground can do everything they want there is no space for debate or peaceful resolution, everyone else just shows up.
well yeah, you don’t want everyone to have veto power, because then nothing happens ever. The idea behind a few people having veto powers to is to establish some sort of protection for the big players, since they’re likely to be the most contested, though depending on how you set up the legislation and member functionality of it this may not be relevant at all.
TBF i have little to no knowledge of how the UN works, just that it is a thing.
People are indoctrinated to believe that because votes are involved the process is somehow magically subject to meaningful reform and input from the masses.
A process where people were meaningfully enfranchised wouldn’t need to rely on something so abstract as votes. Voting is a process by which people are convinced to trade in their actual power in exchange for a piece of paper.
how is this one supposed to work? Just curious, since voting seems to be the only real method of direct representation, unless you’re suggesting a global at will military force, which, would be a thing.
Federated communities that make decisions on consensus, with the fundamental rule that “those affected get to decide”.
There’s a lot more to it and there’s a lot to unpack in just the above paragraph, but if the only alternative you can imagine is a global military dictatorship then it’s hard to know where to even start explaining it to be quite honest.
Thanks for this, that’s a fantastic way to phrase it.
Thanks, I don’t think it’s worded quite right though, because “in exchange for” implies the vote itself does something. The reality is that people are convinced to give away their power because they believe in the piece of paper.
The oiece of paper itself is almost worthless.
I only say that because I’m sure someone will want to split hairs over it.