Calls are growing for the UN Security Council to be reformed after the US became the only member to use its veto power to block a Gaza ceasefire resolution, a move welcomed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The UN chief says he will keep pushing for peace.

  • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    The problem in this case is depending on the security council to act on an issue it isn’t designed to address.

    The main purpose of the UN is to prevent global war, and the Security Council is the primary way in which that goal is achieved.

    In that context, the P5’s veto power makes sense. It prevents resolutions pitting the world against one of the superpowers that can sustain that kind of war.

  • spiderkle@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Nobody is surprised and that’s a bad sign. The UN was invented to give the nations of our world a shared forum to talk things out and find a “resolution” before genociding each other. The thing is we can’t expect the UN to stop conflict.

    Edit: Some people seem to confuse the UN security council with the UN. The SC has only 15 members (5 permanent member nations, 10 rotating member nations) and is usually asked to vote on intervention once a resolution was passed. It can’t act with a veto.

    • crackajack@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Yeah, this is something people don’t quite understand. The UN primarily provides platform to initiate diplomatic discourse.

      Even when there is demand to reform the UN to give it more power, most people will object because “'muh sovereignty”.

    • Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      Th UN gives all countries the ability to have a voice on the world stage, yeah the security council can suck sometimes but not having the UN would be so much worse than having it

        • Otter@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months ago

          We already had world leaders tweeting their opinions at other, but they still meet in person to discuss issues and form agreements.

          A structured system is necessary when you have meetings with representatives for nearly every person on the planet

            • Otter@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              Instead of replying with that same comment again, why don’t you explain what alternative you have in mind. Don’t just vaguely mention ‘packets’

              • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                11 months ago

                Oh I am sorry I wasn’t aware that I had to come up with a solution if I point out the current solution isn’t working. Shit. Better say nothing ever again and just keep giving my money to a corrupt institution that fucks up everything it touches. Sorry for pointing out the emperor has no clothing here is free fucking money

                • kurwa@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  An imperfect system doesn’t mean we need to throw out the whole system. And if we did throw it out, you can’t just not have a replacement for it.

                  People making posts on the Internet is not equivalent to real people meeting and being forced to at least give an answer.