The Problem With the UN Veto Power | NowThis World
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 сен 2018
- The permanent 5 members of the UN Security Council have a unique power. It's their right to veto. But how has it's implementation failed to address humanitarian crises around the world?
» Subscribe to NowThis World: go.nowth.is/World_Subscribe
» Watch the Previous Episode: • Happiest Countries In ...
Though even the United Nation's fiercest critics admit the UN has done a lot of good around the world, the United Nations has also been accused of being complicit in corruption, tangled in bureaucracy, and increasingly reactive rather than proactive in addressing the world's crises.
It's also been accused of failing to act to prevent genocides in places including Rwanda in 1994, Bosnia in 1995, and Darfur, Sudan in the early 2000s.
Some have even called the United Nations Security Council permanent 5 void of power and totally powerless.
But there are certain countries in the UN (United States, United Kingdom, Russia, France, China) that get to exercise real power. We're talking about the UN Security Council's Permanent 5 members or P5. They all have what's known as the right to veto.
And while some permanent members, like France and the UK, are more open to expansion, Russia, China and the U.S. have been more cautious or directly opposed.
It would take a whole lot of support to modify the UN Charter, and to get all five P5 members to agree at the same time to restrict their own power.
But despite of all its flaws, experts generally agree: the UN creates a vital space for diplomacy, mediation, and maintaining international peace.
It has indisputably helped save lives, lifted people out of poverty and starvation and maintained global order.
So we're going to break down what is veto power, how the P5 got this power.
Connect with NowThis
» Subscribe to NowThis News: go.nowth.is/News_Subscribe
» Like us on Facebook: go.nowth.is/News_Facebook
» Tweet us on Twitter: go.nowth.is/News_Twitter
» Follow us on Instagram: go.nowth.is/News_Instagram
» Find us on Snapchat Discover: go.nowth.is/News_Snapchat
Connect with Judah:
» Follow @judah_robinson on Twitter: go.nowth.is/TweetJudah
» Facebook: go.nowth.is/LikeJudah
Connect with Alex:
» Follow @AlexLJanin on Twitter: go.nowth.is/TweetAlex
» Facebook: go.nowth.is/LikeAlex
Connect with Versha:
» Follow @versharma on Twitter: go.nowth.is/TweetVersha
» Facebook: go.nowth.is/LikeVersha
NowThis World is dedicated to bringing you topical explainers about the world around you. Each week we’ll be exploring current stories in international news, by examining the facts, providing historical context, and outlining the key players involved. We’ll also highlight powerful countries, ideologies, influential leaders, and ongoing global conflicts that are shaping the current landscape of the international community across the globe today.
/ nowthisworld
adding more countries and still having veto will be even more useless, its like 9 countries: "Yes", one country: "Veto". case closed. we need democracy in UNSC.
Yeah I dont understand that either. I mean first the UN had 3 countries and it made sense to call veto. I might be wrong but I dont get why veto is used and not majority or some other form to vote for something.
@@AllenBaby7 It was made to ensure none of the P5 will leave UN😂
United Nations Space Command!
*Halo intensifies*
Democracy isn't always right.
France and uk: let's put more people to the security council.
US, China and Russia: VETO!
@Riyad they built toilet first than become permanent member of security council .
France & UK: Surely they will say no to this, we were acting like nice gentlemen XD
Because China、Rus and US have the largest and strongest Army in the world.Power comes from Power,This is the real world. Fra and UK they lost their power so they have no power. If Indian have power, Welcome to the UN Security Council.
Riyad quality over quantity
Anybody: Let's add Germany to UN Security Council
Britain and France: VETO!!
UN: Let's vote on Palestin.....
US: Veto! Veto! Veto!
Nank Dug you voted against Israel... what next? War against Israel? Boycot against Israel? Arab and Muslim countries did it already. And they didn’t accept UN resolution in 1947
DartLuke thats bc in 1947 the majority of the population was Arabs in the area, yet the UN proposed to give them a minority of the land and give a majority to the Jews(who were minority population). Think about it, the majority population gets a minority of land, and the minority of population gets a majority of the land. Seem fair?
Nice one
The entire world economy depend on china communist system to thrive, A democratic system will bring the economy down to disaster. please wake up.
@superfisher28 Yes you are right but it is sold where they are made.
An institution having veto policy is promoting democracy? Democracy must be a joke.
Longest Joke in humanity
not all nations are created equal tho
of course it is a joke
@@kartunland people on the USA no .USA the nation yes in this context
Cosidering a non-democratic country also has veto power.
But honestly, every country has personal agendas. You can't give just 5 countries so much power whatever countries they are and not expect personal agendas to get in the way of overall peace.
Because they are winners in world war two
In Theory the idea of not having a veto and all countries being equal is a great proposal as it is the most just proposal. In an ideal world all countries should have equal say. Unfortunately The veto is the only thing that makes the United Nations practical.
Very few people understand the main function of the United Nations. The primary function of the United Nations is to prevent conflict from between great powers. War between the United States and Russia or China would be global in scale and would devastate large sections of the earth. The Last time great powers engaged each other was World War II. Today their existing additional threat of nuclear arsenals. It’s in all countries interests to prevent a hot war between great powers.
The un provides a forum for great powers to discuss issues that they share a mutual interest in and a forum to work out a peaceful solution when possible. The five nations that are permanent members of the Security Council and have veto powers are the United States, the Russian Federation, the peoples Republic of China, the United Kingdom and France. The United States, the Soviet Union, and the uk were the strongest countries at the end of World War II. They included the Republic of China and France to form the five permanent members of the Security Council because they were major nations and fought against the axis countries. Later the peoples Republic of China replaced the Republic of China and the Russian Federation replaced the Soviet Union.
Today most people would consider three strongest nations on earth to be the United States, the peoples Republic of China, and the Russian federation. France and the United Kingdom are still major powers and possess nuclear arsenals.
It would do great damage to the world economy and environment if any of these countries went to war with another from the group. For that reason it makes sense to have all five of these countries permanent members of the Security Council. This way they will have input and the ability to express an opinion on all issues concerning global issues. The truth is not all countries are equal in terms of power. If Sweden is extremely upset they don’t have the military ability to damage the world a global scale. If Russia’s interests are damaged there exists the risk that this might provoke massive military retaliation. For that reason Russia should be given the ability to voice objections ahead of time. It’s in everybody’s best interest to avoid such negative outcomes.
For any international resolutions to be enforced you would need the support of the great powers. For example in 1991 the UN voted to remove Saddam Hussein's Army from Kuwait and to end his occupation and invasion. The United Nations doesn’t have the military capabilities to perform this act. It would require one of the major powers to use its military to accomplish something like this. Since you are going to need the buy in of a major power there is no practical alternative other than involving them in the decision.
Veto powers also prevent wars between great powers. Once again the reality is some Nations are much more powerful and potentially destructive than the average Nation. The veto helps ensure that no un resolution will ever be passed that is unacceptable to a great power and thus will prevent a situation that might provoke them to war.
For example China would veto any un resolution that ordered them to withdraw from the Tibetan region. Russia would veto any resolution that would ask them to withdraw from Chechnya. The us would veto any resolution asking it to give back lands it took from Mexico. Imagine If the United Nations tried to force China to withdraw from Tibet. This would provoke ww3.
jacky tang at that time most countries just got independent now let us fight again we will destroy those so called winners
@@gamingparadise3390 your country have nukes?
@@gamingparadise3390 by Alla or Reading Koran day by day ?
When it comes to real issues facing us today. The United Nations is as spineless as it's predecessor. And it's a joke since Saudi Arabia. Is on the Human Rights panel.
And now in Saudi arabia women can drive and few days ago they had first female host on their national tv.
i think UN put them on that spot for a reason.
@Am I disabled lol.
"everything they have done in Yemen"
that was supported and funded by UK and America.
Also are you saying America didn't fund terrorists ever?
Almost every permanent member up there funded some rebel group for their own means not just Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia isn't a role model but you can definitely see change.
Also how are homosexuals in Russia?
Saral Thakur Homosexuals are allowed in Russia except in Chechnya. But, how does Saudi treat them?
Even though they have problems, the UK and USA are not actively bombing Yemen.
Even if you ignore that, Saudi treats Saudi women as second class citizens and migrant laborers as third class.
Art Man Anddd Chechnya is a majority muslim state in the Russian Federation... hence, the restriction of Homosexuals...
"Since Saudi Arabia is on the Human Rights Panel" Hey, Im a Political Analyst, Usually do jobs for local magazines or newepapers, this Saudi Arabia thing wouldve been true 30 or 50 years ago, but its not true in these times, Saudi Arabia has changed and its obvious to anyone not living under a rock, find some other country to whine about.
Also Im guessing youre Canadian or LGBT?
VETO power basically gives you a special status which allows you to violate international law.
No, power gives you VETO vote and not the other way around
@@Yummy_69 No, power gives you veto and veto gives you more power.
@@christophersalinas2722 you aren’t the brightest are you
@@freeeggs3811 he speaks the truth. Veto just made superpowers more powerful. It does nothing but let the P5 do whatever fits their political agenda states at the cost of the rest of the world
@@am72678 super powers can already do what they want
"The strong do what they will and weak suffer what they must"
Get rid of the Veto power altogether. Let all the countries of the world have one vote on matters. No country's vote should matter more than others.
Exactly!
Yea this isnt fair to anyother countries
Why should they
These 5 nations contribute maximum money and forces to UN
@@adee6467 but they get in the way of actual resolutions from getting passed so they can do what want
So you're saying a country with a few thousand citizens have the same say as a country like China with 1.7 Billion.
The UN is very limited in its power. But even if it's partially just symbolic, I think an organization like it that brings all countries of the world together is very important. The Security Council... is fairly toothless thanks to the veto.
It is not the UN that gives the P5 power. It is the P5 that gives the UN power.
Just few days ago, 94 years old Malaysian prime.minister said on UN General meeting "World power that have veto is a shame to democracy"
Veto should have a limited number of uses per year - say each gets 5 vetoes a year.
Allowing them to prioritise their use would open up things to some level of compromise.
That's what I was about to suggest :) You're less prone to veto for useless things if you know that down the road, you may need your veto power to save your country.
They’ll all veto that😅🙈
That would only work if resolutions were limited too.
Not really - as long as the country can veto the same proposal, even if contained in multiple resolutions. Someone trying to carry a vote would just need to remove the specific proposal.
For example - the US might veto any action on the US embassy in Jerusalem. Any number of resolutions addressing that issue would be blocked by just ONE of the limited number of vetoes.
Yeah that would work as long as the veto worked on a proposal as long and killed it (and any somewhat like it)
The problem with the thinking in this video is that it starts by imagining how to make the UN work better for the world. But the reality is the that the UN exists as an extension of existing powers, not as a source of power in itself. Suggesting that we take away veto power from the biggest countries is idiotic. The veto power exists to keep the most powerful countries engaged and at the discussion table with the rest of the world. Take it away, or give it to a bunch of secondary powers, and the body no longer represents reality. What incentive would the US, China, or Russia have to play nice and engage if you created a forum that gave them the same power as somewhere like Brazil? The world doesn't work like that. No matter how much we might imagine a better, more fair world with a global, united body in control, that's not the world we live in. Any attempt to make the UN like that fantasy world would be an immediate failure, because the big players would just disengage. Don't get me wrong, it would be great for humanity if the great powers stopped using their veto powers to shield human rights abusers from consequences for their actions. But to blame the UN or the veto power itself is blaming the symptom, not the problem. Of course powers are going to veto the condemnation of their allies. That's how politics and power have worked for all of world history. Changing the UN system would not fix that problem. It would merely break the system, and eliminate one of the best forums we have for world diplomacy in the world today. Blame the selfish, immoral acts of the great powers, not their right to veto in a voluntary global body.
I wanted to say something like this but didn't know how exactly. You are very spot on.
@@ImKevin PRoblem with your argument is that you still believe that Britain, France and Russia still great influential powers. Germany is way more powerful than them which is evident from de-facto leadership of European union. The global realities of power balance are shifting and more diverse than ever. Asia is definitely rising as more influential economical power and military power thus considering your argument they should accept present realities, not the notion that power remain constant or great powers are always great. Each power rises and falls and world adapts.
@Mohan Vankar You make some very valid points there. I agree with you that the global balance of power is shifting away from the traditional European powers and it is growing elsewhere, especially in Asia. That said, I don't think your argument is very applicable to the Security Counsel specifically. The SC's mandate is to maintain international peace and security, and it deals largely with international crises mostly related to military issues. As such, I think it's fair to say Britain, France and especially Russia still remain far more influential on the world stage than any others. Russia is actively involved in both Eastern Europe and the Middle East, France is engaged in a slew of countries across Africa, and Britain has troops deployed in various countries across the globe. By contrast, countries like Japan, Germany, India, Brazil, South Africa, etc. have very little or no foreign military missions, and are significantly less engaged on the world stage in that regard. As such, I think the current counsel still remains representative of reality, evidenced by the fact that it is still functioning with the endorsement of all the world's states. If, as you note, the balance of power continues to shift to the East, the status quo will definitely have to change. As the economic influence and power of Asia grows, so will their eventual military power. If / when that occurs, I suspect any relevant player will rightfully demand a seat at the table. (Thanks for reading and responding to my comment, I figured no one would even read it!)
@@caleblovell I agree with overall assessment but I like to counter it by saying that, first and foremost, current presence of military power in foreign state doesn't provide complete picture.They are remanants of the colonial era. I agree that it helps in projecting power but still to consider it as only parameter is little bit too much. INDIA is a prime example of that. It is well accepted fact that military strength of INDIA is 4th. But INDIA has the policy of non-interference until and unless UN approve it or directly affect INDIA.This shows that all nations with considerable military might may not choose to be there out of belief that too much foreign intervention may excerbate trouble example in the middle east. Current security council has hard loyalities, which is evident in VETO use. This shows failure to act in many cases, as video suggest. Recent examples were Syrian regime backed by Russia, Myanmar Rohingya cleansing by China, US intervention in multiple countries to impose their ideology which ultimately fails as evident from rise of Taliban and ISIS. I agree that great war era is now over but I think there is considerable contribution of UN in this regard but, mostly this is due to the fear of NUCLEAR WEAPON that calmed down world. INDIA and PAKISTAN are example of that, if war broke out we loose world that's harsh reality and every world leader is aware of that. The UN peacekeeping forces are mainly consist of INDIA and PAKISTAN. This suggests that they contribute more for world peace militariy than any other nations. I know economically western powers back those plan but, as you argue, you are considering facts only on basis of military power. I here suggest that considering failures and making reforms is necessary in order to be relevant in any era. The power to veto provides relevant power to remain engeged in world affairs but they also fails to accommodate new world order and distance those which are emerging as world powers. This rigidity, in the end, is costly. Either UN will become irrelevant or failed in 'final goal'. This both outcome are scary and I think this require through investigation before it is too late. We both know that current available data for this analysis is not available to you and me so concluding anything in this area is little bit naive. This are opinions but opinion does matter to push the causes but hard realities are determining factors.
Atleast someone has a very good understanding of how things work.
There should be a more democratic form of Voting without veto and even if there is veto , it should be there as a partial power shared by the p5 where atleast 3/5 of its members need to vote for veto in order to veto any decision .
Not true at all. The UN is designed for peacekeeping, it always has been. China and the U.S. need to hold veto, as well as the EU as an organization. The UN is designed for peacekeeping so everyone has to be relatively okay with it.
Also 3/5 would be wayy worse than no veto. It would basically be giving a veto singularly to the West.
@@boku955 The UN's main goal is literally written in it's charters. the maintenance of international peace and security. I think anyone can agree with that it has failed because since it's inception there has been no international peace or security and the veto power is one of the main reasons why. The Un has done a lot of good and continues to do so but preventing war and atrocities is just not something it's built to prevent at least not when said conflict has the interests of one of the permanent members which is common.
@@SherLock55 Why would veto loss change anything?
@@SherLock55 No organization could be built to stop a country declaring war... without using war itself. The UN is the best attempt at such an organization, an organization where everyone can agree to something.
@@SherLock55 The United Nations is to prevent wars between the United States, China, Russia, and the European Union, rather than other countries
Simple: Just get rid of the veto. It's undemocratic and unfair.
Ok, let's put it to a vote.
US and China: Veto Veto Veto!
@@strawberryanimation9294 Rusia: Veto
Britain and France: Veto
Everyone else: sign...
The world ain't democratic or fair
Veto is nothing if u have money. noone can veto japan turkey or india
India and Japan deserve a seat in UN ...
LOL. They're actually the last two countries that should get a seat.. India should be sanctioned until they sort their population and resulting pollution out, and Japan was worse than Germany in WW2, and continue to flaunt internationally whaling laws. Germany should get a seat before Japan.
yes definitely the rapists needs a voice with india in a permanent member seat
AholeAtheist Christopher Chen You have the right to shut your mouth if you are ignorant. Also perhaps you missed the fact that the guest in this video, Salil Shetty is an Indian
And Brazil.
Japan and India already have a seat in the UN, just not in the Security Council.
Alternatives to Permanent seat:
1. Double veto -- Two veto required to count as a single veto.
2. Semi Permanent seat instead of permanent seat.
3. Expansion of the permanent seats to G4 nations.
4. Abolition of permanent seats altogether.
Veto powers prevent wars between great powers. The reality is some Nations are much more powerful and potentially destructive than the average Nation. The veto helps ensure that no UN resolution will ever be passed that is unacceptable to a great power and thus will prevent a situation that might provoke them to war.
For example, China would veto any un resolution that ordered them to withdraw from the Tibetan region. Russia would veto any resolution that would ask them to withdraw from Chechnya. The USA would veto any resolution asking it to give back lands it took from Mexico. Imagine If the United Nations tried to force China to withdraw from Tibet. This would provoke WW3.
I believe there is a simple test that can show if a country should be a permanent member of the UNSC. If going to war with that country would lead to the destruction or near destruction of the earth then they are powerful enough to be permanent members of the UN Security Council. This is why I actually think the UK and France should be replaced or removed, but that is where politics come to play. If Europe has no representatives on the UNSC, then they would most likely leave the UN and create their own UN or expand the powers of the EU to function more like the UN.
Well, this should be a topic of the UN General Assembly for the power to veto be taken down.
Simple! France leave their seat for European Union.
@Alistair Bolden No. We won’t accept that. We aren’t responsible for something that happened 80 Years ago.
I think you forgot to put another suggested solution for veto power;
that veto requires at least 2 votes from its permanent members for it to be exercised.
"no representation in South/Latin America and Africa..."
This is the problem.
The nations who are in the security council shouldn't represent their countries, neighbours or closest friends.
They should represent all humans and prevent war etc.
Qwokka Yes, and let’s tear down all boarders and just get along while your at it.
I believe there is a simple test that can show if a country should be a permanent member of the UNSC. If going to war with that country would lead to the destruction or near destruction of the earth then they are powerful enough to be permanent members of the UN Security Council. This is why I actually think the UK and France should be replaced or removed, but that is where politics come to play. If Europe has no representatives on the UNSC, then they would most likely leave the UN and create their own UN or expand the powers of the EU to function more like the UN.
This ain’t really about peace. It never has been. It’s all about the power. That’s why western countries control the security council.
We need equal representation from every continents.
@Green Sky which is bad
@@gabenewell3955But Australia is the only country in the middle of that big ocean...
@@meray6811 Oceania comprises of New Zealand and other Pacific Islands if I am not wrong.
asia is 70% off world polpulation
*_League Of Nations 2.0.exe_*_ has stopped working_
LOL
What a joke, UN is never about justice, it's just that countries have insane military power need a place to negotiate in order to prevent wars between the superpowers. China was not a permenant member before, and UN sended army to fight with China in Korean war and vietnamese war. Chinese sacrificed soooooo many soilders but eventually drove them off. And China spent a lot of time/money and energy and china finally built nuclear weapon by itself. Since then the UN recognized China as a super power. The thing is: Power gives you Permenant seat and not vice versa. If any of the military superpower decided to leave UN, then UN is nothing but an empty shell. China used blood and death and finally got the permenant seat. You want to get the permenant seat just because you have huge population? Or you are democratic? Its laughable. Power IS justice. As a country that suffered from foreign aggression and invasion for the last century, no one knows that better than the Chinese do. Remember, NO PAIN, NO GAIN.
Omg! Is this what they taught you in China?
@@octobersky9639 NO,but what he said is international reality.
@@octobersky9639 Do you really believe that there is absolute equality in the world ? The reason why U.S is superpower is just because of freedom and democracy(this is the Soviet slogan at the time)?
or do u think you are as important as Trump (yeah, all men are created equal)?
How childish u r.
Truth is the range of a cannon, and the caliber of a cannon is justice
@@octobersky9639 瞧瞧巴勒斯坦,正义只是笑话
make it so that you can veto the veto with a 2/3 majority of the votes to a resolution
@learn2 farm there are reasons why war between superpowers is unlikely now more than ever but ok
UN: Lets universally impose human rights. China: VETO VETO VETO VETO VETO VETO VETO VETO VETO VETO VETO VETO VETO
Veto is undemocratic
The UN Security Council needs Veto powers.
Something that should be noted is that the UN security council is the only body of the UN that can enact a military intervention. For example, the entries into Libya or Rwanda were not to maintain peace, they were to go to war. Other bodies such as the UN General Assembly and so on serve as a stage for all nations to announce condemnations and recommendations without any veto powers in play (GA resolutions are in fact designed to advise to UNSC). Because of all of this, the rulings of the UNSC should be taken very seriously by all nations and not given out lightly.
Now because the UNSC can go to war with nations, it's important that most of body's members agree on entering that conflict. More importantly, the major world military powers must unamiously agree on entering that conflict. The reason why that is, is because if you enter a conflict that one of the major world powers disagrees with, they will enter on the other side, leading to another world war.
This is the reason China vetos military intervention into North Korea. If they didn't have a veto power, the majority of the UNSC probably would have agreed to go to war with North Korea, and China would help North Korea = WW3 (This actually happened in 1950 during the Korean War).
This is also the reason the USA vetos military intervention into Israel. If they had no veto power, the majority of the UNSC would also probably have agreed to military intervention in Israel. USA would then help Israel = WW3.
(same with Russia and Syria.)
Do you see the pattern?
The quote at the start of the video about the UNSC mission; "saving generations from the scourge of war" isn't referring to helping those caught in conflict in minor countries. This quote is referring to preventing the outbreak of another world war. By allowing the major world powers to never be in a situation where either one must go to war with another, they are effectively preventing it.
If anything, countries that could participate as world war combatants (Japan, Germany, India and Brazil for example) need to be included as veto members, otherwise, there could be a situation where the UN goes to war with them and leads to another world war.
I think this is where people misinterpret the use of the UN. People think of it as a body that should fix the conflicts that they dislike, but that's not the reality. The UN is most effective with engaged members states, who can support it knowing it won't hurt their political interests. The UN is only the countries it's made up of and surprisingly, they're not going to support actions that hinder them.
Yeah, some in the comments are just dumb saying “UN is useless.” I have to say we have been long in WW3 if UN didn’t exist. Some people just expect “Instant Solution” to every problem that arise and blame everything in the government, where in fact UN has been in the front line to prevent WW3.
Well written ! Excellent !
But that veto thing also ensures that their is no shift of power man! U dont understand! Lets say China or Russia or USA have a geo-political interest/conflict with any other nation(eg China with India or USA with Pakistan).They would just do things in their interest and if the nation complaints about it in the UNSC then CHINA or USA would just veto it.
This is just unfair!
Avoiding Justice to prevent a war is surely not the thing!
Not punishing a serial killer only because a large family depends on him is not the correct way. There has to be another way around.
The P5 members are using the power like infinity gauntlet
I'm from Somalia and I can safely criticize the United Nations for not doing anything during the Civil war they got so scared of this one guy that them and the United States military fled because the United States military was humiliated when a Rebel shot down one of their helicopters in an incident famously known as Black Hawk Down.
Somali pirate lmao
I believe the future action should be to expand the membership and the decision should be made based on the majority voting on favour or the against. Since the permanent members have started using it for their own interest, the days are not so far when other countries will start retaliating against UN and will search for other alternatives.
Great video I'm glad you got round to the importance of the threat of veto because the resolutions that actually get vetoed are just the tip of the iceberg of how many resolutions are compromised around the p5. All of the proposals for reform are completely academic hypothetical and a waste of time in my opinion because the p5 will NEVER unanimously decide to dilute or limit their power and any reform to the Security Council is subject to veto. One thing I think you could have focussed on a bit more is that the veto was a necessary compromise to bind the US and Soviet Union into some sort of international order. For all its failings at least we're still here and Armageddon doesn't seem too imminent, things might have gone differently if a more 'fair' UN that the USSR and China had no interest in had been purely a Western mouthpiece squawking disapproval over the Iron Curtain the entire Cold War, not saying the U.N. prevented WW3 but made it less likely and the dissolution of the USSR much smoother.
You may use your veto, but I play my reverse card! You lose 200 life points!
In Theory the idea of not having a veto and all countries being equal is a great proposal as it is the most just proposal. In an ideal world all countries should have equal say. Unfortunately The veto is the only thing that makes the United Nations practical.
Very few people understand the main function of the United Nations. The primary function of the United Nations is to prevent conflict from between great powers. War between the United States and Russia or China would be global in scale and would devastate large sections of the earth. The Last time great powers engaged each other was World War II. Today their existing additional threat of nuclear arsenals. It’s in all countries interests to prevent a hot war between great powers.
The un provides a forum for great powers to discuss issues that they share a mutual interest in and a forum to work out a peaceful solution when possible. The five nations that are permanent members of the Security Council and have veto powers are the United States, the Russian Federation, the peoples Republic of China, the United Kingdom and France. The United States, the Soviet Union, and the uk were the strongest countries at the end of World War II. They included the Republic of China and France to form the five permanent members of the Security Council because they were major nations and fought against the axis countries. Later the peoples Republic of China replaced the Republic of China and the Russian Federation replaced the Soviet Union.
Today most people would consider three strongest nations on earth to be the United States, the peoples Republic of China, and the Russian federation. France and the United Kingdom are still major powers and possess nuclear arsenals.
It would do great damage to the world economy and environment if any of these countries went to war with another from the group. For that reason it makes sense to have all five of these countries permanent members of the Security Council. This way they will have input and the ability to express an opinion on all issues concerning global issues. The truth is not all countries are equal in terms of power. If Sweden is extremely upset they don’t have the military ability to damage the world a global scale. If Russia’s interests are damaged there exists the risk that this might provoke massive military retaliation. For that reason Russia should be given the ability to voice objections ahead of time. It’s in everybody’s best interest to avoid such negative outcomes.
For any international resolutions to be enforced you would need the support of the great powers. For example in 1991 the UN voted to remove Saddam Hussein's Army from Kuwait and to end his occupation and invasion. The United Nations doesn’t have the military capabilities to perform this act. It would require one of the major powers to use its military to accomplish something like this. Since you are going to need the buy in of a major power there is no practical alternative other than involving them in the decision.
Veto powers also prevent wars between great powers. Once again the reality is some Nations are much more powerful and potentially destructive than the average Nation. The veto helps ensure that no un resolution will ever be passed that is unacceptable to a great power and thus will prevent a situation that might provoke them to war.
For example China would veto any un resolution that ordered them to withdraw from the Tibetan region. Russia would veto any resolution that would ask them to withdraw from Chechnya. The us would veto any resolution asking it to give back lands it took from Mexico. Imagine If the United Nations tried to force China to withdraw from Tibet. This would provoke ww3.
How not giving veto to powerful India solves this ?
On any day India can start war against Pakistan or China can start war with India and that war would be far bigger than any war happened in west .
" Today most people would consider three strongest nations on earth to be the United States, the Peoples Republic of China, and the Russian Federation. France and the United Kingdom are still major powers and possess nuclear arsenals. "
ok, but don't you think that the world has moved on,
Now in those " great powers " countries like India, Brazil, South Korea should come too.
In fact, India can put Toast to both Uk and France If it wasn't for NATO.
Plus Pakistan and India are on each other throats involving future threats of large scale destruction ( Both being Nuclear powers ( MAD ) ). Also, we don't really know how much nuke India really has! So isn't it sensible enough to bring them in? If I go by your reasoning
Reasonable comment
@Alex Mercer nuclear weapons are homemade... No other weapons are important nowadays... Like f22 f35. Typhoon.. Etc... If... There's aww3... Oh god there should not be... But if.... These 5th gen fighter are all vain... The technology u say that France and uk have... It has only in making gadgets not arsenls... And they develop most of their wepons jointly... India is a lone wolf...but u don't know coz India doesn't stick it's nose like us uk France Germany Russia china in global politics... So u want to know the facts just google it.... So yes India should have given veto....
@@ayushkumar-bg1xf on any day? then why havent india start a war yet?
NAM or the Non-Alignment Movement is another alternative to the UN that people do not take seriously.For those who don't what it is a organization formed by the countries that got Independence from the colonial west .The main aim of NAM is to provide sovereignty and freedom to countries that have been colonized for years .if it is promoted it would surely help in development of all the developing countries and improve on the UN.
wasnt it started by india and brazil?
@@joebama6825 yes
its stupid organization of weak countries who wanted to choose neither sides. india should leave it
@@arpitpatra you cant use that brain of yours can you?
For China, India is our neighbour country and it is developing country with huge population just same like us. And we both are Asian countries, even there are some disagreements between us, but we still glad our neighbour become one of the big powers
India needs to persuade other 4 countries, it looks they don’t like global power shift from west to east.
All countries agreed on India getting veto .now it's upto United Nations official to decide when they will do such change .
Actually its the US who doesn't want others in UNSC
I think India shouldn't care about VETO in UNSC,if we are truly that powerful than we can work for our interests without caring abt what others say
@@tejasmohite2651 not in case of india, 4 member (US , Russia, france and UK ) supporting india except china
@@dharmendernegi7310 China is ready to support only if India doesn't support japan for a permanent seat.
Thanks to Russia's Veto my country Bangladesh has escaped from the Pakistani Regime
That was necessary dude. East Pakistan's growth was siphoned off to its west counterpart. If you all were still Pakistan, there would have been utter misery and chaos
Now Bangladeshi must be happy.
thank india who was russian ally then
@@arpitpatra What did India do? Russia was the one that cast the veto.
@@duskingsun985 It was Indian prime minister Indira Gandhi that got Soviet Union to support Bangladesh independence in the first place and cast the veto in their favour
Honestly, I just think that the concept of veto power should be removed because it reflects the signs of dictatorship in an international body like UN. It should be a democratic form of taking decision where every country would have equal rights to act over an issue and the decision taken by the majority should be enacted.🙂
yes expand or dismantle. As soon as i heard the 5 countries i immidiately questioned why no country from africa was involved, India excluded, and all of south american . seems very exclusive and non representative of the world at large with the true majority of power.
It actually makes sense, as who is the largest nations who are considered the most dangerous if you mess with? (Russia china and the US) France and the UK used to be big power's but honestly are weaker then nations like India and South Korea. the Veto is a don't get in my way warning to other nations about messing around in "their" business.
speedy01247 dude UK get that seat because it is British empire at the time UN is founded, how would ppl expect that it will decline into an island nation so quickly? And french empire was way larger and stronger than the current France too. It is just france and UK lowering the bar rather than India, Germany, Japan, Brazil is being strong enuff to ever qualify for a UN permanent seat.
Dazanar because it was the 4 nations fought and beat the axis in WW2, and then France for some reason.
''...no country from Africa, india excluded'' wait what? Since when is India part of Africa?
@sean sammon The P5 members in UNSC have aleady assured their support individually to include India in UNSC. But they are still reluctant in one way or the other to expand the UNSC.
It would be interesting to see an uncut interview with the representative from Amnesty International.
Think this way: Instead of exercising their power in battle ground these heavy weights use veto in unsc. Which one is better?
@Mansuba's Counseling User or it is like choosing less worse than other options. Veto power is way less worse than actual war.
For the veto to be canceled. It's a failed policy
Wise man😂
exactly
Veto should be dissolved
Yay so we can have another world war
oh you think veto is preventing world war :O
Tollin Jose did not ? Reach and think again
@@TollinJosePalatty yes it is.
It's impossible
Get all the rest of countries, apart from the P-5, to quit the UN. Looks like that's more possible than get the P-5 to loose their veto power.
@Alistair Bolden Yeah...the UK and France definitely don’t need the USA for anything. That is why they won the Suez Crisis...oh...wait...they didn’t.
@@anothergermanmapper7754 and then Egypt sided with the USSR and turned against the USA, and the USA could do nothing about it. Britain then refused to help the USA in Vietnam, which was the only time they ever refused to help the USA since 1812, and coincidentally the USA lost. “World Superpower” btw.
So this is how the United States was able to single handedly block humanitarian aid from going into Gaza despite it being the only country to vote against that resolution.
Could you send me the link to the list in the minute 3:12
India being a 6th largest economy and on the way to become the 5th largest economy...it represent the 18% of world population. Major contributor to the un peace keeping process and being a 5th country to spend on military expenditure...India should get an permanent membership on security council.
it's quality that counts not quantity ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
India don’t have qualifying
‘ Major contributor to UN Peace keeping ‘ Yeah right , by killing innocent Kashmiris .
India lacks development plus it’s politically unstable and it isn’t influential.
Ayush Hegde Because China is very very wealthy and Russia is not only a developed country but it has the second strongest military in the world .
both solutions are vital.
even the expanded nations could misuse the veto power
expansion of the council is also vital to provide representation.
I think the UN security council should expand its permanent members. For example they could include Mexico,and Brazil for Latin America. Germany,and Ukraine to represent more of Europe. South Africa,and Libya for Africa. India and Japan for more of Asia. Finally they should add Australia and Indonesia for Australasia
uh no. those countries (bar the G4) aren't powerful enough to hold a seat.
The council does seems very........uniform racial and political if you ask me
Germany and Japan? What a joke
What is the purpose of adding these countries In security council? We are demanding to abolish Veto power of P5 permanently only these 5 countries can dictatorship over 195 countries which makes UN powerless.
I love you so much by your speech I'm from தமிழ் நாடு (Tamil Nadu ) INDIA
Imo India, Brazil and South Africa should be given veto power.
Lazy Addict nah they are too weak to ever qualify for the job. France and UK were given that seat only because they were still great empire when UN is founded. And South africa really? The only thing I support is India taking British empire seat from UK since India was part of British empire and the most powerful one out of ex British empire states should be given that seat just like PRC taking over ROC seat because it own all of China’s mainland and Russia Federation taking over Soviet Union seat because it is the largest one after the Soviet split
India maybe in the future but South Africa? It’s smaller than Turkey.
Brazil? Never! Its the most corrupted and dangerous country in latinamerica
I think what most people do not recognize about the debate around the P5 is that it doesn't represent the nations in the UN. Sure, they might in terms of population, but in terms of the interests and a global view, they don't even come close.
South Africa is literally one of the worst and most corrupt countries in the world, I would rather have Cuba than them.
5:24 his words are absolute facts ❤️🇵🇸
Great Video! Explained the entire thing incredibly well
The UN was created to prevent WW3. These 5 countries are the most powerful and they have nuclear weapons.
So, the veto power forces all of them to have a dialogue and find solutions that satisfy everyone. All. FIVE. Nuclear-powered countries.
Otherwise the UN would've failed it's main purpose.
Very useful video. Make a video about Western vs Eastern thoughts on globalization
The Council should be restructured to reflect changing variables, as some permanent council members lose global clout/power while some non-permanent members are rising on the world stage
The colonial powers with their bad habits are way over represented in the security council.
Time to have a security council that is democratic, meaning following the number of people it represents. Every 500 millions should have one representant:
Europe 1
Russia/Kazakhstan/Turkmenistan.., : 1
China 2
India: 2
Pakistan Iran, Afghanistan, middle east: 1
Japan, Philippines, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand: 1
Indonesia, Thailand, Malaisia, Vietnam: 1
Africa: 2
South America: 2
North America: 1
The above will be semi-permanent, meaning permanent to the group, but rotating within the group based on population.
We can add 3 to make it odd number, that will be allocated according to the economic power of the day.
No Veto power for anyone.
Introduction of G-4 nations into the permanent members of the council is crucial.
00:01 UNITED KINGDOM:
*_The Emperors Still Love To Take On Asian Culture!_*
u interview an Indian?they will say otherwise if they get a permanent seat lmao
Either remove veto rights or make it so tberes a limit to veto votes.
i also open UN office in my garage.. where we only discuss world affairs 😂😂😁
G4 should be added to P5!
To exercise the power of balance and minimise biasness, P5 shall be eliminated and replace with a 2/3 of voice from the member of in as a system to pass or reject a resolution
How would that work you have the Vatican City with population of 500 on one end and China and India with 1.4 billion each on the other end
We can’t completely eliminate biasness but just to minimise it better than autocratic voices by the 5P to veto resolution that might bring benefits to millions and billions of people
I'd support making the Security Council consist of appointed members, of which one is elected by 2/3 of the General Assembly every year with a 9 year term. 2/3 of that new Security Council would have to agree to an intervention or investigation, after the General Assembly has already agreed to it. Kind of like a Senate, in a way.
Your proposal would be a good compromise that the current P5 could maybe even accept, if you get real lucky
@@cheydinal5401 you live in a fairy tale. The UN exists because of the compromise of these five countries.The 5 countries not be rule by the UN. It's impossible for any small country or group to sanction US. Russia and China.The UN will not send troops to attack the countries with the largest share of fund.
@@fetteredkevin3310 Well, doesn't that depend on how big the army of the UN and its budget is? If the UN got say 1% of every country's GDP, and invested half of that into infrastructure across the world, as well as the other half into a military, it would be like 400 billion dollars, which is quite a lot, more than China and Russia combined (311 billion).
When the UN was started, Britain and France still had a global colonial Empire, Russia still had Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldavia, the Eastern European puppets of course, Kazakzstan, etc, you get the point. Today, arguably, global power is much more distributed across the world, than it was right after WWII. India is about equally as powerful as France, if every country that is as powerful as France had a veto, you'd also get Japan, certainly Germany, maybe South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, etc.
Aside from the current UN being the status quo, and the European countries being allied through the EU, I don't see much of a reason (in terms of long-term stability) why the power structure of the UN shouldn't be "decentralized"
Perhaps it's time the United Nations became a democracy with no special members.
Veto powers prevent wars between great powers. The reality is some Nations are much more powerful and potentially destructive than the average Nation. The veto helps ensure that no UN resolution will ever be passed that is unacceptable to a great power and thus will prevent a situation that might provoke them to war.
For example China would veto any un resolution that ordered them to withdraw from the Tibetan region. Russia would veto any resolution that would ask them to withdraw from Chechnya. The USA would veto any resolution asking it to give back lands it took from Mexico. Imagine If the United Nations tried to force China to withdraw from Tibet. This would provoke WW3.
@@larryh2099 how not giving veto to powerful India prevent war while giving veto to tiny UK helps .
@@ayushkumar-bg1xf When the UN was established, the UK was a world player and India was not. It made sense back then, not anymore though. But getting rid of the UK would make Europe feel like they are not being represented in the UN anymore, and they might just start to ignore the UN. Besides, India is not powerful enough to start WW3 because they don't like a UN resolution.
The single biggest mistake was making just one P5 member able to veto to bring down any resolution. Plurality decision, not unanimous.
Abolish the Veto and bring in more members. Bring in Germany, Brazil, Mexico, Japan, India, Indonesia and either South Africa, Nigeria or Ethiopia.
The Wattman it should be a representative or two from each major region. USA, Brazil, UK, Germany, Egypt, Nigeria, Russia, China, and Malaysia
I'd go even further and make it consist of appointed members, of which one is elected by 2/3 of the General Assembly every year with a 9 year term. 2/3 of that new Security Council would have to agree to an intervention or investigation, after the General Assembly has already agreed to it. Kind of like a Senate, in a way.
@@gryffith1378 these aren't world powers though. The point of the veto was to avoid conflict between superpowers. However I do agree Brazil, Germany and India should join as they are massive regional powers
Great video! Very structured and informative and I do not notice much propaganda towards a certain country, which is rare nowadays!
There are three criteria for becoming a permanent member:
1. The capacity to wage a global war.
2. The economy to sustain a global war.
3. The will to fight a global war.
Thus, Japan and Germany do not qualify. India is the only present potential candidate at the moment.
The primary purpose of the UN is to provide a forum of cooperation for the major powers. That means the major powers must be on the Security Council and must have a veto. The current five members are still the dominant military powers in the world. That's why they are there.
The UN is not about global governance. It's about great power hegemony and reducing the risk of great power conflict. That is how it is structured to function. That is how it will continue to function. It cannot be reformed. It can only be abolished.
@learn2 farm both france and uk has nuclear weapons, and has the economy to sustain a global war so...
india cannot sustain a war, even as we speak indians are starving to death.
I think the right to veto should be revoked in case of a conflict of interest and the rest of the security council should do a vote at the beginning of the assembly that decides if any of the P5 countries have any conflict of interest with the country/countries that is the object of the assembly of course if the object is one of the P5 countries then it would get it right to veto revoked directly for the duration of the assembly
UN cannot exist without P-5 Veto power. Veto is a safety valve to prevent the world from exploding incase of conflicts among P-5. What we need is Expansion of Security Council with more permanent members and reforming the voting process of Veto power so that it's decisions and policies will reflect more of universal needs and opinions.
It's there to stop any UN interventions if the world powers decide to invade a country.. in other words, useless.
What happened to that safety valve when US launched its military invasion against Iraq without any UN resolutions !!!!
This makes sense, the Veto is a hey, fight me and war could occur due to this disagreement. (all 5 member's are nuclear power's remember)
Fair point. If it was supposed to be fair in any way though, we should stop the veto power of individual countries alltogether, clearly.
You could still have a Security Council, make it consist of appointed members, of which one is elected by 2/3 of the General Assembly every year with a 9 year term. 2/3 of that new Security Council would have to agree to an intervention or investigation, after the General Assembly has already agreed to it. Kind of like a Senate, in a way.
As if United Nations can exist if India , Germany and Japan decides to exit .
Remember India is leader of G77 . India withdrawal can easily end United Nations
" elite counsel" that's all i need to know
Thats why Soekarno (first President of Indonesia) leave UN.
maybe there's a compromise--the G4 are legitimized and receive veto power, but only 1/3 veto power, and the original P5 members have their veto power decreased to 1/2. This way the P5 still feel the most powerful, but it takes 2 of them to agree in order to veto something, another check and balance for the system. The G4 would need 3 negative votes to have the same veto power, or 2 from the G4 and 1 from the P5 could also combine to veto an idea.
There should be some mechanism to overrule a veto. Like a two-thirds super majority in the general assembly.
It wil cause another world war
Amazing how most of the vetoed resolutions would have helped Arabs in someway, then you ask why Arabs blames the west.
Thank you 😊. At UN we’re all together to work for the civilian community around the world 🌎 especially who lives with sufferings. It’s not where’s each individual political power to justify our determined on Vetoed to get the result solving problems for their country. Well thankfully. We needed honesty ,
clean views and supporting to the changing at permanent at the league’s Vetoes National here’s. The Vetoes each time it’s not just only ones voice but two Vetoes National .
We hope for some change to protecting sanctions against our mission to development as much as we can do togetherness. Even at the News meeting with journalists we had heard about sanctions.
Please consider 😊🙏🏼.
India is a ally of both Russia and USA(therefore India is a neutral country) and every 1 out of 5 people is Indian and still it doesn't have veto power
P.S - Don't start replying with stereotypical racist comments for god's sake
It's A Nuclear Country With 3rd GDP should hv a veto
IKR.. they always come with stereotypical reply like 3rd world country,shithole country as if your country is a saint !! Have no problem !
@@fanta6285 tbh china is much more developed than India...we still have a long way to go😔
Or, you know, don't give any one country the power to overrule the majority of ALL other countries on earth?
You could still have a security council, make it consist of appointed members, of which one is elected by 2/3 of the General Assembly every year with a 9 year term. 2/3 of that new Security Council would have to agree to an intervention or investigation, after the General Assembly has already agreed to it. Kind of like a Senate, in a way.
Random Boi I agree.
Thank you this videos helped me so much
The presentation largely overlooks the frequency of use of veto by the United States
81
It’s often remarked that diplomacy is just warfare by other means. Our battles are no less desperate for being bloodless, but at least we get wine and finger food.
Suggest separate organization which could be called United of the Democracy or UD with basic objectives of promoting Democracy and nations under democratic system of state. It is a necessary because the ways we look at the world through these two different regimes are crucial from now on since the world has become kind of ......
I think you should extend the security council to 20 members, 10 permanent with Japan, Germany, Brazil, south Africa and India joining. And to have an acceptable "veto" you would need at least two members to make it count. Then a superpower need to in someway try to convince another country to vote with them . Just to get a discussion and let the nations defend their stance in some matters. It will lessen the powers of the superpowers but still uphold some superiority in the council and still make it somewhat more democratic.
I agree with you.
The United Nations was established due to World War II, with clear enemies being Germany and Japan.
India 😆
I think that Brazil and India should have a veto.
But Gemany and Japan no way.
By the way I am German
Why not Japan and Germany?
They are powerful and mature nations.
That is the problem they always create a new obstacle. The veto power makes the Security Council more problematic. The reform proposed by G4 nations is also bold because it abolishes the veto power and create a need for a simple majority. This is why China and somewhat Russia don't want that reform. With Japan and India China has a great deal of power to lose. With Germany and Brazil the US has somewhat an ally, since historically Germany (after WW II) and Brazil (since its Independency) aligned their interest with the US. Making the power balance for Russia problematic, even though Brazil has come close to Russia.
I think Germany should be part of the UN Security Council because it is not only a major economic power, but a military power.
Why UK and France if not Germany?
Why China if not India?
as an Indian i dont think our country can be a permanent member in the UN right now ....we still have a long way to go...things are just starting to develop in our country...per captia income,literacy rate,life expectancy are still pretty low in our country...we might have a shot maybe 15 years from now
" _I think Germany should be part of the UN Security Council because it is not only a major economic power, but a military power._ "
but a *military power*
a *military power*
*military power*
*power*
AHHHHHH PMSL.
What's never mentioned is that the P5 also has the right to veto amendments to the UN charter. So it would take just one member state to stop an amendment eliminating the right to veto, even if it was supported by all the rest. Sadly, that makes almost impossible to reform the UN.
Just require a majority of the P5 to veto
6:39 The Middle East IS IN ASIA
Semantics
I think she said "And Asia" but whatever...
Hear that France?Without the Uk u wouldn't have had the power of veto
I'm sorry France I luv u 🇫🇷
The UK also (secretly) gave them nuclear secrets for reactors and bombs, jet engines and computer/electronics tech after WW2.
@learn2 farm They are still nuclear powers with significant global influence
France contributed the least towards the victory of Allied powers in WW2. Even India which was a British colony at that time contributed more than France.
I think there should be individual voting against a case. No country should have veto . Beacuse as you said today veto is not for humanitarian concern but it's for national concern so every country should have equal share in the decision making.
United States used veto power more frequently than any other P5 combined
LMAO India just salty they don't have a veto...
LMAO China are just salty they got into the P5 because of India.
@@saipranavkishan7003 R u serious? Everyone of P5 had war with other four and at least win once .That is the power. India can't even handle Pakistan.
@@isaacelric1807 Since when did China defeat all other 4 of the P5? All I know is that it got heavily invaded by the Japanese in the WWII with tragic results. It also clearly lost the Sino-French War and the Opium Wars. Yes we are salty that we don't have veto as all other nations who don't have it are, as we should be. India cannot deal with Pakistan because Pakistan is armed with nuclear weapons. Also, why should we kill people to show 'POWER'. Dont confuse life with video games.
@〇 2.3 Million Indians fought for the allies in WW2. It has also heavily contributed military in UN Peacekeeping efforts. India has lifted 271 Million people out of poverty in last ten years alone.
@〇 Pure bs. No such rule exists. 🤣
Abolish permanent membership and the veto power completely.
I think that they need to create a rule, and if all 4 other p5 countries agree to, they can overturn the veto.
Henry Nark That'd be unfair in a way. What if the resolution was an actual UN military intervention against North Korea to which only China vetoed (Russia has very tense relations with North Korea due to the latter's nuclear testing near its own borders)? Assume that the nuclear option is out of the table for both sides. Assume that the majority of the other temporary SC members voted for it as well. That wouldn't be fair to China that would have to deal with the massive refugee crisis. That wouldn't be fair to the other regional powers in the area that would get affected by the conflict.
Reform is necessary where Veto power should not be allowed in case of conflict of direct interest.
Also this will also enable expansion to include more countries without fear of stalling resolution by inappropriate use of VETO power
You forgot to add subtitle when a non native is speaking English, so I failed to understand the man.
The veto power should be abolished.
No it shouldn't
Learned lot thank you very much for this
India: Can I join you?
UK, France, US, Russia: OK.
China: VETO! VETO! VETO!
Stupid, in fact, five countries take turns to veto
Can the UN get rid of the Veto system?
Can the permanent 5 get rid of the UN? Because the answer to that Question is "LMAO, yes, by simply dropping their contribution"
So the UN can´t get rid of the veto powers if the veto powers don´t feel like it. (Well, mainly talking about US, China and Russia, France and Britain are "legacy" veto powers, but they are not the problem anyway)
@@sircastic959 they are problem after what they did in last 70 year everywhere . especially USA it was involved in regime change in over 114 countries Directly and support autocratic thugs like Saudi.
I think Singapore and other non-aligned countries should be given a spot or two on the UNSC PermSecCouncil.
singapore - as shown during the US DPRK summit, is pretty neutral, even if it's US leaning...
sweden - is pretty neutral also most like Switzland , but EU and US leaning
Quite interesting that you said about my country but....i don't agree with Singapore in the Usnc
@@thesaintftw2613 it's my country (SGP) too, but I don't think there are other country more suitable without it's share of problems and yet more neutrally aligned.
@@PrograError how about Switzerland?
neutral but, the UNHQ is already in Geneva... so i thought maybe some other country should pick up the mantle
i think the UN needs non-aligned members to the permanent seats
No resolution would be able to be passed if veto power is given to more countries