Obama Considering Allowing UN Vote on Palestinian Statehood

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Boreas

It does, and on a rotating basis with 5 permanent members and 10 non-permanent members which are voted in by the General Assembly for 2 year terms. All 15 members have voting power but the 5 permanent members have both voting power and, individually, veto power.

I think the veto power needs to change. I'd like to see the permanent members retain veto power but only in cases when a majority of them, 3 or more, agree.

The 5 permanent members were originally selected on the basis of their (and perhaps their ally's) military power. They, basically, were the Great Powers, and their veto is based on the recognition that no one can order a Great Power to do anything it doesn't want to do.

The Security Council is therefore a body which enables the Great Powers to coerce lesser powers under color of UN Authorization, when there's a Security Council majority, and no veto. But no one coerces the Great Powers nohow.

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Exactly Dave after "Manifest Destiny" we are in no position to lecture others.

Absolutely. And there's no indication that we're about to give any of it back.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpkGvk1rQBI

[matteos]

Will the UN then send in troops so Palestine can actually elect a government in a fair democratic way? Because HAMAS did not win any recognized election.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by Boreas

It does, and on a rotating basis with 5 permanent members and 10 non-permanent members which are voted in by the General Assembly for 2 year terms. All 15 members have voting power but the 5 permanent members have both voting power and, individually, veto power.

I think the veto power needs to change. I'd like to see the permanent members retain veto power but only in cases when a majority of them, 3 or more, agree.

Thanks John, my comment was incorrect. I meant to say that all 15 members to have equal voting power unlike the current veto power wielded by the five permanent members.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

The 5 permanent members were originally selected on the basis of their (and perhaps their ally's) military power. They, basically, were the Great Powers, and their veto is based on the recognition that no one can order a Great Power to do anything it doesn't want to do.

The Security Council is therefore a body which enables the Great Powers to coerce lesser powers under color of UN Authorization, when there's a Security Council majority, and no veto. But no one coerces the Great Powers nohow.

That's a good point but there's also a sort of tension among the Great Powers on the Security Council, often quite adversarial. There are times when a single one of these countries has exercised its veto power to block worthwhile actions. Having a requirement for a majority among the permanent members would prevent that. So, I know what the single nation veto is bad. What I don't know is whether there might be unintended negative consequences resulting from eliminating it altogether.

Tricky. I'll have to think about it.

[donquixote99]

Recall that job one of the UN is to prevent great powers from warring with each other.