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.

@AllenBaby7

4 жыл бұрын

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.

@hyteenju304

4 жыл бұрын

@@AllenBaby7 It was made to ensure none of the P5 will leave UN😂

@captainjackpugh6050

3 жыл бұрын

United Nations Space Command!

@b-1battledroid674

3 жыл бұрын

*Halo intensifies*

@joelhkbn

3 жыл бұрын

Democracy isn't always right.

France and uk: let's put more people to the security council. US, China and Russia: VETO!

@FK_Garments

5 жыл бұрын

@Riyad they built toilet first than become permanent member of security council .

@kelelala

5 жыл бұрын

France & UK: Surely they will say no to this, we were acting like nice gentlemen XD

@huihangka2068

5 жыл бұрын

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.

@shadowhunter5574

5 жыл бұрын

Riyad quality over quantity

@learn2farm509

5 жыл бұрын

Its not based on population. Its based on the power to enforce the UN ruling. The UN is a show it only has the powers allowed it by world super powers. Its there to make everyone believe things are fair, but thats not how the world works.

An institution having veto policy is promoting democracy? Democracy must be a joke.

@jacobandrews2663

3 жыл бұрын

Longest Joke in humanity

@tmz2854

3 жыл бұрын

not all nations are created equal tho

@peterdeng1620

3 жыл бұрын

of course it is a joke

@haydenmachonisse4031

3 жыл бұрын

@@kartunland people on the USA no .USA the nation yes in this context

@anupamtiwari5587

3 жыл бұрын

Cosidering a non-democratic country also has veto power.

UN: Let's vote on Palestin..... US: Veto! Veto! Veto!

@DartLuke

4 жыл бұрын

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

@ThomasJadallah

4 жыл бұрын

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?

@user-nm3ve6el5s

4 жыл бұрын

Nice one

@allaboutgaming5671

4 жыл бұрын

The entire world economy depend on china communist system to thrive, A democratic system will bring the economy down to disaster. please wake up.

@allaboutgaming5671

4 жыл бұрын

@superfisher28 Yes you are right but it is sold where they are made.

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.

@jackytang3683

5 жыл бұрын

Because they are winners in world war two

@easysnake205

5 жыл бұрын

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.

@gamingparadise3390

5 жыл бұрын

jacky tang at that time most countries just got independent now let us fight again we will destroy those so called winners

@baamonster2

5 жыл бұрын

@@gamingparadise3390 your country have nukes?

@jackytang3683

5 жыл бұрын

@@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.

@gabbar51ngh

5 жыл бұрын

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.

@gabbar51ngh

5 жыл бұрын

@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?

@artman7780

5 жыл бұрын

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.

@LightForxes

5 жыл бұрын

Art Man Anddd Chechnya is a majority muslim state in the Russian Federation... hence, the restriction of Homosexuals...

@kp5602

5 жыл бұрын

"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.

@Yummy_69

5 жыл бұрын

No, power gives you VETO vote and not the other way around

@christophersalinas2722

2 жыл бұрын

@@Yummy_69 No, power gives you veto and veto gives you more power.

@freeeggs3811

2 жыл бұрын

@@christophersalinas2722 you aren’t the brightest are you

@am72678

2 жыл бұрын

@@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

@freeeggs3811

2 жыл бұрын

@@am72678 super powers can already do what they want

"The strong do what they will and weak suffer what they must"

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.

@StayfunnyLG

5 жыл бұрын

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.

@richardolav

5 жыл бұрын

They’ll all veto that😅🙈

@Lhorez

5 жыл бұрын

That would only work if resolutions were limited too.

@Craznar

5 жыл бұрын

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.

@Lhorez

5 жыл бұрын

Yeah that would work as long as the veto worked on a proposal as long and killed it (and any somewhat like it)

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.

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"

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.

@larryh2099

5 жыл бұрын

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.

@vincentlagliva2291

5 жыл бұрын

Well, this should be a topic of the UN General Assembly for the power to veto be taken down.

@ChemistryAtomistic

4 жыл бұрын

Simple! France leave their seat for European Union.

@anothergermanmapper7754

3 жыл бұрын

@Alistair Bolden No. We won’t accept that. We aren’t responsible for something that happened 80 Years ago.

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.

@ImKevin

5 жыл бұрын

I wanted to say something like this but didn't know how exactly. You are very spot on.

@IndiaTides

5 жыл бұрын

@@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.

@caleblovell

5 жыл бұрын

@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!)

@IndiaTides

5 жыл бұрын

@@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.

@arkadyutibera4465

5 жыл бұрын

Atleast someone has a very good understanding of how things work.

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.

@octobersky9639

4 жыл бұрын

Omg! Is this what they taught you in China?

@user-yg6wt4br2f

4 жыл бұрын

@@octobersky9639 NO,but what he said is international reality.

@isaacelric1807

4 жыл бұрын

@@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.

@jiema4725

4 жыл бұрын

Truth is the range of a cannon, and the caliber of a cannon is justice

@user-bs5yn2pm7r

Ай бұрын

@@octobersky9639 瞧瞧巴勒斯坦，正义只是笑话

It is not the UN that gives the P5 power. It is the P5 that gives the UN power.

"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.

@sajanpatel4956

5 жыл бұрын

Qwokka Yes, and let’s tear down all boarders and just get along while your at it.

@larryh2099

5 жыл бұрын

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.

@Breaker_Excessive

5 жыл бұрын

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.

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.

@mahamdelfeky916

5 жыл бұрын

Exactly!

@mazenmady1136

5 жыл бұрын

Yea this isnt fair to anyother countries

@adee6467

5 жыл бұрын

Why should they These 5 nations contribute maximum money and forces to UN

@ayubk2638

5 жыл бұрын

@@adee6467 but they get in the way of actual resolutions from getting passed so they can do what want

@Wanderer628

5 жыл бұрын

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 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.

@stapler3063

5 жыл бұрын

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.

@bryanh2618

4 жыл бұрын

Well written ! Excellent !

@Yo-bk4dk

4 жыл бұрын

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.

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 .

@boku955

Жыл бұрын

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.

@SherLock55

10 ай бұрын

@@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.

@boku955

10 ай бұрын

@@SherLock55 Why would veto loss change anything?

@boku955

10 ай бұрын

@@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.

@user-xq8uu7qf5d

9 ай бұрын

@@SherLock55 The United Nations is to prevent wars between the United States, China, Russia, and the European Union, rather than other countries

Thanks to Russia's Veto my country Bangladesh has escaped from the Pakistani Regime

@Yo-bk4dk

4 жыл бұрын

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

@shahzadmughal7666

3 жыл бұрын

Now Bangladeshi must be happy.

@arpitpatra

2 жыл бұрын

thank india who was russian ally then

@duskingsun985

2 жыл бұрын

@@arpitpatra What did India do? Russia was the one that cast the veto.

@aAverageFan

Жыл бұрын

​@@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

*_League Of Nations 2.0.exe_*_ has stopped working_

@adityamulay

3 жыл бұрын

LOL

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.

@ayushkumar-bg1xf

5 жыл бұрын

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 .

@shakedash367

5 жыл бұрын

" 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

@hyteenju304

4 жыл бұрын

Reasonable comment

@nitishkumarsharma422

4 жыл бұрын

@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....

@kimeli

3 жыл бұрын

@@ayushkumar-bg1xf on any day? then why havent india start a war yet?

Simple: Just get rid of the veto. It's undemocratic and unfair.

@strawberryanimation9294

3 жыл бұрын

Ok, let's put it to a vote. US and China: Veto Veto Veto!

@Chrischi4598

3 жыл бұрын

@@strawberryanimation9294 Rusia: Veto Britain and France: Veto Everyone else: sign...

@haydenmachonisse4031

3 жыл бұрын

The world ain't democratic or fair

@arpitpatra

2 жыл бұрын

Veto is nothing if u have money. noone can veto japan turkey or india

We need equal representation from every continents.

@gabenewell3955

3 жыл бұрын

@Green Sky which is bad

@meray6811

3 жыл бұрын

@@gabenewell3955But Australia is the only country in the middle of that big ocean...

@duskingsun985

2 жыл бұрын

@@meray6811 Oceania comprises of New Zealand and other Pacific Islands if I am not wrong.

@arpitpatra

2 жыл бұрын

asia is 70% off world polpulation

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.

@taj4137

5 жыл бұрын

It's there to stop any UN interventions if the world powers decide to invade a country.. in other words, useless.

@dr.anupamrauthan4101

5 жыл бұрын

What happened to that safety valve when US launched its military invasion against Iraq without any UN resolutions !!!!

@speedy01247

5 жыл бұрын

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)

@cheydinal5401

5 жыл бұрын

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.

@ayushkumar-bg1xf

5 жыл бұрын

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

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.

@speedy01247

5 жыл бұрын

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.

@abcnoobie6636

5 жыл бұрын

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.

@spacetime269

5 жыл бұрын

Dazanar because it was the 4 nations fought and beat the axis in WW2, and then France for some reason.

@SandeepSinghMango

5 жыл бұрын

''...no country from Africa, india excluded'' wait what? Since when is India part of Africa?

@madhanagopaldharmaraj7207

5 жыл бұрын

@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.

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.

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.

@joebama6825

2 жыл бұрын

wasnt it started by india and brazil?

@generalkermit6421

2 жыл бұрын

@@joebama6825 yes

@arpitpatra

2 жыл бұрын

its stupid organization of weak countries who wanted to choose neither sides. india should leave it

@generalkermit6421

2 жыл бұрын

@@arpitpatra you cant use that brain of yours can you?

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.

@williamolsen8464

4 жыл бұрын

Somali pirate lmao

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.

@artski09

5 жыл бұрын

it's quality that counts not quantity ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

@pinghuang285

5 жыл бұрын

India don’t have qualifying

@ult935

5 жыл бұрын

‘ Major contributor to UN Peace keeping ‘ Yeah right , by killing innocent Kashmiris .

@ult935

5 жыл бұрын

India lacks development plus it’s politically unstable and it isn’t influential.

@ult935

5 жыл бұрын

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 .

UN: Lets universally impose human rights. China: VETO VETO VETO VETO VETO VETO VETO VETO VETO VETO VETO VETO VETO

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.🙂

India and Japan deserve a seat in UN ...

@AholeAtheist

5 жыл бұрын

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.

@christopherchen6170

5 жыл бұрын

yes definitely the rapists needs a voice with india in a permanent member seat

@grapeshott

5 жыл бұрын

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

@alaric_

5 жыл бұрын

And Brazil.

@BrMiller

5 жыл бұрын

Japan and India already have a seat in the UN, just not in the Security Council.

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.

@ayushkumar-bg1xf

5 жыл бұрын

All countries agreed on India getting veto .now it's upto United Nations official to decide when they will do such change .

@tejasmohite2651

5 жыл бұрын

Actually its the US who doesn't want others in UNSC

@stairwaytoheaven1719

5 жыл бұрын

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

@dharmendernegi7310

5 жыл бұрын

@@tejasmohite2651 not in case of india, 4 member (US , Russia, france and UK ) supporting india except china

@riderchallenge4250

2 жыл бұрын

@@dharmendernegi7310 China is ready to support only if India doesn't support japan for a permanent seat.

make it so that you can veto the veto with a 2/3 majority of the votes to a resolution

@learn2farm509

5 жыл бұрын

Lol then the country that didnt get there way would still say no, and we would be in a world war with a world super power. The UN has no power over those nations, mostly USA Russia and China the UN is a show to give the illusion of fairness

@joaquinaugusto625

5 жыл бұрын

@@learn2farm509 there are reasons why war between superpowers is unlikely now more than ever but ok

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.

Veto should be dissolved

@Alaois

5 жыл бұрын

Yay so we can have another world war

@TollinJosePalatty

5 жыл бұрын

oh you think veto is preventing world war :O

@yangchen9556

5 жыл бұрын

Tollin Jose did not ? Reach and think again

@kimeli

5 жыл бұрын

@@TollinJosePalatty yes it is.

@informationtechnology4562

3 жыл бұрын

It's impossible

Think this way: Instead of exercising their power in battle ground these heavy weights use veto in unsc. Which one is better?

@MrUtuber29

5 жыл бұрын

@Mansuba's Counseling User or it is like choosing less worse than other options. Veto power is way less worse than actual war.

@hopesy12u4

4 жыл бұрын

For the veto to be canceled. It's a failed policy

@hyteenju304

4 жыл бұрын

Wise man😂

@generalkermit6421

2 жыл бұрын

exactly

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.

LMAO India just salty they don't have a veto...

@saipranavkishan7003

4 жыл бұрын

LMAO China are just salty they got into the P5 because of India.

@isaacelric1807

4 жыл бұрын

@@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.

@realsushrey

4 жыл бұрын

@@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.

@realsushrey

4 жыл бұрын

@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.

@realsushrey

4 жыл бұрын

@〇 Pure bs. No such rule exists. 🤣

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.

@learn2farm509

5 жыл бұрын

Haha you would find that the UN would still exist if the P-5 wanted it to, because the un power is drawn from them, mainly Russia USA and China. An if they agreed on some global decision even if it was about a country who dropped out the ruling would be just as powerful. The UN is a courtesy world super powers do to keep the peace and make the other countries feel they have a voice.

@anothergermanmapper7754

3 жыл бұрын

@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.

@XXXTENTAClON227

2 жыл бұрын

@@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.

The P5 members are using the power like infinity gauntlet

Amazing how most of the vetoed resolutions would have helped Arabs in someway, then you ask why Arabs blames the west.

You may use your veto, but I play my reverse card! You lose 200 life points!

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

@xyzigh

5 жыл бұрын

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

@henrysin8608

5 жыл бұрын

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

@cheydinal5401

5 жыл бұрын

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

@learn2farm509

5 жыл бұрын

That would do zero good, that structure is in place because thats how the world works... they just embody it in the UN. The UN has zero power if the USA, Russia and China say it doesnt. Who is going to enforce international law on Russia and USA? Is poland gonna straighten Russia out? or is Mexico gonna take back the land the USA took from it? No the UN is powerless to those countries bc their its source of power.

@fetteredkevin3310

4 жыл бұрын

@@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.

Imo India, Brazil and South Africa should be given veto power.

@abcnoobie6636

5 жыл бұрын

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

@Diego-em7yj

5 жыл бұрын

India maybe in the future but South Africa? It’s smaller than Turkey.

@scattr7592

5 жыл бұрын

Brazil? Never! Its the most corrupted and dangerous country in latinamerica

@nandekhanyisomaposa3910

5 жыл бұрын

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.

@god5620

5 жыл бұрын

South Africa is literally one of the worst and most corrupt countries in the world, I would rather have Cuba than them.

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

@boku955

Жыл бұрын

uh no. those countries (bar the G4) aren't powerful enough to hold a seat.

@itsmeblank4028

Жыл бұрын

The council does seems very........uniform racial and political if you ask me

@jaywang4441

5 ай бұрын

Germany and Japan? What a joke

@johnyr7654

5 ай бұрын

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.

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

@kkhmdfk

5 жыл бұрын

It's A Nuclear Country With 3rd GDP should hv a veto

@soumyaranjanbiswal3944

5 жыл бұрын

IKR.. they always come with stereotypical reply like 3rd world country,shithole country as if your country is a saint !! Have no problem !

@rishabh2885

5 жыл бұрын

@@fanta6285 tbh china is much more developed than India...we still have a long way to go😔

@cheydinal5401

5 жыл бұрын

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.

@ShnoogleMan

5 жыл бұрын

Random Boi I agree.

Veto is undemocratic

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 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.

G4 should be added to P5!

Abolish the Veto and bring in more members. Bring in Germany, Brazil, Mexico, Japan, India, Indonesia and either South Africa, Nigeria or Ethiopia.

@gryffith1378

5 жыл бұрын

The Wattman it should be a representative or two from each major region. USA, Brazil, UK, Germany, Egypt, Nigeria, Russia, China, and Malaysia

@cheydinal5401

5 жыл бұрын

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.

@davesdinnerz9243

5 жыл бұрын

@@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

both solutions are vital. even the expanded nations could misuse the veto power expansion of the council is also vital to provide representation.

5:24 his words are absolute facts ❤️🇵🇸

The single biggest mistake was making just one P5 member able to veto to bring down any resolution. Plurality decision, not unanimous.

00:01 UNITED KINGDOM: *_The Emperors Still Love To Take On Asian Culture!_*

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.

@user-ww7un5rf9s

10 ай бұрын

I agree with you.

@leedoped6795

7 ай бұрын

The United Nations was established due to World War II, with clear enemies being Germany and Japan.

@quietdissent5482

5 ай бұрын

India 😆

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.

United States used veto power more frequently than any other P5 combined

Either remove veto rights or make it so tberes a limit to veto votes.

The presentation largely overlooks the frequency of use of veto by the United States

@user-nk2ee8dg7q

3 жыл бұрын

81

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.

i also open UN office in my garage.. where we only discuss world affairs 😂😂😁

It would be interesting to see an uncut interview with the representative from Amnesty International.

u interview an Indian?they will say otherwise if they get a permanent seat lmao

Imagine if you let the biggest mafia bosses be the judge in every court that oversees mafia related crime. Oh I'm sure you may be able to prosecute some of the smaller gangs, but there's the glaring problem of just having given complete power to the individuals who already had far too much power

Introduction of G-4 nations into the permanent members of the council is crucial.

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.

@learn2farm509

5 жыл бұрын

Russia China and USA are the only ones that should have the veto power no other country could cause the level of devastation those country have the potential to

@galaxymode

4 жыл бұрын

@@learn2farm509 both france and uk has nuclear weapons, and has the economy to sustain a global war so...

@kimeli

3 жыл бұрын

india cannot sustain a war, even as we speak indians are starving to death.

Perhaps it's time the United Nations became a democracy with no special members.

@larryh2099

5 жыл бұрын

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.

@ayushkumar-bg1xf

5 жыл бұрын

@@larryh2099 how not giving veto to powerful India prevent war while giving veto to tiny UK helps .

@larryh2099

5 жыл бұрын

​@@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.

*Where there is power, there is a path to abuse it*

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

@learn2farm509

5 жыл бұрын

hahaha that would make the veto completely useless... 1 is all thats required to set a world war in motion

Thats why Soekarno (first President of Indonesia) leave UN.

There should be some mechanism to overrule a veto. Like a two-thirds super majority in the general assembly.

@dilowhassan2301

2 жыл бұрын

It wil cause another world war

Just require a majority of the P5 to veto

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.

6:39 The Middle East IS IN ASIA

@hopesy12u4

4 жыл бұрын

Semantics

@deeptig3972

3 жыл бұрын

I think she said "And Asia" but whatever...

Great Video! Explained the entire thing incredibly well

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.

Why are those 5 countries permenant? What was the criteria for choosing these countries? If applying same criteria today, those countries will be selected again? Or new countries would replace them? How can i assure that the country using the veto is not looking for its own national benefits but for the betterment of the nations involved in a certain dispute?

Very useful video. Make a video about Western vs Eastern thoughts on globalization

" elite counsel" that's all i need to know

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.

In my opinion the organisation or organisations mostly afected by a vetoe should have the right too refuse the vetoe at the U.N. even if it not a member.

I love you so much by your speech I'm from தமிழ் நாடு (Tamil Nadu ) INDIA

Hear that France?Without the Uk u wouldn't have had the power of veto I'm sorry France I luv u 🇫🇷

@TransoceanicOutreach

5 жыл бұрын

The UK also (secretly) gave them nuclear secrets for reactors and bombs, jet engines and computer/electronics tech after WW2.

@learn2farm509

5 жыл бұрын

Neither the UK or France should have veto power a single one of the big 3 would utter destroy them in a disagreement they both have it tho because they are USA mil allies

@matthowells6382

4 жыл бұрын

@@learn2farm509 They are still nuclear powers with significant global influence

@aAverageFan

Жыл бұрын

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.

Categorize resolutions into "democratic" and "permanent member approval required". Resolutions with direct humanitarian impact must be democratically passed. Resolutions with military intervention can have veto power. Veto power is definitely necessary and should not be removed. Also, a veto power should be overruled if all non-members nations and 4 of the permanent members decide that it should be. That is if 14 of 15 members vote in favor of any resolution.

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 😊🙏🏼.

Great video! Very structured and informative and I do not notice much propaganda towards a certain country, which is rare nowadays!

I'm pretty sure that if the US had the opportunity to add more nations to the un security council, it wouldn't be the G4 nations that will get seat at the table, it would be Saudi Arabia and Israel...

@kosrules1884

5 жыл бұрын

How about India and Japan who are about to close allies of the US under very peaceful countries.

@speedy01247

5 жыл бұрын

India is potentially likely to swing to Russia's side if it was allowed on the council as a permanent member, you likely lack some knowledge around India's relationship with the us (the US sided with Pakistan in several disputes while Russia sided with India)

@akshitrajput757

5 жыл бұрын

@@speedy01247 actually we are neutral, nd the founding father of Non Aligned Movement. If some mishap happens nd WW3 gets started, India will pretty sure be neutral.

@youraverageimperialguard7932

5 жыл бұрын

Akshit Rajput you weren't the founding father of the non alignment Movement.

@tanmaykumar4561

5 жыл бұрын

@@youraverageimperialguard7932 Yes we were, India was one of the founders of NAM

Veto power should be abolished... change it with a voting one.... veto only happen if more than 60% is agree to do so

I think Brazil deserves one because that would help south america as they don't have any unsc permanent member. And next in line should be India or Japan, this is to maintain balance of power in asia. I am not aware of the fact why Germany need it because Europe already have 3 members

simple just create a new UN of India Japan Brazil Germany n South Africa. which is from all corners

@yangchen9556

5 жыл бұрын

FILM vid Then this new UN don’t work at all

@kimeli

5 жыл бұрын

only 5 countries in new UN?

@larryh2099

5 жыл бұрын

Those nations would only have the power to enforce resolutions that affect those nations.

Thank you this videos helped me so much

There is now a suspend the veto law when mass quantities of casualtees were involved.

India: Can I join you? UK, France, US, Russia: OK. China: VETO! VETO! VETO!

@hzt4950

3 жыл бұрын

Stupid, in fact, five countries take turns to veto

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

@thesaintftw2613

5 жыл бұрын

Quite interesting that you said about my country but....i don't agree with Singapore in the Usnc

@PrograError

5 жыл бұрын

@@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.

@thesaintftw2613

5 жыл бұрын

@@PrograError how about Switzerland?

@PrograError

5 жыл бұрын

neutral but, the UNHQ is already in Geneva... so i thought maybe some other country should pick up the mantle

@polvorosarobm.96

5 жыл бұрын

i think the UN needs non-aligned members to the permanent seats

Can the UN get rid of the Veto system?

@sircastic959

5 жыл бұрын

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)

@ayushkumar-bg1xf

5 жыл бұрын

@@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 believe that in order to bring a balance in this whole veto power thing. All the other members of the UN should vote to abolish the veto system in its totality. Complicated decisions like the ones taken only by the permanent 5 members of the security council should be taken in a broader configuration of members, let's say at least 25 members, 5 from each continent. And they should put it to vote only. The resolution is taken when at least 0.1% above 50% of those voting voted in favor of a resolution. And if later on it is discovered that members of a country were bribed to vote for or against a resolution. The country and the people representing that country should be sanctioned. The country that paid the bribe should be sanctioned as well. Also the powerful countries may not try to influence the voting by threatening poor countries with paying of their debts to the powerful countries. For me that's the only way the big powerful countries will be forced not to defend their interest.