Let's talk about the unfairness of the UN Security Council

[Robbie3000]

How did other countries even agree to this scheme? If the UN is truly a global organization representing nation members equally(in spirit anyway), why do they allow a few countries to sit on the Security Council and allow these countries to have veto power over global policy?

I'm not really familiar with the mechanics of the UN so maybe someone can break down the UN security council.

 

[zerozero]

The current global power order is mostly the fallout of WWII

I feel like we're moving into a phase that kinda goes behind that era now... especially with the rise of non-western countries

 

[Robbie3000]

The current global power order is mostly the fallout of WWII

I feel like we're moving into a phase that kinda goes behind that era now... especially with the rise of non-western countries

Yeah I understand that, but 60 years later, why do other countries put up with this security council?

 

[Gallo]

Yeah I understand that, but 60 years later, why do other countries put up with this security council?

Wouldn't you want free parking in New York City?

 

[Jello Biafra]

The 5 permanent members are OK with me just based on what the primary reason for the Security Council to exist at all and that is to be responsible for maintaining international security and peace. How many other nations have the military capacity to uphold that duty? And how many other nations are always in the thick of whatever military bullshyt goes on in the world?
Right now the non-permanent members of the Council consist of countries like Argentina, Togo, Luxembourg and Guatemala.
Aint nobody gonna pay any attention to them when it comes time to decide whether to intervene militarily in another nation's conflict.

 

[Robbie3000]

The 5 permanent members are OK with me just based on what the primary reason for the Security Council to exist at all and that is to be responsible for maintaining international security and peace. How many other nations have the military capacity to uphold that duty? And how many other nations are always in the thick of whatever military bullshyt goes on in the world?
Right now the non-permanent members of the Council consist of countries like Argentina, Togo, Luxembourg and Guatemala.
Aint nobody gonna pay any attention to them when it comes time to decide whether to intervene militarily in another nation's conflict.

How about they do it democratically and give each nation a vote on security matters? The current system favors western nations. France, UK, US have the same interests. China and Russia are usually allies. What about the other continents. Where is the veto representation for South America and Africa?

 

[Mr. Somebody]

How about they do it democratically and give each nation a vote on security matters? The current system favors western nations. France, UK, US have the same interests. China and Russia are usually allies. What about the other continents. Where is the veto representation for South America and Africa?

Its so demonic, friends.

 

[Blackking]

Its so demonic, friends.

if u meant for the video to show an error.... then


that's just perfect.

 

[theworldismine13]

How about they do it democratically and give each nation a vote on security matters? The current system favors western nations. France, UK, US have the same interests. China and Russia are usually allies. What about the other continents. Where is the veto representation for South America and Africa?

the security council is based on military power and the winners of WWII, if any country wants to change it they would have to get their weight up

 

[Robbie3000]

the security council is based on military power and the winners of WWII, if any country wants to change it they would have to get their weight up

So what you are saying is that its an outdated system that needs reforming as it doesn't reflect the global reality especially concerning England.

 

[theworldismine13]

So what you are saying is that its an outdated system that needs reforming as it doesn't reflect the global reality especially concerning England.

How is it outdated? What countries are more powerful militarily than those in the security council or than the UK?

 

[unit321]

Wouldn't you want free parking in New York City?

LOL

 

[unit321]

How did other countries even agree to this scheme? If the UN is truly a global organization representing nation members equally(in spirit anyway), why do they allow a few countries to sit on the Security Council and allow these countries to have veto power over global policy?

I'm not really familiar with the mechanics of the UN so maybe someone can break down the UN security council.

Well, they wanted to prevent another world war after WWII was over. At the time, the Soviets were good guys because they fought against Germany. After the fact, the USSR became the bad guys but they had the backstage pass which was kind of like giving court side seats to a jump-off next to the player's wife.

 

[the cac mamba]

lets face it, the fact that the UN even exists is just the security council throwin the rest of the world a fukkin bone

 

[mbewane]

Yeah I understand that, but 60 years later, why do other countries put up with this security council?

They put up with it just for the same reason they put up with the US invading Iraq with lies: they can't do much about it. But there is a slow push to change.

The 5 permanent members are OK with me just based on what the primary reason for the Security Council to exist at all and that is to be responsible for maintaining international security and peace. How many other nations have the military capacity to uphold that duty? And how many other nations are always in the thick of whatever military bullshyt goes on in the world?
Right now the non-permanent members of the Council consist of countries like Argentina, Togo, Luxembourg and Guatemala.
Aint nobody gonna pay any attention to them when it comes time to decide whether to intervene militarily in another nation's conflict.

Countries like India, Pakistan, South Africa have armies that are at least relevant in their regional sphere, without even considering Israel.

The sole reason for the Security Council to be set up as it is is that it was like this 60 years ago. Period. There is no other logic to its current composition.

Obviously those five countries are doing all that they can to prevent the situation from changing, while there has been a push for change: Brazil, India, SA have legitimate shots at entering, if only for regional representation. There also has been talks of the EU having just one seat (instead of GB and France having one each, but no official EU seat) should the Council integrate other countries, but I doubt GB would ever accept that. Hell they might have left the EU by then.