UN Security : The right of a permanent member to veto majority decision is justified?

[TITS KING]

Re: UN Security : The right of a permanent member to veto majority decision is justif

It is a general discussion about an international issue not about a specific country. Here are some other permanent members of this organization also.
We have to live in this world respecting each other as an individual, community and nation irrespective of the color, race and language. That is the basic analogy in simple words, without rounding about the words. Here we have to look if we are discussing 300 population of any country, then there are countries in the World having population over 1000 million. These are facts......:hatsoff:

 

[Member2019]

Re: UN Security : The right of a permanent member to veto majority decision is justif

Here we have to look if we are discussing 300 population of any country, then there are countries in the World having population over 1000 million.

And that country is also a permanent member of the UN Security Council as well -- well before they became communist or a nuclear power, or a major, industrial power for that matter.

If you take India out of the equation (who might warrant a permanent seat with veto power now, but that's another story), you're talking about quite a bit of the world's population, production and wealth who sit on the UN Security Council as permanent members.

- China
- France
- Russia
- UK
- US

In fact, one could argue a better make-up for today would be:

- China
- CIS (not just Russia)
- EU (merging France and the UK)
- India
- US

Considering the population, production and wealth involved of each. That would reflect half of the world population and the overwhelming majority of production and military might.

Now do you see my original point? No offense, but a lot of nations don't warrant a say in the Security Council for a reason, and the veto power exists for a reason.

 

[marquis2]

Re: UN Security : The right of a permanent member to veto majority decision is justif

And that country is also a permanent member of the UN Security Council as well -- well before they became communist or a nuclear power, or a major, industrial power for that matter.

If you take India out of the equation (who might warrant a permanent seat with veto power now, but that's another story), you're talking about quite a bit of the world's population, production and wealth who sit on the UN Security Council as permanent members.

- China
- France
- Russia
- UK
- US

In fact, one could argue a better make-up for today would be:

- China
- CIS (not just Russia)
- EU (merging France and the UK)
- India
- US

Considering the population, production and wealth involved of each. That would reflect half of the world population and the overwhelming majority of production and military might.

Now do you see my original point? No offense, but a lot of nations don't warrant a say in the Security Council for a reason, and the veto power exists for a reason.

The EU would never agree collectively on anything.I can't see why France was ever made a Permanent Member in the first place.

 

[Member2019]

Ummm ...

The EU would never agree collectively on anything.I can't see why France was ever made a Permanent Member in the first place.

Ummm, it has a lot to do with the French attitude at the end of WWII. Ironically the French didn't feel the need to give up their colonies and other things either. It still perplexes me to this day as well. I.e., the British and US could have easily shunned the French out, although it was likely argued that the British and US could use a 3rd vote against the USSR in the UN Security Council (this was before China went Communist).

 

[TITS KING]

Re: UN Security : The right of a permanent member to veto majority decision is justif

And that country is also a permanent member of the UN Security Council as well -- well before they became communist or a nuclear power, or a major, industrial power for that matter.

If you take India out of the equation (who might warrant a permanent seat with veto power now, but that's another story), you're talking about quite a bit of the world's population, production and wealth who sit on the UN Security Council as permanent members.

- China
- France
- Russia
- UK
- US

In fact, one could argue a better make-up for today would be:

- China
- CIS (not just Russia)
- EU (merging France and the UK)
- India
- US

Considering the population, production and wealth involved of each. That would reflect half of the world population and the overwhelming majority of production and military might.

Now do you see my original point? No offense, but a lot of nations don't warrant a say in the Security Council for a reason, and the veto power exists for a reason.

My friend here the main issue is not that who should be further included in this group group, which always think might is right. The World is tired off of the existing group. This group emerged at a time when most of the countries were under colonial system or either struggling to get freedom from the old rubbish colonial system.
The World in the last 60 years has gone through a lot of changes. Those who were slaves 100 years ago can now talk about their rights and this is not being offered to them by someone but rather they had struggled for it. Now under the new era of democracy this concept of veto power; the right of a single member to humiliate the majority of the council members and reject their verdict/vote needs to be declared as obsolete and useless if this organization has to be fairly run. Otherwise this council will remain as a dummy puppet in the hands of five countries and as someone has said on this forum, all the sovereign nations should quit this forum.