Should UN Veto Powers be stripped?

Question

With countries like the United States using their veto power to ensure that their policies are enforced overseas, should this relic of post-World War 2 be scrapped in favour of a more even handed system?
Veto powers should at least require the backing of at least a third of the countries involved i think. During the cold war the Soviet Union and the United States used their veto's to inflict their war all over the world, and now the United States is using theirs to enforce their new 'War on Terror' in regards to relations and conflicts in other countries such as Lebanon.
Why should only certain countries have such a power?


Remember, the United States vetoed a resolution for a ceasefire in the middle east.

Also, this is not anti-american, its just that they have used their veto most recent, and most frequent in the past decade.

Answer 1

Increasingly the G8 and the european union will become much more important as they offer forums where positions can really be put forward, and not silenced with vetos.
Veto powers should be stripped as it does not facilitate a forum on a level playing field.
However as much as I personally would like to see the political leaders of the world express their positions the fact is that this can no longer be done without undue accusations of being "with them". George "WW3" Bush's policies of polarising the world may be a political gem on his behalf but he has not allowed any room for his allies to give him a little tap on the shoulder and say "why don't you just shut up and we'll tell you what you're doing, and what we think" with them being accused of being against the allies and with the terrorists.
This simplification may help American's understand the world a little better, but for those of us who keep our eyes open it is an attempt by the US to silence the international critics of its policies.

Yes the Veto should be banned, or at least some part of the UN should have the power to revoke a veto on grounds of stifling much needed debate.

I encourage people to do a little research on the vetos made in the past. The US clearly has some explaining to do, but I guess you didn't see that on CNN.

Answer 2

Why don't we just stop having the U.N.? It's sure not preventing World War III as it was intended to do.

However, some form of veto is necessary to any government body. Vetos stop unnecessary spending. Also, remember that the United States gets vetoed quite a bit as well.

Besides, the United States doesn't really need the U.N. for it's 'War On Terror'. Have you guys actually been helping? I hadn't noticed. In Lebanon, what if Israel were to stop fighting? Do you think Hezbollah would? Seriously? I too feel bad for the Lebanese people, but we can't expect Israel to standby while some group of idiots launches rockets all day long at them.

Answer 3

Do you realy think that UN matters, even if you stripped veto powers in the security council, nothing would change.
Official function of the council is only to enable discussion between world superpowers which are pemanent members, and the rest are there for furniture.

Answer 4

Yes, the possibility to overturmn a veto by a larg majority would be nice, but if you consider that the US now already ignores thge UN when it doesn't like it, this will only make the gap wider.

Sorry, no easy solution from me either.

Answer 5

the UN is a joke .Koffi has stolen enough put him in jail and send the others back to their countries.
In 2000 the UN passed 2 articles to dis-arm Hezbollah but they have 10000 rockets to attack Israel .And terrorist are complaining they are getting a good butt kicking
You must be on drugs if you say the US has used the veto most in the lasy decade .

Answer 6

check out the veto by us for israel.
http://www.action-for-un-renewal.org.uk/pages/isreal_un_resolutions.htm

Answer 7

u r right