USA believes that it is one of the best democracies. But they are not. Think about their action in United Nations. As long as there are veto members in UN, there is no democarcy in UN. All the nations of the world are sidelined. Survival of the fittest emerges. USA should give up or demand that all the five members give up their veto status and show to the world the meaning of democracy? Any takers?
2006-09-03 22:53:48 · 12 answers · asked by devil 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
USA believes that it is one of the best democracies. But they are not. Think about their action in United Nations. As long as there are veto members in UN, there is no democarcy in UN. All the nations of the world are sidelined. Survival of the fittest emerges. USA should give up or demand that all the five members give up their veto status and show to the world the meaning of democracy? Any takers?
2006-09-04 22:10:37 · update #1
You are absolutely correct.
It is called hypocrisy. Hypocrisy of preaching to the world that we are we believe in democracy and fairness while oppressing the voice and voting power of weaker nations.
To the guy above me that said we fund the UN therefore we should have more power... then call a spade a spade then. That is what this asker is asking... he is saying that we claim democracy but it isn't. That is true!!! And the guy above me just proved it.
The United Nations was created by 51 countries and 5 permanent countries that were the victors of WW2. Those 5 are: France, the USA, The UK, China and Russia. The 5 core countries have the power to veto anything and all must agree in order for anything to be passed.
I heard part of a speech the other day by the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, where he made a very valid point. He referred to how many years was this setup intended for... 10, 50, 1000 years??? That is a very good question and makes a person think.
Anyways, good question and you are very justified in your conclusions.
2006-09-03 23:08:33 · answer #1 · answered by BeachBum 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The UN is not a good example for it is not a democracy. It's membership is made up of representatives of the present leadership of a country. Stalin had a representative, Saddam had one etc. Your argument against the veto and it's disposition is well brought up but I think the US has need of a veto in a organization that makes Saudi Arabia, with its record of torture, unexplained lengthy detentions, refusal to admit that women are human beings, and a blind eye on slavery within its borders, the chair of the Human Rights Commission
2006-09-03 23:12:47 · answer #2 · answered by ? 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The United Nations exists because we (the USA) fund it and we host it... 70% of the nations IN the UN are NOT democracies, so how can any pro democratic goals be accomplished?? This is the whole point of the security counsel and by giving democratic/federalist governments veto status.
2006-09-03 23:07:10 · answer #3 · answered by Moose 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I sooooo agree....there should be no more veto power in the UN.
'The United Nations Security Council veto power is a veto power wielded solely by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, enabling them to void any Security Council substantive resolution regardless of the level of general support. This power is exercised when any permanent member enters a "nay" vote.'
and why were they chosen
'The veto system was established to protect the interests of the founding members of the United Nations, which were the countries that won World War II.'
World war 11 was almost half a century ago...and the countries tat threatened the interests of the founding members are no longer a threat....instead one of the founding members are claiming to be threatened...but where is the hard core proof...
UN weapons inspectors initially claimed to have seen WMD in Iraq...but later they can't prove it was ever there...
They are no longer the only permanent members...as of 2006 there are 192 United Nations (UN) member states...so they should have a say in wat should n shouldnt be done..
UN should stick up and abolish veto power...wit majority of the countries practicing democracy the UN should too...
2006-09-03 23:08:35 · answer #4 · answered by aneurinaa 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
It will never happen, much like all nuclear-armed countries should destroy their own nuclear weapons if they're going to insist that others can't have them either. The US simply doesn't trust other countries to have the technology / influence that it has. It is deeply ironic that this policy is effectively militarising and radicalising opposition to the US and making it more dangerous, not less. Moreover, its non-consensual way of dealing with international politics - from personal experience I can say that, for example, the War on Terror, *unconditional* Israeli support (publicly at least) etc. are deeply unpopular in Europe and Asia at least - undermines the whole concept of democracy for many anyway. So should the US, which doesn't act democratically a lot of the time, demonstrate democracy in a one-off move in the hope that it will eradicate the bitterness developed towards it? Not unless it is accompanied by a whole host of strategic changes, because on its own it simply wouldn't be enough.
2006-09-03 23:09:02 · answer #5 · answered by ? 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
First, you are wrong about our believal in our democracy and secondly, who is to judge the security of the world...Sikkim...perhaps the Vatican...and those five nations might just take their money and go home... Look at India with corruption, poverty, indecision, and Pakistan following very close, or Mexico...how about Colombia with its war on their own police or Sri Lanka and their domestic strife. Advocation of democracy is one thing but the alternatives are???? You are suffering from tunnel vision. I am an American and I don't agree with national policies but having lived in Asia most of my life, I haven't seen many viable options....many of the countries of the world can't manage their own problems, let alone decide for others.
2006-09-03 23:04:36 · answer #6 · answered by Frank 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I believe the US would prefer it if the rest of the world had democratically elected governments, it would serve our interests best.
Never forget however that despite your personal beliefs, might does make right, and that is how it has been since humans first walked the face of the earth. I'm just glad I live with the Big Dog.
2006-09-09 06:30:41 · answer #7 · answered by rmagedon 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No country ever wanted democracy for the UN.
The UN is too worthless and corrupt for it to be trusted with democracy.
2006-09-03 23:03:20 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No it does not. it might sell the dream of democracy but no it does not. if our government gives you the right to vote and thy rig elections then it does not. if the government goes to war without discussing it with the ppl of the USA through a Representative WHO is smart and unbiased , then it is not a democracy. if it does not give ppl of other nations the right to of freedom of expression and national security measures then it does not . The USA is only selling the concept , but when push comes to shove , it is fake.
the USA is keeping it's ppl under the illusion of democracy , if you do not like g bush , you can say it , but can you change it ... the answer is no
2006-09-03 23:36:33 · answer #9 · answered by interested 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
OK, that would be nice, but do you really think that the US cares for someone else rather than themselves (except of course Israel)
2006-09-03 23:15:43 · answer #10 · answered by tsar 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋