When the UN was founded after world war 2 it was set up so that the major allies on the winning side had the veto.
In an organization where each country however small has a vote there is logic in the countries representing the major populations, economic and miltary power having a method to avoid a majority of insignificant countries [population, economic military]. voting against their interests.
1. These powers were the founders of the Un, and they structured it so they would have a veto. Having come out of the war as winners they wished to retain their dominant position, plus it was a necessary condition to get initial agreement to set up the UN.
2. The great powers are essential to any organized Un action. Any UN action proposed and voted by a majority of countries would not be carried out if any great power refused to cooperate, with or without a veto. The veto recognized this reality. It guaranteed[or attempted to guarantee] that Un action with the approval of the veto powers would have the clout to be carried out. On major cold war issues [for 50 years] such agreement could never be achieved [except for Korea where USSR was absent for the vote] so NATO was formed as a military alliance by the western allies to defend against possible Russian aggression into west Europe. The veto was and continues to be a major restraint on any major action by the UN. Some would argue this is bad others that it is good.
3. since the UN includes many countries with less population than major ciities, it would be unrealistic to expect large powers to be guided by these votes on major issues involving their interests. The veto was considered a simple and effective way to achieve this distinction. The alternative of multiple votes for great powers could never be agreed and was considered less effective. In fact USSR, to increase its voting power in the UN, insisted on its various regional govts, Ukraine, Kazackstan etc. having a UN vote. This obvious deception was accepted to bring USSR into the UN at the outset.
4. These initail compromises with reality were set in concrete in the world body and 60 years later are hard to amend to changing circumstances. e.g. India with a billion people, and new economic powers , Japan, Brazil etc are currently seeking permanent security council status and perhaps veto power, to recognize their position in today's world. Given existing veto powers such change will be difficult to achieve.
Because of the reality of national power and national interest some form of veto power by the major powers will remain necessary for the Un to exist and be effective in other fields.
Veto power is not an honor it is real power.
2006-09-16 03:59:17
·
answer #1
·
answered by Fred R 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Why do no longer we merely provide up having the U.N.? it relatively is constructive no longer scuffling with worldwide war III because it substitute into meant to do. whether, some variety of veto is needed to any government physique. Vetos provide up pointless spending. additionally, keep in mind that america gets vetoed a lot to boot. to boot, america does not actual choose the U.N. for it relatively is 'war On Terror'. have you ever men actual been assisting? I hadn't observed. In Lebanon, what if Israel have been to renounce scuffling with? Do you think of Hezbollah would? heavily? I too sense undesirable for the Lebanese human beings, yet we can't assume Israel to standby on a similar time as some team of idiots launches rockets all day long at them.
2016-10-01 00:45:06
·
answer #2
·
answered by Erika 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
its kinda like a nuclear club thing the countris who made nukes before signing the NPT have veto power and it only belongs to permanant members of the UN security council:
USA
China
Russia
UK
France
the countries applying for permanant UNSC membership have less chance of getting veto powers
and yeah for sure they must have the same honours as others just to make it fair
2006-09-16 03:13:16
·
answer #3
·
answered by YR1947 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
The U.N is just a way to bypass the sovreignty of countries and their people.
So instead of answering i'll just say, lets get rid of the whole damn thing.
2006-09-16 03:09:58
·
answer #4
·
answered by big-brother 3
·
0⤊
0⤋