you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 38 points 7 months ago (10 children)

Yea, and the US "vote" is actually a veto. The US needs to lose its UN veto power because of shit like this.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    No single country should have veto power in the first place.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago

    The problem with this is that it's either veto through vote or veto through force. The US can easily flip the table and walk out to try to enforce whatever it wants but that's obviously bad for world peace so this is its ineffective but less destructive compromise.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 7 months ago* (4 children)
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago* (1 child)

    Right, and the dumb part now is that nobody in the world expects this to mean shit. Even if it would have been unanimous.

    You don't solve world hunger with UN votes. You solve it with technological and economical advancement, by advancing women's rights and with better access to contraceptives.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago

    Gee I wonder what would it take to solve world hunger. Maybe a comprehensive strategic plan that changes minds of decision makers and pressures them through diplomacy and negotiations. Perhaps we could pool resources at the same time to distribute food to the countries most affected by sitemic historical injustice. Someone should manage that complex of a problem. Maybe a neutral governing body that ensures it's well managed and countries pay something up front towards this problem. We should call it the league of countries against hunger, or the coalition of groups of people. I don't know, I'm bad at naming things.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Yes, but the US no vote was an automatic veto. They had to remove anything that affected the US and then get all the other UN members to vote on it just to get it to pass. Any P5 nation with veto power can pull the teeth out of a UN resolution.

    A "no" vote from a P5 is always a veto. When any of the P5 vote “no” in the Council, a resolution cannot move forward. Council members can, however, resolve their differences and propose new drafts for a vote by the Council. They can also call on a vote from the wider UN membership – the 193 Member States that make up the General Assembly (GA).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

    No, it's not. Your confusion probably stems from the fact that the US has veto power over UN Security Council Resolutions. It cannot veto Resolutions passed by the General Assembly. This was a General Assembly Resolution.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Honestly, the UN has been a farce for a long time because of this exact issue. If a handful of countries have veto power then the whole point of the group was moot from the beginning.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    Veto power is supposed to represent nuclear power. The logic is that it is way better for a country to veto a resolution than it bombing another country because they got pissy.

    I always remind people that the UN's mission is not to solve all the world's problems, but to stop countries from tearing each other apart and avoiding all out nuclear mutual annihilation. So far, it has succeeded.

    I also hate that it has no teeth against modern issues, like genocides of non nation state peoples. But genocide didn't even exist as a concept when it was created. The concept was coined by a Jewish legalist who scaped the holocaust.

    BTW, same dude hated the guts of Zionist israel and warned that an ethnostate would lead to genocide eventually. He was 100% right.

  • source
  • parent