278
submitted 1 year ago by RealRichie@lemm.ee to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
all 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Dolores@hexbear.net 60 points 1 year ago

here's a compromise, we get rid of all the vetos, and let the general assembly make binding decisions. surely the majority of the world's population & nations would vote in support of Western Democratic interests

[-] muad_dibber@lemmygrad.ml 30 points 1 year ago

Nice. The !alwaysthesamemap@lemmygrad.ml countries would be none too pleased about this.

[-] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago

How are you going to enforce those "binding" decisions?

[-] Dolores@hexbear.net 30 points 1 year ago

how is zelensky going to get a country that can veto any motion to give up its veto? it's complete fantasy. i'm addressing the idea russia's veto is unfair or undeserved, but somehow everyone else's isn't.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Maoo@hexbear.net 14 points 1 year ago
[-] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 5 points 1 year ago

Attempting to create a Supra National World Government like this would cause most, if not all, of the industrialized nations to immediately leave. Even China would pack up its office and walk out the door.

[-] c0mpost@lemmy.eco.br 39 points 1 year ago

It's all about nuclear power. All nations in the Security Council have the power to end civilization with nuclear weapons. That's what this war is about as well, Russia is just showing it can do as it pleases. There can be no democracy with such disparity of bellic power, that's the reason that institution exists and it's foolish to assume Russia could be expelled.

[-] zephyreks@programming.dev 19 points 1 year ago

Then India and North Korea should be on the Security Council 🤷‍♀️

[-] c0mpost@lemmy.eco.br 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You have a point. India and Pakistan are out of the Security Council because they are underdeveloped and are busy having their nuclear missiles aimed at each other. North Korea has at most only a couple of ICBMs and is unable to destroy our entire civilization, even though it can create a lot of destruction with those. That is the most troublesome of nations for the UN, because they don't give a fuck about rules and are slowly increasing their bellic power, thus all the fuss about them improving their nuclear program with the help of Russia. Geopolitics is fun.

[-] Tankiedesantski@hexbear.net 17 points 1 year ago

Nah the real reason the UNSC seats are what they are is that they're the winners of WWII.

If anything, kick France out because they did fuck all.

[-] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 13 points 1 year ago

Nuclear power is unrelated to the security Council permanent members. They were simply the world powers that won WWII. At the time, many of them didn't have nukes yet.

[-] XbSuper@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

May not be how it started, but it's what it's become.

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe -1 points 1 year ago

It is, however, one of the reasons people occasionally agitate to remove Russia because it wasn't Russia that won WW2.

It was the USSR, a major component of such being Ukraine.

[-] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 13 points 1 year ago

There can be no democracy with such disparity of bellic power

You think it's democratic for other nuclear armed countries to lord over the rest, as long as they're not Russia? amerikkka-clap

[-] TerminalEncounter@hexbear.net 28 points 1 year ago

I dunno how they're gonna go about that considering Russia could just veto that attempt to strip them lol and citing PRCs permanent security councils seat is just silly.

[-] Tankiedesantski@hexbear.net 13 points 1 year ago

There is, however, precedent: the UN General Assembly in 1971 stripped Taiwan of the veto power it held as the representative of China, handing it instead to the communist government of the mainland.

Strip Russia of its veto power and give it to the PRC. Xi can have two vetoes, as a treat.

[-] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Because that is not Russia's seat. It's the Soviet Union's seat. They left the Soviet Union in 1990. In fact, Ukraine left after them, so they have a better claim to the UN seat.

[-] dannoffs@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 1 year ago

That argument might have made sense if it were being made in like 1992 but it's been Russia's seat for over 30 years

[-] Krause@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Because that is not Russia’s seat.

It is.

It’s the Soviet Union’s seat.

And the Russian Federation (formerly the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic) is the legal successor to the Soviet Union.

They left the Soviet Union in 1990.

The Russian SFSR never "left" or "declared independence from" the Soviet Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_State_Sovereignty_of_the_Russian_Soviet_Federative_Socialist_Republic

they have a better claim to the UN seat.

The UN disagrees, sorry.

[-] KevonLooney@lemm.ee -3 points 1 year ago

Of course they declared independence. They're no longer part of it.

Russia left the USSR on June 12 1990 and declared independence on December 12 1991.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Union

The CIS replaced the USSR. Russia was only one of the signatories. They are not the only successor entity.

The Belovezha Accords were signed on 8 December by President Boris Yeltsin of Russia, President Kravchuk of Ukraine, and Chairman Shushkevich of Belarus, recognizing each other's independence and creating the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) to replace the Soviet Union.

Because of this war, they've lost their legitimacy and can no longer credibly lead the world.

[-] Krause@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 1 year ago

Of course they declared independence.

So you should be able to show me this alleged declaration of independence, right?

Because of this war, they’ve lost their legitimacy and can no longer credibly lead the world.

According to whom, you?

[-] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

For both dates:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_State_Sovereignty_of_the_Russian_Soviet_Federative_Socialist_Republic

The Declaration was adopted by the First Congress of People's Deputies of the Russian SFSR on 12 June 1990. It proclaimed the sovereignty of the Russian SFSR and the intention to establish a democratic constitutional state within a liberalized Soviet Union.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belovezha_Accords

The main obligations of the parties to the Agreement, ratified by all former Soviet republics except Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, includes the following:

  1. The end of the existence of the USSR, with the "setting up of lawfully constituted democratic… independent states… on the basis of mutual recognition of and respect for State sovereignty".

Clear enough for you? The CIS is the successor to the USSR, not Russia.

[-] Krause@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It proclaimed the sovereignty of the Russian SFSR and the intention to establish a democratic constitutional state within a liberalized Soviet Union.

within a liberalized Soviet Union

So they didn't declare "independence" from the USSR like the other republics, thanks for making my point for me.

[-] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Correct, not until the second document they signed in 1991 and agreed that the Soviet Union was dissolved and the CIS was its successor. Not Russia.

[-] Krause@lemmygrad.ml -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

CIS was its successor

Where is this written? Can you give me a direct quote instead of pretending that your interpretation of the documents (which goes against the interpretation by all CIS parties and the United Nations at the time) is correct?

[-] emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

Kazakhstan will rise again!

[-] brain_in_a_box@hexbear.net 26 points 1 year ago

It's discouraging to hear that the President of Ukraine understands how the UN works about as well as the average redditor.

[-] mtchristo@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago

He never stopped being a comedian this Zelensky

[-] SeaJ@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

I am going to guess that Russia would veto that resolution...

The only way to get rid of the veto powers would be to setup a completely different institution. That would be nice but it will never happen.

this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2023
278 points (96.0% liked)

World News

32083 readers
906 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS