Should the UN have the "big five"?

DeletedUser

Guest
You have China and Russia in the big five, and they say Germany cannot be trusted?

Never said it was the right decision. The SC was formed by the winners of WW2, so...

It seems now to be nuclear powers.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
The UN is losing power slowly.... Soon we will be seeing those five countries going against each other United Stats, Untied Kingdom, and France vs. China and Russia... So yes it would be good to have those big five, but those countries will not agree.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
The UN is losing power slowly.... Soon we will be seeing those five countries going against each other United Stats, Untied Kingdom, and France vs. China and Russia... So yes it would be good to have those big five, but those countries will not agree.

I'm honestly not sure we are. We are seeing a collapse in peace, but the UN is still extremely strong, albeit lazy. It's not like the LoN.
 

DeletedUser27128

Guest
Never said it was the right decision. The SC was formed by the winners of WW2, so...

It seems now to be nuclear powers.

Then there are other countries powerful with nuclear weapons which should also be included in the SC according to that logic..

IMHO, simply winning WW2 should not grant these 5 countries permanent places. Their actions and their decisions in the present day should.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I'm honestly not sure we are. We are seeing a collapse in peace, but the UN is still extremely strong, albeit lazy. It's not like the LoN.
How strong is the UN, peace will fall apart... In 2016 or 2017 we will be seeing NATO gaining mush more control then the UN... If UN wanted peace they could stop the war in Middle-East.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Lol, people in this thread are acting like WWIII is gonna happen in few years. :)

Also the UN is not as powerful as people seem to think, as in, they have basically no power whatsoever.
 

DeletedUser8396

Guest
Lol, people in this thread are acting like WWIII is gonna happen in few years. :)

Also the UN is not as powerful as people seem to think, as in, they have basically no power whatsoever.

This. So much this.
 

DeletedUser33530

Guest
Lol, people in this thread are acting like WWIII is gonna happen in few years. :)

Also the UN is not as powerful as people seem to think, as in, they have basically no power whatsoever.

they are the only organization less effective than the US congress.
 

DeletedUser49358

Guest
Lol, people in this thread are acting like WWIII is gonna happen in few years. :)

Also the UN is not as powerful as people seem to think, as in, they have basically no power whatsoever.

would have to agree on this one mostly the WWIII part :p
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser39031

Guest
Lol, people in this thread are acting like WWIII is gonna happen in few years. :)

Also the UN is not as powerful as people seem to think, as in, they have basically no power whatsoever.
Amen, Australian Government is breaking human rights laws and nothing so far other than a "warning".
 

DeletedUser50183

Guest
The UN is useless!!!

During genocide in rwanda the UN coined terms/phrases like- "we are seeing acts of genocide" and never actually proclaimed the fact that murdering hundreds of thousands of people was genocide so that the UN wouldn't be forced to intervene.

In the UN's charter they are forced to stop genocide from occuring, so as long as the massacres in rwanda were not labeled "genocide" the UN didn't have to do anything and so the killing's continued......
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I'd say yes, but that we should do away with the veto. A motion should need a majority to pass, not unanimous support. It is through the veto that we have ended up with a slapdash, indecisive policy in regards to so many areas- Most prominently in Israel, but more recently on the motion, proposed by the UK, to formally declare the atrocities in Srebrenica in 1995 a genocide. The Serbian government, who supported the military who carried out the genocide, enlisted Russia to block the motion.

So i'd say do away with the veto power and we'll see where we get to.
 

DeletedUser8396

Guest
I'd say yes, but that we should do away with the veto. A motion should need a majority to pass, not unanimous support. It is through the veto that we have ended up with a slapdash, indecisive policy in regards to so many areas- Most prominently in Israel, but more recently on the motion, proposed by the UK, to formally declare the atrocities in Srebrenica in 1995 a genocide. The Serbian government, who supported the military who carried out the genocide, enlisted Russia to block the motion.

So i'd say do away with the veto power and we'll see where we get to.

Too bad at least one of the big five would veto the proposal to remove the veto :p
 

DeletedUser33530

Guest
Too bad at least one of the big five would veto the proposal to remove the veto :p

Well time for nuclear war then. Pebble start us off by insulting Putin.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser35431

Guest
The topic: Should the UN have the "big five"?

The motion: This house believes that the 5 main member states UN should not have "veto power" to override a majority vote.

Details: The 5 main member states of the United Nations; China, Russia, France, the USA and Great Britain have so called "veto power" so that they can override a majority vote by the UN and it would not be passed, even though all other members of the UN voted for it. This is seen in examples such as the US does not let Palestine become a UN member state and China has not let Taiwan become an "officially" recognised country.

Stipulations:

Should be primarily about the veto powers and how they are democratic/undemocratic- other features may be discussed but have to fit into the argument.

Stay civil please and let the debate begin! :D

Hopefully this fits into allowed politics :D

There is already a big five. The one in South Africa. The question is should Putin be president forever?
 
Top