41
votes
Finland's President Alexander Stubb has called for expansion of the UN Security Council, abolition of its single state veto power, and suspension of any member engaging in an “illegal war”
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- Finland's president wants end of single state veto at UN Security Council
- Published
- Sep 18 2024
- Word count
- 546 words
It’s a moot topic because any of those proposals (expansion of security council, removing the unanimous condition) would require a unanimous decision of… the security council. And not even the US would agree to them, let alone Russia or China.
Very much getting "We'll start our own UN, with blackjack, a-and hookers!" vibes.
I mean I can't see how long term other countries are going to continue to stand for five countries having a monopoly on international discussion, able to dismiss any concerns risen against them.
What are they going to do about it? That's the main issue. The point of the security council, and the UN as a whole really, is to have a place for great powers to have diplomacy - to be the venue, not to be a world government.
In the end, there is nothing more sovereign than a country. That's the problem. No country will give up sovereignty, nor is there any way to enforce extra-national sovereignty.
We've already seen this in practice. Russia, by all accounts a diminished power, invaded another country. And what can the rest of the world do about it? Jack shit, really.
The only chance of a change is if another country rises to great power status. India, for example, may become powerful enough to ask for a seat. But it will be the same arrangement as before, and given India's descent into hindu-nationalism I'm not sure it's necessarily an improvement so much as an expansion of the Russia/China bloq.
As with all discussions on this people forget the main purpose of the UN is not "world cops" or even "world diplomacy" so much as "prevent WW3".
The security council exists as is because yes, all the major nations with the firepower to back up a "you and what army" challenge are functionally acknowledged as fundamentally unstoppable should they decide total/nuclear war is the route to go.
If you bother to change the system as presented, well then great, you're going to get some plucky "means nothing" thing passed that one or more security council members don't agree to, and at best they're going to ignore it (thus calling into question the entire point of the UN) and at worst they're going to start a massive war.
Yeah, I think people are too used to being in spaces where there is a "higher power". There are no higher powers than sovereign nation states. There's no rulekeepers, only force.
The UN will never be able to force a nuclear power to do anything.
Can't say I disagree. Am curious how "illegal war" would be defined.
Given that it's the Finnish president calling for it, that part is 100% targeted at Russia, which is a permanent member with veto power.
Of course, just curious how "illegal war" would be defined. Arguably, the US is (or at least has been) in "illegal wars" many times. I'm not up on international politics enough to know who else may also be in an illegal war at present. Does this also include anyone participating in an illegal war? The Iraq war is considered by many to be an "illegal war", which the US would obviously be blamed for, but also involved the UK, Australia, and Poland. Would they all be suspended from the security council under this rule?
Yeah, it's not a particularly clear set of requirements, but then, I don't think it was intended to be.
There are situation where wars are justifiable, according to UN doctrine. Defensive wars, for example. Those are "legal". Generally a legal war is a war approved by the UN security council I think.
Me too. The veto system leads to paralysis.
Plus does anyone actually declare war any more? Did they ever?