user created polls & quizzes      

Rate this ballot.

yes or no : political :
[+] serious ballot by Mr_Spleen

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is an organ of the United Nations, mandated to protect world populations from crimes against humanity, comprised of 10 elected non-permanent member nations elected to two-year terms and five unelected permanent member nations; the latter includes the United States, the United Kingdom, the French fifth Republic, the Russian Federation, and the Peoples Republic of China. As per Article 27 of the UN Charter, these five nations also retain the power to veto any UNSC resolution they please.

Last Saturday, China and Russia invoked this right in regards to a resolution that would have condemned the regime of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, relating to its response to the ongoing popular uprising in Syria. Also on Saturday, forces loyal to Assad simultaneously shelled hundreds of innocent civilians to death in the Syrian city of Homs...

Critics charge Russia and China exercised this power as they both market armaments to the Assad regime and the resolution would have denoted culpability on the part of Assad which could have led to future arms embargos against Syria; or, in layman's terms, the resolution would have proven bad for business. The Chinese and Russians (ostensibly) alleged the resolution was unbalanced in favor of the Syrian opposition, even after other member states made numerous concessions to smooth over the likely prospect of Chinese and Russian opposition.

Many more instances can be provided relating to any one of these five nations possibly utilizing the veto power for political gain. Pictured, to the right, is a chart depicting the five member states in question and their usage of the veto power throughout the history of the United Nations. What say you? Should this power be abolished?


Ballot #139995 :
Voting Finished : SEE RESULTS

Register to submit comments
You may still vote without registration

show your vote with comment?


Vote on the ballot listed to the left, and rate the ballot below.

You are about to rate this ballot for quality.
Remember, this is for the ballot itself, NOT the choices in the ballot.
Individual ballot choices can be rated by clicking on the choices.

Submitted by : Mr_Spleen
Submitted on : Feb 07,2012 1:46:21 am
ballot title:

Should the UN abolish the veto power of the five permanent member nations on its security council?

ballot number:139995
rate the ballot to the left
send aura *negative ratings above takes away aura.
if negative rating, choose a reason

enter your own reason

Do not rate it negative just because you do not agree with the ballot or the result.

Voted : Yes
It has proven time and time again to be detrimental to human rights.
Voted : No
Veto is required to maintain the balance. One of the defects with LON was veto.

If there was no veto, it would have hardly solved the issue. Just that USA would have to again go without the UN. Moreover, it is good that NATO can't do much in Syria.

Voted : Yes
the UN is useless anyway.
by ABC [+]

What balance? The balance between oppressive authoritarianism and legitimate democracy? The biggest defect of the LON was its double standards on imperialism and the fact the US never joined.

The US isn't going to "go into" Syria, it wouldn't have as per this resolution. It's election year, a war would hinder Obama's campaign.

The UN resolution on Syria is based on the sheer majority . The same majority can be used against Israel if there is no veto.
Voted : No
The five permnanent members are world powers (not so much France, or the UK anymore), but these five maintain a balance between the Democratic Western Empire and The Communistic Old World Empire.

This is a delicate balance that requires both sides to make concessions to make the UN a world authority. It's abolution would result in unforeseeable consequences (possibly WWIII). So Syria won a victory. Not a trajedy in the sense of geologic time. Life goes on.

So? I believe Israel has the right to exist but there's no question they've perpetrated crimes against humanity in the past, and it is the prerogative of the UNSC to prevent such a reoccurrence; so I have no problem with limiting the US from cockblocking the UNSC in doing its job just as I don't Russia and China in regards to Syria.

I certainly agree that Israel is guilty of terroristic tactics and I for one do not condone this, however it is in the world's better interests to continue allowing Israel's presence in the middle east as an ally to the US (and as such, to the UN) then to risk her dissemination and lose a foothold in Mid East global oil distribution. Without Israel and US military presence, we have no assurance of continued oil imports.

Is that selfish? Yes, however the US isn't the only western country to benefit, Canada has as much to lose.

I wouldn't call what I was referring to terroristic, rather excessive, beyond due dilligence; regardless, sometimes one problem cancels out another. Canada is the largest foreign supplier of oil to the United States, not Israel, and the US is home to 21 Billion barrels of proven oil reserves. The Middle East doesn't need to be relied on for resources.
I'm not speaking about imports specifically into the US or Canada out of Israel, but to Japan, China, South Korea, Germany, the Balkens, and dozens of developing nations economically depend on the flow of Mid East exports.

Israel has perpetrated horrific attacks quantitive to torrorism bombing lebanon, Syria and Gaza, indiscriminately firing rockets across borders targeting non military assets killing hundreds of civilians. I know both the Mossad and US Forces routinely engage in covert assassination and intervention on foreign targets (namely) Iran's nuclear program, and Clandestine Palestinian Arms Caches in Gaza, Sryia, Lebanon and even Pakistan as it serves lieu of a convienence.

Iranian nuclear scientists and other military assets are legitimate targets. And you have the rocket example reversed. However the utilization of cluster munitions, air & artillery strikes and White Phosphorus in densely populated Gaza in addition to the seizure and re-appropriation of Palestinian land from the west bank are condemnable.

But this is irrelevant. The UNSC doesn't have the power to dissolve Israel. Veto Reform wouldn't compromise its sovereignty and what marginal energy security it provides. You've also back peddled some; you explicitly referenced oil imports to the US and Canada in your previous comment. In addition, China imports most of its oil from Sudan via the red sea, not though Israel. And Europe is increasingly reliant on Libyan oil via the Mediterranean.

My you do easily get confused. I never said oil is exported through Israel, I said Israel is our (the US, and subsequently the UN's) foot hold in the Middle East providing US presence in the region.

Also under internation conventions, Assassinations (or targeting unarmed civilians) is a war crime, and in peace time (when we are not at war with the Country of topic, covertly blowing up a nuclear plant and killing civilians of a sovereign nation is also a criminal.

And please don't re-write my comments to mean somethiong other then what is said.

The UNSC doesn't have the power to dissolve Israel but it certainly has the power to defend it. By and large, if it wasn't for US/UN/NATO providing both economic aid, weapons and strategic military intelligence and support, Israel would have long since fallen victim to Arab aggression and takeover.

And there is no mistake here about Iraeli chopter's fireing sams, Jdams and several short range ground based missiles into Lebanon in retalliation for a string of suicide bombings in Israel around 2003. There official explaination was that the Target was an Anti-Israeli rally where civilians were Shooting numerous small arms across into populated areas.

^Still backpedaling on the imports.

We're not dealing with assassinations here. Assassination denotes murder, and murder denotes culpability. These are targeted killings; however pre-emptive, calculated, they're in self-defense, against military assets poised to strike against civilian populations; Kennedy was assassinated, bin laden was not.

Though you're right, Israel owes its existence to western sponsors, at this point, with 100 nukes behind their belt, I'm willing to wager Israel could do just fine on their own.

'Targeted Killings'? And that somehow differentiates from assassination how?

When a target is not affiliated with a (uniformed) military, a national militia and is not armed for combat, such as the Iranian nuclear Scientist killed in the destruction of Iran's nuclear facility under construction, it is murder and rightfully considered an assassination.

The official story doesn't specify the cause for this expolsion and no one is saying but it's beyond a reasonable doubt to believe it was simply accidental. So speculation: either the US or the Mossad carried out this operation, and subsequently assassinated civilians. There has been no declaration of war to justify these murders as colateral damage, or giving privledge to the perpetrators to the insurgence of sovereign borders.

It was a crime.

A civilian can be legally subject to a targeted kill. When a civilian bears arms, including enriched uranium for the purpose of manufacturing WMDs to be used in a time of war, the Third Geneva Convention no longer applies. You seem keen to paint Iran as the innocuous protagonist when it has committed one-hundredfold the amount of crimes against humanity Israel has since the Islamic revolution in 1979. I'm not saying two rights make a wrong, but a certain set of extenuating circumstances exist which justify intervention in Iran where it would otherwise be unacceptable.

I would focus on the Gaza Strip and West Bank if I were making a case against Israel. Here you have civilians, not amoral opportunists... profiteers and proliferators of pain and suffering/armament manufacturers, but farmers, grocers, teachers, police, magistrates, firemen, etc. who have fallen victim to aggressive reprisal of Israel security forces.

I certainly won't discard your arguement concerning killing of civilians in the circumstances you describe, or that concerning Israel's indiscriminate bullying of it's border neighbbors and the harsh treatment of palestinians within it's boundries, but unless and until Iran does something indicative of production of a nuclear bomb, US and UN action must remain non militaristic. Iran, like all nations, have the right to produce nuclear power for it's inexpensive commercial value and if that means allowing them a breeder reactor (requiring enriched urainium) then the international community must tolerate it. When the time comes that they are in obvious violation of the nuclear non proliferation treaty and have acted aggressively toward any other country with intent (dirty bomb, long range delivery system or selling of enriched urainium or plutonium internationally) then it becomes a matter of address.

I hold this opinion because of the liberal policy the US and the UN applies concerning Israel's aggression (and that Israel is permitted to possess undocumented and unchecked nuclear weapons) and because of the allegations of the Bush Administration that Iraq possessed WMDs (that, at best, have3 not been evidenced, and at worst, was possibly contrived) to justify insurgence into Iraq.

I will concede to reasonability of the Afghanistan invasion to the point of obvious alignment and proliferation of anti Americanism and support of terrorism by Al-Qaeda.

As to the Targeted killing of Bin Laden, I don't think the global community lost any sleep over it. Now that the objective has been completed, we need to withdraw our stance and repeal the Patriot Act, restore civil rights, put the accused on trial, and dismantle the Prison Camps.

I'm going by UN reports. Each one indicates Iran isn't interested in nuclear power, but rather nuclear warfare. And they already have acted and are acting aggressively. If you remember the FBI busted up an Iranian plot to bomb the Saudi and Israeli embassies in late 2011. And they've planned and executed such attacks before, remember the 1994 AMIA bombing?

Not that I want to open up this can of worms but I actually don't believe invading Afghanistan was necessary. Call me a revisionist of history but I believe had it not been for the bellicose bush doctrine, the taliban could have been persuaded to extradite bin laden to a third-party country, if not the US itself, and through economic incentive, could have also been motivated to crack down on al-qaeda. Though I agree, killing him is the next best thing and now the deed is done its time to pull out because this society is culturally entrenched in 7th century, but wields 20th century technological capabilities, which is what makes them so dangerous.

You don't suppose American influence on the civil population, especially the childern would strengthen the future of America's security?

I understand there's a overwhelming negative opinion of America's occupation of the country amounst the adults and there's little we can do to change that, however, wouldn't you think a population of childern who grew up with a 'civilian friendly' American presence, who know little else about what and why, will absolve some of the anti-American sentiment over time?

You address Iran's intent being nuclear weapons, which is likely considering Israel's possession of Nukes is a well kept secrete and given israel's propensity of aggression, in Iran's shoes, I might want to elevate my position to a status of MAD (mutually assured destruction) as a defensive policy.
Correction " not a well kept secrete..."
The government of Iran has a proclivity for casting the first stone, an eye for an eye, in regards to foreign policy; especially where Israel is concerned. Egypt realized decades ago such a policy would leave the world blind and sued for peace over developing nuclear arms. The latter guaranteed its stability, at least on the world stage. Iran is following a path of assured destruction through its own preferences.

As for children in Afghanistan, the "rural-urban divide" we're accustomed to in the west takes on a whole new dimension there. Children in cities like Kabul and Kandahar will have considerable advantages over their rural counterparts by the sheer presence of NATO forces and distribution of military and foreign aid, especially compared to those in Eastern Afghanistan where the insurgency is most prevalent. These urban children will have a higher education, standard of healthcare, and economic opportunity, which are all paramount to a positive outlook on life and sociocultural evolution. They're not going to have to resort to growing opium poppies to make a living and fend for themselves. One thing's for sure, the taliban can't suppress sociocultural evolution forever.

About Us | Join Us | Privacy Policy | © 2010 All Rights Reserved