Should countries have veto rights?

Politics International Politics
1

People on all sides of the political spectrum have at one time or another complained about the use of veto rights.
I am not confining this discussion purely to the UNSC but to any organisation where countries have vetoes. This about the principle not where it is applied.

To often, and often in many cases correctly, countries are accused of vetoing resolutions based purely on their own political agendas, should this be allowed?
If countries who did not agree with a resolution could only abstain or register a vote against it then some of the shennanigans that goes on behind closed doors etc could hopefully be eliminated. Certainly it would depoliticise the process to a large extent.

So should countries have rights of veto?

2

Just Britain because we set the standards larger and more heavily armed countries have failed to meet. Millions of years of experience and a snappy dress sense qualifies the Brits above all others for the right to have the sole veto. It is obvious the rest of the world has absolutely no idea.

BroonAngloSaxon

3

I do not know where to begin. I would certainly say that the US deserves a veto in the UN security council since we do most of the peacekeeping and maintain security balance for most of the world. I believe Europe should get ONE vote and that this should not go to France or Britain anymore. Nor do I believe that Russia deserves its vote, but China does and I think India and perhaps the Organization of American States as a whole should get one. Hee hee of course the US should have a veto on the OAS just to make sure things go our way. hee hee hee how French of me.

4

India definitely. They can then veto US copyright infringements on the term ‘basmati’

Basmati rice from Arkansas. PAH!

BroonAgriculture

5

One person, one vote: One country, one vote. This embodies the democractic principles we strive to achieve world-wide. That’s a Good Thing[tm].

However, I leave you with the wise words of George Bernard Shaw.

6

Well if a nation is not a democracy should it get a vote on the UN security council? or in the UN general assembly? How is it that countries, mostly Arab and Muslim, have a vote in a Western inspired organization but do not grant these rights to their own citizens? Does that not mean then that they lack the very legitimacy to vote that comes with UN membership?

7

No and no.

They are corrupt, morality-deficient regimes running the show over millions of people.

Absolutely.

But, what about China?

8

[quote=“The Magnificent Tigerman”]

But, what about China?[/quote]

Indeed, but of course china has that big market that we all want a piece of so we really ought to just look the other way and let them be :noway:

9

No and no.

They are corrupt, morality-deficient regimes running the show over millions of people.

Absolutely.

But, what about China?[/quote]
I agree completely. Only countries with healthy democracies should be given any rights to affect events in the international community. When the people of a nation are allowed to voice their opinion freely, then that nation should be given a voice internationally. Otherwise, the opinions of a junta, dictatorship, or authoritarian regime need not be noted or heeded.

As for China, well it is my opinion that China has been mollycoddled for far too long. It’s embarrassing the way western nations kiss sino ass, all for the sake of a “potentially” huge market.

10

Not so fast guys. Democracy should not be the absolute determinant that you guys argue for.

Countries that grant to their people the right to vote are not necessarily more just and humane than those that don’t offer that right. As Fareed Zakaria explained in his best-selling book, there are plenty of “illiberal democracies” in the world, where the people elect leaders who ignore their countries’ laws and constitutions and deprive their people of basic human rights. On the other hand, there are monarchies and other non-democratic governments that treat their people very well (picture Hong Kong under British rule).

As Zakaria explained,

[quote]. . . there is a growing unease at the rapid spread of multiparty elections across south-central Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America, perhaps because of what happens after the elections. Popular leaders like Russia’s Boris Yeltsin and Argentina’s Carlos Menem bypass their parliaments and rule by presidential decree, eroding basic constitutional practices. The Iranian parliament – elected more freely than most in the Middle East – imposes harsh restrictions on speech, assembly, and even dress, diminishing that country’s already meager supply of liberty. Ethiopia’s elected government turns its security forces on journalists and political opponents, doing permanent damage to human rights (as well as human beings).

Naturally there is a spectrum of illiberal democracy, ranging from modest offenders like Argentina to near-tyrannies like Kazakstan and Belarus, with countries like Romania and Bangladesh in between. . . [/quote]
foreignaffairs.org/19971101f … cracy.html

11

That’s a good point. As we are all individuals, people will naturally disagree on very fundamental things.

So, with that in mind, I don’t subscribe to the theory that an undemocratic country is illegitimate. Further, I don’t see that as a reason to reject them and refuse dialogue. Rather, I view it as those people have accepted undemocratic principles in which to live their lives. I may not like it, nor accept it, but I’m not going to use it as a weapon to ostracize them from the world-community. I won’t use it as a reason to not “break bread” with those people. I believe in the power of constructive intellectual dialogue and reasoning which can only be nurtured by being more accepting. Idealistic and a tad naive perhaps, but that’s me.

Some say “to-MAY-toe”; Some say “toe-MAH-toe”.

12

Why should only democracies be allowed to take part. What about those countries that are a democracy in name only, but in practice not so, ie Singapore. Brunei is not a democracy, but i don’t think you would have to many Bruneians wanting to change the status quo. Although i might be wrong.

As the UN was originally set up by western nations, it was setup with THEIR ideas etc in mind. Just because there it is set for one country one vote should not mean that participants have to abide by the same in their own country.

If only those with democracies are allowed to vote, then i will raise the original question for this thread, should countries have vetoes, the answer should be no, as to abide by the democracy principle they must accept the view of the majority, if they cannot then they should not be members.

To often we in the West see our views and versions of the world as the only acceptable ones.

13

Why not?

14

[quote=“Traveller”]
To often we in the West see our views and versions of the world as the only acceptable ones.[/quote]

I would also go further by saying that Western thoughts and philosophies are not always the best ones to emulate.

There is always a time, place and manner (as TMT says in another thread re: Free Speech) for things. That’s a good general principle to adopt, not just for Free Speech issues, but for co-existence is a very diverse world community.

15

Why not?[/quote]

Why should it, why force your attitudes of what is right or wrong on those that do not agree or whose people may not agree. The world aint that simple.

What constitutes a democracy, just that the people have a say in who they vote into government? If so then does a two party system really provide that choice or say. In the US it is money that wins, not peoples true beliefs, and if you only have the choice of two then you end up for the one that is closer to your views, but is still distinct from them, or you don’t vote at all.

16

I would argue that this concern for other nations’ (nonWestern) values is just a smokescreen.

When I hear how country x or y’s values are noncompatible with Western ideas of democracy and human rights, I will show you a dictator who is trying to justify his rule.

When given the chance, what nations do not want democracy and respect for human rights? The problem is not the values but enforcing them. No?

A democracy that is not really a democracy is ergo not a democracy. I don’t care what these countries call themselves. Only true democracies should expect the right to vote in the UN. No?

17

How do you know that the people that do not live under a democratic government prefer to be ruled by autocrats? Did they have a vote on the matter? :unamused:

There are MANY parties in the US and other democratic nations. Two parties receive the most support because most people agree generally with what those two parties stand for. How are the supporters of such parties denied any say whatsoever?

We are required each day to make choices and very often the same are compromises to some extent. Why would you think that one person could be everything to 300 million people? Of course you pick and choose, the one who’s views nearest approximate your own, considering which issues are most important for you and the politician you decide to support.

This is really pretty simple.

18

Yes, which is of course one of the underlying foundations of current US foreign policy in the past 15-20 years at least.

The common retort (by much of the world) is something like,

Who is the USA to tell us, how to live our lives as we choose to? Self-determination allows us to choose how we wish to live – based on our own moral, cultural and ethical values, not US moral, cultural and ethical values. Your preaching democracy and self-determination is hypocritical in the face of your illogic of your determining for us that US style democratic values are the only values the world should live by. This argument negates your very own self-determination and self-rule principles(!). Not to mention such a position is a total disrespect for diversity. Since you don’t respect our differences, why should we respect yours?

[quote=“fred smith”]
When I hear how country x or y’s values are noncompatible with Western ideas of democracy and human rights, I will show you a dictator who is trying to justify his rule. [/quote]

As hard as it may be for some people to fathom, there are many peoples, nations, cultures all over the world who believe that survival and existence, requires a paternalistic (i.e. dictatorship) social structure. Cultural values and ethical values demand that there be inequality because social order is built on clear hierarchical rules (read: non-democratic). To live a life that doesn’t have that is for many people inconceivable and/or undesirable. Social harmony and structure is more preferable than the more liberal freedoms and rights enjoyed by the US and other Western nations. Lack of clear strict social hierarchy and rules would result in chaos and disorder, not desirable results.

The nonacceptance of this reality is the primary driving force of tensions between the US and the rest of the world. There are many in the US, who simply will not accept this world view and so seek to “proselytize” the rest of the world with its own “world order”.

[quote=“fred smith”]
When given the chance, what nations do not want democracy and respect for human rights? The problem is not the values but enforcing them. No?[/quote]

See above.

[quote=“fred smith”]
A democracy that is not really a democracy is ergo not a democracy. I don’t care what these countries call themselves. Only true democracies should expect the right to vote in the UN. No?[/quote]

There are no true democracies except since the days of Athenian democracy. So which democracies are the “best”? There are many of them. To say one or the other is inherently “better” is a judgment based on emotion, not fact.

19

[quote=“lsieh”][quote=“fred smith”]
A democracy that is not really a democracy is ergo not a democracy. I don’t care what these countries call themselves. Only true democracies should expect the right to vote in the UN. No?[/quote]

There are no true democracies except since the days of Athenian democracy. So which democracies are the “best”? There are many of them. To say one or the other is inherently “better” is a judgement based on emotion, not fact.[/quote]

Actually, I think I’m wrong here. I would consider India’s democracy as the closest one to Athenian democracy.

20

[quote=“lsieh”][quote=“lsieh”][quote=“fred smith”]
A democracy that is not really a democracy is ergo not a democracy. I don’t care what these countries call themselves. Only true democracies should expect the right to vote in the UN. No?[/quote]

There are no true democracies except since the days of Athenian democracy. So which democracies are the “best”? There are many of them. To say one or the other is inherently “better” is a judgement based on emotion, not fact.[/quote]

Actually, I think I’m wrong here. I would consider India’s democracy as the closest one to Athenian democracy.[/quote]

The Athenians used to change their ‘head of (city) state’/leader everyday; the closest to this we have had in the Western world until the nineties was Italy. 40+ governments since WWII…

BroonAthenian