No Veto Power in cases of genocide?

China
February 2, 2009 4:14pm CST
The United Nations Security Council contains five permament members, United States, United Kindom, Russia, China and France. They hold veto power. That is, if any one of the five members votes Nay on a resolution, that resolution cannot be passed. Genocide is a coordinated plan to destroy, in a whole or part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group by killing. The genocides took place in the 20 century were the Armenian Genocide, the Holocaust, the Cambodian Genocide, the Bosnian Genocide and the Rwanda Genocide. Recently, genocide has been taken place in Darfur, Sudan and caused hundreds of thousands of deaths. However, the international community does not react firmly to the genocide. And potential resolutions will harm China and Russia's trade interest. Therefore, they threaten to veto draft resolutions which proposed firm action in Sudan. There are arguments that no veto power should be used in cases of genocide. These arguments bolster human rights and call for immediate action from the international community to stop the atrocity. On the other hand, many people tend to keep the veto power in all cases because the veto power has been an effective method the balance the world's powers and adjust the interests of all sides. There are no reason that the veto power should be abolished in any cases and a Security Council with veto power will deal with the case more wisely. Which one are you going for? Or you have your own opinion.
2 responses
• Japan
2 Feb 09
In it`s present form the UN doesn`t work. In reference to genocide Russia and China don`t care as long as they get the natural resources. European members can`t say anything because alot of the problems faced in Africa and other places they created. There is a book How Europe underdeveloped Africa which would be a good read. America won`t do anything because we are tied up in our on problems. The veto power in the hands of fools helps no one.This has in effect left the UN powerless. It serves no purpose as it has never functioned as it was supposed to. Or as people had planned when it was created.
1 person likes this
• United States
3 Feb 09
The UN was a good idea that just did not work out in real life. They are ineffective. If you want lessons on how to write a stern letter and then not backing it up then go to the UN. Want something taken care of go somewhere else. All the do is fight and look after their own self interest. THey have accomplished very little to nothing sense they were formed.Personally I do not think htey have a practical purpose. I would love to see my country (US) pull out of it and kick them out of our country. They do not practice transparency there is fraud and greed rampant in it. They waste sooo much money and really do not get much done. No bang for the buck.