this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2023
247 points (97.3% liked)

World News

39005 readers
1392 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 24 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Jaysyn@kbin.social 41 points 1 year ago (1 children)

He's not wrong.

Russia has neither the hard nor soft power to continue having a UN veto.

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Unfortunately Russia is going to veto anything that would strip that power from them.

[–] nick@campfyre.nickwebster.dev 10 points 1 year ago

Couldn't the general assembly just acknowledge that the RF does not inherit the Soviet Union veto? Same way that they stripped Taiwan of their veto. I don't think that would require a security council vote.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 9 points 1 year ago

Oh no, what an insurmountable problem. Everyone knows if you break the rules of the UN, the UN rules enforcers will come from on high to stop you.

The reason Russia isn't going to be stripped of a veto is naked realpolitik, not because the rules and procedures say you can't do it.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

We need to get them to boycott the UN somehow so then we can pass such legislation.

[–] BackOnMyBS@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] severien@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Those vetoes existed before most of these countries had nukes.

[–] Novman@feddit.it 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Exactly, vetoes are from countries that have won wwii. Other countries cannot build nuclear weapons ( and if they do so they are defined rogue states )

[–] squirrel@programming.dev 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The general idea was the same though. An international organization is useless unless all the great powers are voluntary participants. But the great powers won't participate in a organization that works against their interests. Therefore, the organization needs to kowtow to the interests of all the great powers.

The only thing about that that's changed from 1945 to 2023 is the criteria for being a "great power". Then, it meant being a winner of WW2. Now, it means having a large nuclear arsenal. The fact that there's a very strong correlation there is of course not a coincidence.

[–] severien@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The only thing about that that’s changed from 1945 to 2023 is the criteria for being a “great power”. Then, it meant being a winner of WW2. Now, it means having a large nuclear arsenal.

No, the criteria didn't change, it's still the original set of countries with the permanent seat and veto power. It's also unlikely to change.

[–] Telodzrum@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I wish. That seat and the structure of the Security Council is in the UN's charter. You need a new UN to get rid of Russia and put the correct China back in place.

[–] nick@campfyre.nickwebster.dev 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The UN has not resolved that the Russian Federation is the Soviet Union w.r.t. veto powers. It's just been assumed. For the PRC there was an actual vote.

Ukraine legally has just as much of a right to the Soviet Union veto.

[–] Telodzrum@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The Russian Federation is a direct successor state; the PRC was a much murkier issue at the time.

[–] nick@campfyre.nickwebster.dev 2 points 1 year ago

I don't think the RF can count as a direct successor state when Ukraine was also a member of the USSR.

You mean West Taiwan or the real Taiwan?

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What exactly do you think is going to happen if the rest of the UN decides to break the UN charter? Is Russia going to sue?

[–] Telodzrum@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean, no. There is no such thing as international law as there is no superior power to forcibly require compliance. However your statement and the argument within fails fatally at a fundamental level as you simultaneously acknowledge the lack of a formal framework of hierarchy while appealing for that absent hierarchy to act.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago

There is no formal framework, it's simply an exercise in power, and the anti-Russia nations hold enough power to redefine how they act with respect to Russia (i.e., dismissing them from the Security Council or simply ignoring their attempts to veto). Just because the rules are not naturally enduring has no bearing on their ability to have an impact while the majority powers support them.

[–] HubertManne@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago

I never understood the idea of allowing non democracies in a democratic organization.