Austria, Denmark, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Romania, Spain and Sweden are pushing to explore the idea of moving from unanimity to qualified majority in foreign policy.
Austria, Denmark, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Romania, Spain and Sweden are pushing to explore the idea of moving from unanimity to qualified majority in foreign policy.
Why should anyone have veto? Same goes for UN. The only thing it does is letting few being free to do whatever they want. Would terrorist country like US or Russia decide to nuke some smaller country? They have veto, so why not!
The UN is a diplomatic platform, not a global government. The idea is that if the particular countries couldn’t veto, they’d leave the organisation altogether instead. Having everyone take part in the same diplomatic organisation is the main goal, not producing actionable resolutions.
So what is the point of it then? Small country roes something terrible, they get condemned. US murders people without any oversight.
The point is to have a dialogue and to allow the largest influences to shape the dialogue. It’s not meant to have any power beyond diplomatic conversation. The most hostile countries to the US still get in a plane and fly to New York to participate. Think about that.
Because getting small countries to stop helps reduce war deaths.
Who gets the big countries to stop killing the small countries?
If nothing else works, other big countries. However, it is generally a high bar to get two big countries to go to war with each other.
You have a deeply flawed understanding of who is leading the world in amount of war deaths and why.
Feel free to correct me, but you’re the one who asked the question. Just insulting isn’t a good rhetorical device.
No one. That’s supposed to be NATO’s job.
Lol
No? NATO is there to prevent revolutionary backlash against imperialist countries.
that’s what they want you to believe
I never said they were good at it, I said that was their job.
No, it’s supposed to be a defensive alliance by definition (cough - Libya - cough). Not world police.
To allow the big countries a place of communication to prevent wider conflict.
I think once the US and EU realize that the “Unipolar moment” is fucking over we’ll get a lot more use out of the UN.
The veto is the sole reason these institutions still exist. There’s no way in hell any member would give up that power.
You should put more thought into the arguments you make, because clearly 11 members would.
Cool, in the EU all countries have veto power. In the UN, all permanent members of the security council have veto power. You just need one of them to refuse to give up that power. In the EU, I believe this could somewhat work, but in the UN ? No way the US, China, Russia, France or the UK would give it up without leaving the institution.
I think that’s what OP meant. That changing the veto rule with the EU is something that’s possible. Your prior comment made it seem like the whole EU wouldn’t exist
Or terrorist country like USA decide to kidnap President of another country and steal their Oil, for example.
People wanted to join the EU and not lose sovereignty.