The Instigator
begobuitron
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
sewook123
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Abolishment of Veto Power

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
sewook123
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/3/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 475 times Debate No: 48277
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

begobuitron

Pro

A principal reason for this has been the refusal of one or another of the Five Permanent Members to set aside their own interests. Additionally, the veto is often is "used in order to protect countries with which (permanent members) have close cultural, economic and/or political ties", most notoriously on situations of mass genocidal killings.
sewook123

Con

I thank the Pro for this debate.

As Con, I am debating that veto power should not be abolished.

Veto power refers to a privilege held by the five permanent members in the United Nations Security Council that allows them to prevent any substantiated resolutions from being adopted. The 5 permanent members are the following: USA, UK, Russia, China and France.

My arguments for this round are related to the establishment of the power to veto.

After the World War II, the United Nations were formed in the 1945 with approximately 50 member states. Veto power was given to these five members because of their key roles in the establishment of the United Nations, would continue to play important roles in the maintenance of international peace and security. [1] It was used as one of the incentives for some of the most powerful countries to join and support the United Nations. This veto power is crucial in the status of the contemporary UN as it provided the countries a reason to join. As seen in the failure of the League of Nations, the United Nations would have failed had United States or Russia (then USSR) refused to acknowledge the UN. Simply withdrawing these privileges are unacceptable because a) it would definitely undermine the contribution of the permanent members, which are some of the strongest nations in many aspects (military, economy, political influence, etc.) b) it is morally wrong to take away powers specially given to the nations and c) the resolution to reform veto power will absolutely not be passed.

I apologize for the terrible sign-posting on my argument and I await Pro's response.
Debate Round No. 1
begobuitron

Pro

but my point is that this five nations are abusing of the power they were given because they are using it to protect or attack countries according to their interests and not because is what"s best for the world. This was supposed to be a "democratic system" but this is nothing like a democracy, five countries are the ones who decide if a resolution is passed or not but this power should be equal for all the rest of the countries.
sewook123

Con

Yes I was just making my arguments and stating my stance.

I will first rebut Pro's point.

Pro stated that the permanent five nations have been abusing the power they were given to protect or attack countries according to their interest. I believe that this statement is flawed. First of all, the veto power does not grant them power to attack other nations. It simply means that they can stop any resolutions from being adopted. Secondly, it is difficult to simply veto a well-supported resolution for its allies. There are numerous aspects of wielding a veto power. Especially in highly supported resolution, the nation who vetoed the resolution will be under high political pressure. Despite being few of the most powerful countries in the world, they are not free from ignoring the ideas and wills of other nations. Severe criticisms that follow the veto have deterred the permanent members from vetoing some of the resolutions.

Pro has stated that the United Nations is supposed to be a democratic system. I ask the Pro to cite this information as I failed to produce such information from the charter. In fact, UN is semi-democratic. All of the agencies and committees are operated through democratic system and even the Security Council it self is somewhat democratic. The non-permanent members are elected.

To clarify, the veto power can only be used in the Security Council. This means that the majority of resolutions drafted by numerous specialized agencies are free from being vetoed. As long as two-thirds of the members vote in favor of the resolution, it will pass. Observing this aspect of the United Nations, Pro should recognize the limitations of veto power.

As for Pro's statement that "this power should be equal for all of the countries," it is impractical. First of all, if all nations were to possess veto power, the problem mentioned by Pro will worsen along with numerous others. Nothing will get passed and the United Nations and its Security Council will lose their efficiency and their status in the international community. Secondly, providing all nations with veto power is synonymous to saying that permanent members no longer have influences as they used to have. This will provoke the permanent members, undoubtedly the strongest and the most influential nations in the world, to leave the United Nations.

Also, I would like to pose some questions to Pro. Is it not understandable and indubitable that ALL nations support resolutions that would benefit their countries? There is absolutely no country that will support a resolution that will pose any harm to it. Permanent countries are no exceptions. It is ludicrous to ask them to be altruistic because of their achievements.

I ask the Pro to rebut my arguments and to further justify his stance.
Debate Round No. 2
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by sewook123 2 years ago
sewook123
Shoot, sorry. I forgot to include the source for the first round.

Here it is:
[1] http://www.un.org...
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 2 years ago
Krazzy_Player
begobuitronsewook123Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not put much effort to the debate and gave an easy win for Con.
Vote Placed by hexfirewell7172 2 years ago
hexfirewell7172
begobuitronsewook123Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: More rounds probably would have helped