The Instigator
dinonuggets
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ConservativePolitico
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points

In the United Nations, should the P5 nations in the Security Council have 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...
ConservativePolitico
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/21/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,236 times Debate No: 23742
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

dinonuggets

Con

The United Nations was formed back in 1965, and at the time the USA, UK, France, China, and the USSR became permanent members of the Security Council, known as the P5. The original intention of the P5 was to prevent something such as WWII from happening again, and Germany was not invited to join the UN. Since then, the world has clearly changed, and because the UN is aimed for world peace, it is unfair that the P5 nations have much more power than the rest of the nations. Therefore, the P5 nations should no longer have veto power in the Security Council.
ConservativePolitico

Pro

The P5 nations should retain their veto power for a few key reasons.

1. Size

a) Population

Together the P5 nations make up roughly 28% of the total global population.[1][3] One in four people come from a P5 nation. That is a significant number.

b) Economy

Together the P5 nations make up 44% of the total global economy. Nearly half of all goods and services bought and sold is done by P5 nations. [2][4] (GDP of all P5 nations / total global economy)

As you can see, together the P5 nations are massively powerful in the world and no other countries can stand up to these numbers. With just over 25% of the total population and nearly half of the global economy these nations are certainly capable of making veto decisions.

2. Smaller Nations

The veto power is given to these nations in order to prevent a group of smaller nations from banding together and trying to pass something ridiculous such as a tax on the P5 countries to help pay for Third World countries. This veto power prevents a rule by smaller bands of countries that could get together to further their own agendas at the expense of others. This would certainly dampen the goal of "world peace".

3. Tradition

The P5 nations were the countries that founded the UN and it is only fair that her founders should be able to run it the way they want. As much as you want to believe that the UN is an engine for world peace and prosperity in reality it is a political world stage run by the P5 countries in order to put on a good face for the Third World. The P5 countries founded the UN and they gave themselves veto power and therefore they have veto power.

4. Balance and Compromise

This veto power prevents certain types of stalemates from occurring in the UN. As you can see the veto power was strategically given to countries who would oppose each other. I.e Russia and the US, France and Britain etc. This prevents blocs from being formed in the UN. The Russians cannot get a group of their friends (smaller nations) and form a bloc in the UN to try and push their own goals through. Neither can anyone else, they don't have to. Instead of creating divisive groups in the UN the veto power allows countries to act on their own and prevent these factions from being formed.

5. Rule and Peace

In order to achieve true peace and balance you cannot give rule to the masses. If every country in the world had an equal say in the UN nothing would get done and I mean nothing. In order to achieve any sort of peace or compromise you must have a strong ruling party to try and make decisions or forge the way or else it would be chaos. The P5 nations serve as this group. Rule by the masses would be chaos in the UN.

6. Differing Opinions

As we can see the P5 countries, while a small group, represent a large number of people in the world. China is communist, the US are big capitalists, Britain is a soft socialist country while France is a hard socialist country (now) while Russia represents many of the Eastern European and Middle Eastern countries (Iran for example). Together these countries weave a tapestry of diversity that makes sure that many different ideologies are given power in the UN. Therefore, while one group has all the "power" in the UN according to you, they represent a vast range of people all over the world.

The P5 nations should keep their veto power.

[1] https://www.google.com...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...(nominal)
Debate Round No. 1
dinonuggets

Con

1.Size

Regardless of the size of a nation, the whole idea behind the United Nations is to promote equality amongst nations and to cooperate in order to solve crisis. If everything was left for the larger nations to decide, they can boss around smaller nations and violate their national sovereignty. Just because one nations is bigger than another does not mean it should have more power to bully other nations.

2. Smaller Nations

If the veto power is banned and the P5 members are not given permanent seats on the Security Council, then there will exist a rotation of members into the S.C. This rotation will prevent a small, radical group of states from having a monopoly within the Security Council. At the same time, one can argue that these P5 members are only making resolutions that help themselves. Without banning the P5 members and their veto power, it is just tyranny against the smaller nations in the world.

3. Tradition

Originally Germany was not invited to the UN, and the P5 did not invite the Axis Powers to join the UN. However, since then, many things in the UN have changed, including the way they are working to obtain world peace. Now, nearly every nation is a member of the UN, and many traditions are no longer applicable in modern times.

4. Balance and Compromise

Originally, veto power was not given to nations that would oppose each other, but rather to the nations that were members of the allied powers during WWII. In the General Assembly, nations such as China and Russia can still form blocs with smaller nation in an attempt to pass resolutions, even ones that other P5 nations such as the USA opposes. The veto power is not applicable in the GA.

5. Rule and Peace

There needs to be a balance in the UNSC between large and small nations. All nations should have power to make decisions. The p5 nations have too much power and will make decisions to favor their own country rather for the benefit for all the nations. Also, the UN was founded on equality and a strong ruling body shouldn't have all the power.

6. Differing Opinions

These p5 nations do not represent a vast range of people in the world. Although these p5 members have different economic ideas, they do not represent the developed vs developing nations. most if not all of the p5 nations are developed nations. There are many nations, such as in Africa, that are still developing and need to be represented.
ConservativePolitico

Pro

Contentions

C1. Size

What I meant by size is that within the P5 nations, a large portion of the world's population resides so it is not as imbalanced as you think it is. Even with "equal" representation these nations would naturally hold more sway because they have the most people. The UN does nothing to infringe upon nation's sovereignty, please cite an example if this is how you think.

Also, nations aren't equal. You want to "promote equality among nations" but all nations aren't equal. Some are bigger, some are smaller, some have differing strengths and weaknesses. We aren't all equal. Trying to tell China they are on equal footing with Uganda would insult the Chinese. Not only that but China has much more power and sway than Uganda. Some nations are more powerful than others. If you don't give them power in the UN they might feel the need to show that power outside the UN which could be bad.

C2. Smaller Nations

Without veto, it doesn't matter who is technically rotated in they can still form blocs. They can form a group so that someone from that group is always rotated in. Veto power is important to keep order and prevent certain measures from passing certain levels. Can you imagine if the President didn't have veto power? He'd have to sign every bill that crossed his desk. That would be a disaster. We must have veto power to filter out bad resolutions from passing.

C3. Tradition

What I meant by tradition is that the founders make the rules and they gave themselves veto power. Technically no one in the UN has the right to tell the US etc to give up their veto power because they're the ones who founded the UN. No one has the right to take that power away. It isn't so much tradition as it is that they were the ones who founded the UN and have the right to the power.

C4. Balance

Exactly, the Allied Powers created the UN and therefore they rule the UN. It's as simple as that. They gave themselves veto power, I still fail to see why they should give that up. The UN would be chaos if every tiny nation had an equal voice. Also, the P5 nations still balance each other out today. It prevents the USA from dominating the council by giving veto power to China and Russia who are likely to oppose certain resolutions.

C5. Rule and Peace

Yes, all nations have the power to make their own decisions of course. They are all sovereign states. However, inside the UN you must have money, power and influence to actually do anything on a global scale and not all countries have that. If you really think about it the UN doesn't do anything so saying that smaller countries are getting left out of the "decision making" is silly. The world isn't run by the UN. Nations all have sovereign decision making skills.

Also, the UN wasn't founded on "equality", obviously, because they excluded the Axis Powers. It was founded on preventing WWIII. Nothing more.

C6. Differing Opinions

Actually, Russia and China could be considered under-developed or even developing from certain points of view. They also have many friends in the developing world just as the US has. Giving equality to smaller and poorer nations won't benefit them. Giving power to stronger nations who are willing to help them actually benefits them a lot more. Iran would have a tough time getting their voice heard about Syria in a crowd of 100+ nations but the whole world stops and listens when Russia supports Syria for Iran. That is how larger nations help.

Also, what would an African nation do with equal power of the United States? The UN isn't a miracle working machine. They can't reform nations when a nation has equal say. In fact the UN really is quite powerless. The Secretary General of the UN is African as well. He speaks for African nations.

Debate Round No. 2
dinonuggets

Con

1. Size

It is possible that larger nations, such as the United States, can influence smaller nations that are heavily dependent on the larger nation for trade, or dependent for other reasons. The larger nation could "bribe" smaller nations to vote their way by promising more trade, etc. Likewise, the larger nations could threaten to stop trade, or set embargos on smaller nations that do not vote how they want. Although this does not technically infringe on national sovereignty, this is always a possibility.Nations may not be equal in terms of population, economics, or land area, but in the United Nations, every single nation's voice is equally as important in global matters.

2. Smaller Nations

Even if one of the members from a voting bloc is voted in, 8 other nations would still have to agree with them before a resolution can be passed. Furthermore, it is very unlikely that 9 nations would appear in the Security Council from the same voting bloc at the same time, since the Security Council aims for geographical equality in representation. Moreover, the President is not the same, because the President is an elected leader, so he/she already stands for what the people want. This is not the case in the UN.

3. Tradition

Just because the United States and P5 nations played a role in setting up the United Nations does not give them the power to hinder international cooperation within the UN. All the nations that have joined the UN did so because they believed that their opinions would be heard and treated equally. By giving the P5 nations the power to veto good resolutions made by nations they might not agree with it is eroding the principles on which the United Nations was founded upon.

4. Balance

Thats the problem, no effective resolution can be passed due to the constant use of the Veto power. A prime example is what happened when the Security Council tried to make a resolution dealing with Seria. Instead of helping innocent people who are suffering by the will of the Syrian government, China and Russia vetoed the resolution that could have addressed these issues. If all nations in the Security Council were given an equal say, a rapid response to such a crisis can be done in an easier fashion if the P5 had no veto power.

5. Rule and Peace

In the UN, all nations have equal chances to speak in the general assembly. However, people only hear what the larger nations are saying due to the media. Also, the UN can't do anything major do to a thing called sovereignty. However, the UN can propose actions that should be taken to resolve the problem on hand and to have international security. Also, I meant to say that the UN should give more smaller nations equal chances to make a difference in the UN. and today the axis powers are in the UN.

6. Differing Opinions

Larger nations will help, but smaller nations also need to get their point across. The Secretary General has stated multiple times that the UN must work towards world peace. Therefore, these smaller nations need to be better voiced. Also, obviously the UN isn't a miracle working machine, but it does provide resolutions to what needs to be done in areas of conflict. And the current Secretary General is NOT African, but is South Korean. (Ban Ki Moon)

I believe many of the points you bring up may be argued both for AND against, and since there are no solid arguments for veto power, it should be taken away from the P5 nations.
ConservativePolitico

Pro

1. Size

"It is possible that larger nations, such as the United States, can influence smaller nations that are heavily dependent on the larger nation for trade, or dependent for other reasons. The larger nation could "bribe" smaller nations to vote their way by promising more trade, etc. Likewise, the larger nations could threaten to stop trade, or set embargos on smaller nations that do not vote how they want."

This is exactly why we give the P5 nations the power they do have. Giving them power to veto each other prevents them from having to resort to this kind of behavior to get what they want. The P5 nations would use these tactics without veto power in order to achieve their goals. The veto power prevents them from having to use this.

"Nations may not be equal in terms of population, economics, or land area, but in the United Nations, every single nation's voice is equally as important in global matters."

False. Why would say, Bolivia, have anything to do with or have any power or say in what is going on in say Iran or Saudi Arabia? They should NOT have an equal voice as say Israel in dealing with local issues in the UN say with Iran. That is completely false.

2. Smaller Nations

Besides repeating over and over "the UN stands for equality" you still have not managed to convince me as to why some of the tiniest and poorest nations in the world are ENTITLED to an equal say with the bigger and more influential nations. You keep repeating facts about the UN but have failed to make a definitive stand on what makes these nations DESERVE equal power.

3. Tradition

Please, provide an example of how veto power hinders "international cooperation". And nations do have an equal voice and an equal opporitunity to speak in the UN. Besides, I think you have parts of this debate confused. The P5 nations only have veto power over the Security Council resolutions, General Assembly resolutions and orders are voted on for a majority vote by all the countries. That is still there.

The security council is a completely different entity. This was set up by the P5 nations and they do have the right to run their own security council. The security council does not interfere with the General Assembly.

In the General Assembly ALL MEMBERS HAVE EQUAL REPRESENTATION.

[http://en.wikipedia.org...]

If you disagree with the Security Council you must make a case as to why it should be abolished.

The rest of this debate will wait until my opponent comes to grips with what they are actually arguing for. You are confused. The UN is made up of many different levels and councils. The General Assembly functions in the way you are envisioning.

If you want to debate about the veto power of the Security Council you must then explain why the Security Council should be reformed and or abolished.

Until then I am going to say that the General Assembly functions in the way you are thinking.

Do you want the Security Council abolished? Are you talking about the Security Council? The balance and purpose of the Security Council requires veto power.

Please clarify what exactly you are debating for.

http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Debate Round No. 3
dinonuggets

Con

dinonuggets forfeited this round.
ConservativePolitico

Pro

I seem to have made my point.

I extend all arguments.

Vote Pro
Debate Round No. 4
dinonuggets

Con

dinonuggets forfeited this round.
ConservativePolitico

Pro

My arguments appear to have overwhelmed my opponent.

It was a good debate until then

FF.

Vote Pro
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by YYW 5 years ago
YYW
So... what are you going to argue?

Globalization has precipitated the realization of the liberal internationalist fantasy, and therefore we can all come together, join hands and sing kumbayah?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Tetraneutrons 5 years ago
Tetraneutrons
dinonuggetsConservativePoliticoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
dinonuggetsConservativePoliticoTied
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: FF