The Instigator
lin0913
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
JackFritschy
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

No country should have a veto on the United Nations Security Council.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/27/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,292 times Debate No: 43023
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

lin0913

Pro

First round is acceptance.
Second round is constructive only (no rebuttals).
Third round is constructive and rebuttals.
Fourth round is rebuttals only (no new arguments).
Fifth round is summary and impact weighing.

Please keep content organized, appropriate, and respectful. Use correct grammar and spelling. Ad hominem will not be tolerated. A forfeit means a win for the other side. I will define in the second round and set up framework.

Thanks, and good luck!

-Lulu

P.S. Feel free to leave constructive criticism in the comments. Voters, give reasons for your decision.
Debate Round No. 1
lin0913

Pro

Thanks to Con for accepting, I'm looking forward to debating with you.

My main contentions are:
P1: The veto gives too much power to individual countries.
P2: The veto causes gridlock in the UN.
P3: Abolishing the veto will benefit underrepresented countries.

Define:
United Nations = As defined straight from website: An international organization composed of most of the countries of the world. It was founded by US, Russia, China, France, & UK to promote peace, security, & economic development, uphold sovereign equality & world peace. The 5 founding powers are permanent members of the Security Council & are the only countries that have power to veto.

Framework: We will set the debate to mainly about benefiting the world as a whole, & not just the individual countries that have the most influence in the world. Thus, the debate is limited to discussion about whether taking out the veto will help the majority instead of 1 or another small group.

P1: The veto gives too much power to individual countries.
The veto violates the consensus system that the UN runs on, since the consensus system is basically taking in a variety of opinions & ideas & a veto gives five countries more power than the other nonpermanent members. Thus equality is gone because by giving only 5 individual countries a veto, we are essentially valuing their opinions & ideas over other countries". The UN was made to uphold sovereign equality & world peace, so the veto basically defeats the purpose of the UN itself.
US News: The other countries in the UN besides Russia, US, France, UK, China have no veto power, causing them to have less influence.
It simply isn"t fair to the rest of the countries in the UN that these five get to be a dictatorship while others can only make suggestions, & are mostly powerless. The current countries on the Security Council with vetoes should not be valued over others. Inequality like this violates the very foundation of UN ideals.
UN: The UN is working to encourage a variety of views from different countries, but this cannot happen because of the veto.
However, right now, the UN is actually cutting other countries out by vetoing all their proposals.
UN: In the Syria affair, all countries except for 2 voted to strip the Assad regime of their chemical weapons, however, only China & Russia vetoed the plan & as a result, the plan wasn"t enacted.
Furthermore, the UN was created to promote world peace. This means that all, or most countries, should be able to do their part. However, in the Security Council, there are 5 dominant powers that basically decide for the whole world.

P2: The veto causes gridlock in the UN.
In most cases a veto is used while deciding which course of action to take.
UN: In the last 46 cases that took place, at least one country vetoed 43 times.
So, most of the time they do not agree on things as a direct result of the veto power being abused, much like what is happening in Congress, & this does not benefit anyone. With this evidence it can be concluded that the veto is being used to cause harm & is not the most efficient way. Therefore, it should be abolished.
When the UN is at a standstill, we call it gridlock. An easy ex. of when gridlock has been caused is the recent events in Syria.
UN: All proposed sanctions & embargoes on the Assad regime was vetoed by Security Council countries China & Russia, bringing the UN to a standstill.
The UN was created to benefit the general people. So, if it causes gridlock & stalemates in such an important council, then it follows that we should abolish this.
Global Policy: The UN would be able to run much smoother if countries had their veto power taken out of the equation.
This only further proves that the UN would be much better off without a veto, & we can conclude that abolishing it would be our best option.

P3: Abolishing the veto will benefit underrepresented countries.
Many smaller countries have had crucial issues to resolve, many relating to the loss of human life, & what was the UN"s response? Nothing. However, there would"ve been a response if the Permanent 5 didn"t waste so much time bickering & using their veto power to dismiss their opponents" plans & ideas just for their own interests.
Global Policy: The Rwandan Genocide took place between April & July, 1994. Almost a million people were massacred because of their ethnicity. However, the rest of the world just watched. The UN even pulled most of their troops out of Rwanda because of the hidden vetoes of France & the USA.
Obviously, if the veto didn"t exist, many lives would"ve been saved.
Now let"s look at the effects of abolishing the veto on countries that have less influence in the UN.
NY Times: Countries not in the Security Council often have their views looked down upon by permanent members of the Security Council. As a result, their proposed resolutions are more likely than not vetoed.
It follows that abolishing the veto would allow these countries to voice their proposals. These countries would be able to help even world powers like the US by bringing in new ideas to the UN. However, this cannot be achieved with the veto still being utilized.
UN Veto Records: In the past 60 years, there have been over 200 vetoes in the UN.
Most of those resolutions already had majority rule & could"ve been passed if the veto didn"t exist. Many resolutions would"ve benefited other countries outside of the Security Council, but as they didn"t directly benefit some of the countries in the Security Council they were all vetoed.

This concludes my opening argument. I look forward to my opponent's.
JackFritschy

Con

JackFritschy forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
lin0913

Pro

As my opponent forfeited, voters please cast your ballot for me, the Proposition
JackFritschy

Con

First we must understand that by abolishing the veto, we strengthen the UN's power to make war. This leads to a massive loss of sovereignty by the nations of the world. It is easy to see wrong in the world and want to use the power of the UN to correct it but let us think about the consequences of allowing 51% of the worlds nations to declare war on a nation. Any nation. With security veto, the UN is rarely likely to intervene in another nation. Without it the UN would quite literally police the world. Think of all the failed nation building attempts in our time. Now think of that several times over. Think of all the nations left in ruin by military intervention and left on the very brink of renewed civil war. If the UN is granted that kind of power, newly rising economies could be left as wastelands.

You say these wars while be just? How is any war approved by 51% of the nations of the world just. You say this is somehow democratic? If every nation gets one vote, from china to the Netherlands, then it would be possible for one third or less of the population of the world to bring the wrath of the UN down upon a singe country. Granting it such power will also heighten tensions between the world powers. Everyone nation would be making secret treaties and deals and haggling for votes. Some nations would sell their votes to the highest bider. Instead of Russia of the US vetoing a proposal and leaving it at that, both sides would spend weeks using their influence to make deals and promises. Some countries would be run roughshod over numerous times by voting blocks against them. The countries in the minority will always be drawing the short stick.

It would also escalate regional conflicts. If several countries are quarreling, they will almost certainly go to the UN. They know they have a good chance of gaining it's support because they know that one country can't veto their appeal. If they are a member of a large voting block that pledges to aid one another, they can pass the proposal over the objection of much of the world. Every nation will have to take a side, fraying alliances and raising suspicion and tensions. Any well connected would have a hammer in which it could smash any nation that opposed it.
Debate Round No. 3
lin0913

Pro

lin0913 forfeited this round.
JackFritschy

Con

JackFritschy forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
lin0913

Pro

lin0913 forfeited this round.
JackFritschy

Con

Giving the power of war over to a bare majority of nations will only lead to more war not more peace. To say otherwise assumes that other nations will only intervene it just and necessary situations. However nations are motivated more by self interest, not by charity. They will abuse this power to make war on rival nations. This is a perfect example of a majority being allowed to persecute a minority.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by neilk787 3 years ago
neilk787
good luck lulu :)
Posted by lin0913 3 years ago
lin0913
Krazzy_Player,
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. As far as I know, Con can accept this debate. I'm pretty new to debate.org though, so could you please explain? Thanks.
Posted by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
What do you mean by first round acceptance? Don't you know con cannot accept?
Posted by lin0913 3 years ago
lin0913
In reply to zxcvzxcvzxcv,
You have no evidence or logical reasoning to justify your statement. Thus, your point is invalid. Please refrain from calling me a "dumbass" before I report you.
Posted by zxcvzxcvzxcv 3 years ago
zxcvzxcvzxcv
Wow you are a massive dumb a s s.
No votes have been placed for this debate.