The Instigator
maxisdebating
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
ameyav
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Should we abolish veto power in the UN

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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: 4/9/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,652 times Debate No: 32256
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

maxisdebating

Con

Veto power is a very important subject in our world, it concerns not only the 5 Permanent members of the UN, but also all the other countries in the world.
ameyav

Pro

Thank you for creating such debate. . . :D

I'm expecting for a great debate. . .

I will give you the opportunity to start the debate. .. :)
Debate Round No. 1
maxisdebating

Con

maxisdebating forfeited this round.
ameyav

Pro

Since my opponent forfeited I have nothing to defend :)
Debate Round No. 2
maxisdebating

Con

Since its creation in 1945, the United Nations have been trying to do what was best for our world. And it has done it very well. There are 6 points that explain why we should not abolish veto power in the UN.
Economy : The UN represents about 50 percent of the world"s economy, which shows the importance of these countries.
Equality : The veto power was given to countries whose ideas opposed. Russia and the US for example, or even France and the UK, this prevents the creation of alliances which helps maintaining peace.
Preventing alliances : Veto power prevents smaller nations to form alliances, and pass ridiculous laws.
Rule: If we want to achieve peace, we cannot let small countries rule, because it would be chaos, and never will peace be achieved. Therefore we need countries to take decisions for the others.
Tradition : The P5 created the UN so therefore they have the right to have veto power.
Diversity: Finally, the P5 represent a big part of the world. Since china is communist, US are capitalists, France are socialists, and Russia represent a lot of Eastern countries and Middle East countries (like Iran for example).
ameyav

Pro

Thank you for replying my friend :)
Since this is the first round for posting arguments I will post only my cases :)

***The UN veto is anachronistic***
The world no longer needs the Security Council veto. The P5 were given this privilege for two reasons that have no application in the post Cold War world. Firstly, the Allied powers, with the addition of China, tried to bind themselves to the UN Security Council, which was designed to prevent events like World War II repeating themselves. Secondly, the P5 held unrivaled strategic might through their possession of nuclear weapon technology or imminent nuclear capacity. However, to examine the status quo, the UN is no longer in danger of collapse. Considering the state of international politics and the symbolic meaning of the UN, the P5 can no longer abandon the UN or the cause of global peace simply because the veto power is taken away.

**What then is the point of the UNSC? **
The existence of Veto power in the United Nations Security Council just proves that the other countries in the council are for show. They do not really have power to make any real and impacting decisions, but are only there to give this absurd idea of existing democracy in the UN to make it seems fair. The council might as well just consist of only these five members.The rest of us really don't matter. It's a facade.

***The UN Security Council Veto is unreflective of geopolitical realities***
The global power balance has shifted dramatically since 1945, making the nations' participation in global cooperation for security more crucial. Nuclear proliferation has accelerated in the past decade, such that inter alia India, Pakistan, North Korea, Egypt, Iraq and Iran are developing inter-continental ballistic capacity, which is incentive for the P5 and other nations to continue to support the Security Council under any circumstances.
The UN Security Council veto perpetuates differences and animosity A P-5 country typically vetoes a resolution in the United Nations because they or their allies have a strong national or cultural interest in doing so. These interests often contrast sharply with the interests of other countries. And the veto, given the fact that it unilaterally stops things from happening, brings these contrasts to the surface in an often bitter, angering, and antagonizing way. It, therefore, makes a direct connection between antagonism and the differences between countries. This is unhealthy in the international system.

***UN veto perpetuates unfortunate geopolitical games***
The UN veto system was established, in part, to ensure that the United Nations fits within the broader geopolitical game and that it is tolerated within that game. It, therefore, perpetuates an unfortunate geopolitics of self-interested states instead of assuming a higher, fairer role of global governance with the objective of securing common global interests.

***Security Council veto undermines UN's "soft power" legitimacy.***
The United Nations exercises "soft power" better than "hard power". It gives legitimacy to the actions taken by states, or it takes away from that legitimacy by passing resolutions that, for example, condemn certain actions. This is a highly important function in shaping the international system into a more desirable form. Yet, the veto undermines this function by enabling veto-holders to veto UN resolution that seek to legitimize or de-legitimize actions taken in the international system.

***Abolishing veto would enable more global action in the UN*** If the veto was abolished, more measures would make it through the general assembly and security council that reflect the will of the general assembly. More would get done in the world, the UN would better fulfill its mission, and it would subsequently achieve greater credibility in the international system, furthering its ability to get things done.

***Veto power undermines the moral stature of the UN*** Morality in the international system is defined in large part by equality. Because the UN SC veto undermines the notion of soveregn equality, it undermines the moral foundation and authority of the UN itself. This damages its credibility in the international system, and thus impairs its long-term functionality.

***Veto power is frequently hijacked by national agendas***
In the rare recent circumstances in which the veto power has been utilised, it has been hijacked by ideological demands and petty national interests. China prevented peacekeeping operations proceeding in Guatemala and Macedonia on account of the engagement of those countries with Taiwan. The veto is no longer applied for the maintenance of collective security.

***The United States unjustly protects Israel with UN veto***
The United States has protected Israel from international condemnation in the UN SC dozens of times. The condemnation has surrounding such things as Israel's alleged oppression of Palestinians or abuses and international law violations in its war against Hezbollah in Lebanon. There are too many instances in which Israeli abuses and violations of international law were fairly clear. US defenses of Israel in these instances, therefore, constitute a abusive and unprincipled attempt to protect an ally. This all exposes how the UN SC veto opens the door to abuse.

***The "hidden" threat of the UN veto is a major concern***
The threat of the use of the veto is as powerful in preventing resolutions being passed as the actual veto itself. Veto-wielding countries often notify promoters of a resolution that they will veto it, subsequently causing those promoters to back down and to never actually bring legislation to the floor of the general assembly.

***"Uniting for Peace" Resolutions to bypass UN vetoes are only symbolic***
The problem with General Assembly "Uniting for Peace" resolutions is that they don't circumvent the reality that the security council is still responsible for the implementation of measures. Therefore, if a "Uniting for Peace" measure was designed to take any action, it would almost certainly fail to be implemented by the security council due to blockage by the vetoing member.

***UN veto is being abused to stymie country admissions to UN***
Country admission into the UN and into the Security Council is a sensitive topic for some countries, and can often involve deeply rooted prejudices. But, admission should not be held ransom to these prejudices in the form of the vetoe.

***Reforming the UN security council is constitutionally feasible.***
As Richard Butler has observed, a proper debate about the defects of the veto might at the least yield a "more constructive interpretation" of the nature of the veto and its application. An informed public awareness of the potential for the Security Council to be bypassed or hijacked might lead to pressure for exercise of the power in accordance with the Charter aims. Notably, China was persuaded or compelled not to cast the veto in respect of the Council measures on Kosovo. This reasonable approach prevailed in spite of vocal Chinese opposition to the bombing campaign, and the destruction of the Chinese embassy by NATO forces.

***Extending UN SC veto to more countries would reduce UN effectiveness***
While one way to "level the playing field" is to offer the veto to more countries that "deserve" it according to their geopolitical standing, the problem is that this risks increasing the instances in which the veto is used, and in which resolutions are blocked by the national agendas of countries. It is better to "level the playing field", therefore, by moving in the other direction by banning the veto.

I'm hoping for a good refute of yours Mr.maxisdebating :)

Reference:
http://dbp.idebate.org...
http://www.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
maxisdebating

Con

maxisdebating forfeited this round.
ameyav

Pro

ameyav forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
maxisdebating

Con

maxisdebating forfeited this round.
ameyav

Pro

ameyav forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by maxisdebating 4 years ago
maxisdebating
very good arguments on the con side
Posted by maxisdebating 4 years ago
maxisdebating
very good arguments on the con side
No votes have been placed for this debate.