- Joined
- Mar 14, 2002
- Posts
- 68,835
- Reaction score
- 97,278
- Location
- Gasometer Wing
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Kangaroos
How does a nation get onto the SC?
gaso
gaso
-
Guest - BigFooty Tipping 2026 - Get on! - $500 first prize - Weekly Prizes - Click to Join
PLUS Your club board comp is now up!
-
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Opening Round
The Golden Ticket - Official AFL on-seller of MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
UN Security Council
- Thread starter Gasometer
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
tails
Debutant
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2002
- Posts
- 101
- Reaction score
- 1
- Location
- standing on the hill
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Essendon
5 nations are permenant (US, UK, Russia, China and France) the other ten are elected for a set amount of time.
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2001
- Posts
- 8,603
- Reaction score
- 22
- Location
- Exile on Main St
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Liverpool
- Banned
- #3
UN security council reminds me of Star Wars for some reason
- Banned
- #4
Are you thinking about the senate from the Star Wars Episode I and II series with their bickering over the creation of an army and with the Sith - the US trying to gain control of the senate?
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
Curly5
Premiership Player
More like Star Chamber.
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2001
- Posts
- 18,081
- Reaction score
- 27,981
- Location
- Brisbane
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Lions
The thing that gets me about the whole UN "Security Council" setup is this Veto caper.
This is how I understand it:
There are 15 members of the Council - consisting of 5 Permanent members and 10 "elected" members.
The 5 Permanent members are Russia, China, UK, France and the USA.
For a Resolution to be passed, it requires 9 out of the 15 members to OK it.
Even then, ANY ONE of the 5 Permanent Members can exercise its power of VETO to knock the Resolution on the head.
So you can theoretically have a Resolution passed 14 to 1 but if the 1 is a" Permanent" member, it can VETO the whole thing.
This is a joke.
It flies in the face of all democratic principles.
The Iraq issue aside, how can any modern Democratic country tolerate the concept of the will of the majority being held to ransom by a a Permanent Member such as China for example, whose entire social and political fabric is based on NON-DEMOCRATIC principles ????
Whether you agree with the stance of the US or not on the Iraq issue, surely Bush's palpable contempt for the UN process has some foundation in logic.
The way things stand, Iraq could nuke New York tomorrow and China, France or Russia could VETO a Resolution for the US to retaliate.
Why should the foreign policy and the legitimate security concerns of Western DEMOCRACIES be dictated by and held to ransom by a totally UN-DEMOCRATIC "process", especially where NOT all the members contributing to the process don't even believe in Democracy in the first instance?
There is absolutely NO logic to it.
This crap Crean is sprouting about the whole world following the UN "process" is exacltly that - CRAP !!!
Crean's arguments are based on the false pemise that whatever the UN Security Council decides is God's own law.
Let's just sit back and let France, China and Russia decide what we, the US and the UK are allowed or not allowed to do!!!!!!
It's laughable.
The UN "process" is entirely undemocratic.
That's fact.
Does anyone want to dispute this?
This is how I understand it:
There are 15 members of the Council - consisting of 5 Permanent members and 10 "elected" members.
The 5 Permanent members are Russia, China, UK, France and the USA.
For a Resolution to be passed, it requires 9 out of the 15 members to OK it.
Even then, ANY ONE of the 5 Permanent Members can exercise its power of VETO to knock the Resolution on the head.
So you can theoretically have a Resolution passed 14 to 1 but if the 1 is a" Permanent" member, it can VETO the whole thing.
This is a joke.
It flies in the face of all democratic principles.
The Iraq issue aside, how can any modern Democratic country tolerate the concept of the will of the majority being held to ransom by a a Permanent Member such as China for example, whose entire social and political fabric is based on NON-DEMOCRATIC principles ????
Whether you agree with the stance of the US or not on the Iraq issue, surely Bush's palpable contempt for the UN process has some foundation in logic.
The way things stand, Iraq could nuke New York tomorrow and China, France or Russia could VETO a Resolution for the US to retaliate.
Why should the foreign policy and the legitimate security concerns of Western DEMOCRACIES be dictated by and held to ransom by a totally UN-DEMOCRATIC "process", especially where NOT all the members contributing to the process don't even believe in Democracy in the first instance?
There is absolutely NO logic to it.
This crap Crean is sprouting about the whole world following the UN "process" is exacltly that - CRAP !!!
Crean's arguments are based on the false pemise that whatever the UN Security Council decides is God's own law.
Let's just sit back and let France, China and Russia decide what we, the US and the UK are allowed or not allowed to do!!!!!!
It's laughable.
The UN "process" is entirely undemocratic.
That's fact.
Does anyone want to dispute this?
While I agree with the sentiments, Luthor, it works both ways.
If Bush doesn't like the veto system, he should say that the US will renounce it's veto power if the other 4 nations do as well. No country, democratic or not, should enforce it's will on the entire international community.
Also, self-defence does not require a resolution to be legal.
If Bush doesn't like the veto system, he should say that the US will renounce it's veto power if the other 4 nations do as well. No country, democratic or not, should enforce it's will on the entire international community.
Also, self-defence does not require a resolution to be legal.
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2001
- Posts
- 1,057
- Reaction score
- 10
Ahh damn, I just learnt all about that yesterday, coulda told you! 
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2001
- Posts
- 2,446
- Reaction score
- 4
- Location
- Tokyo
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Brisbane
Errrm, the Unites States FREQUENTLY uses it's power of veto for it's own interests...
Last year a resolution to allow cheaper medicine to be obtained in poor African nations was vetoed by the US after being passed 34-1 or so...
Last year a resolution to allow cheaper medicine to be obtained in poor African nations was vetoed by the US after being passed 34-1 or so...
Which would have only resulted in very healthy African govt leaders, and/or wealthy African govt leaders who would have resold the medicines to wealthier countries at a discount.
- Banned
- #11
Yes, a lot of poor African countries are so because their leaders are military despots who keep the spoils for themselves, yet the citizens of that same country go starving, any opposition is brutally crushed. It's a case of corruption really. Look at North Korea - North Koreans are like so poor off, yet Kim Jong Il is able to start up nuclear power plants, test nuclear weapons and build nuclear weapons. Not bad for a poor country. A lot of those demostrations are staged too. It's just to fake it's not funny.
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2001
- Posts
- 2,258
- Reaction score
- 298
- Location
- Kansas City, USA
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- KC Chiefs
The 34 or so nations in favor of providing cheaper medicine to poor African nations wasn't going to have to pay for it. US drug companies were going to have to pay for it.
It costs millions upon millions of dollars for a drug company to research and make one drug. Research, development and approval of a new drug also takes years. That's a lot of time to be floating the research debt. Also, for each drug that finally does make it, 14 other very expensive failures - do not. There is also a tremendous liability for their product, and millions dollars go out the window each year in the form of litigation.
The only way for all of this to work is for the drug company to have a period of exclusivity over any drug they manufacture, and which meets approval for marketing. Otherwise, they would simply fold under.
The Resolution in question was going to force drug companies to allow generic brands of exclusive drugs to be sold. This would have destroyed the companies which originally made the drugs. Without these companies there are no drugs.
Yes it's terrible that there are poor nations in Africa which do not have access to drugs. It would be even more terrible if there weren't companies to make drugs to begin with.
As for the vetos, I think the idea sucks. Here's an historical score of UN vetos by 'permanent' members:
USSR/Russia 120 (USSR 118/Russia 2)
USA 76
Britain 32
France 18
China 5
Interestingly, the USSR thought it was being coy by boycotting a UN vote. That's when the approval came for the Korean War. They didn't miss a single meeting thereafter.
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2002
- Posts
- 9,092
- Reaction score
- 11
- Location
- Adelaide
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Port Adelaide - SANFL
I posted this on the Society and Culture boards a while ago.........
Seeing as the US have been saying the UN will be a toothless tiger if the security council veto's the next resolution tabled on Iraq the following makes interesting reading about the times the US have veto'd resolutions when it suits them............
US hypocrisy paralyses UN
crikey.com.au March 03, 2003
With George Bush calling on the United Nations to honour Resolution 1441 and sanction an invasion of Iraq, now may be a good time to take a quick look at the list of United Nations resolutions the U.S. has vetoed or ignored regarding the Middle East.
Historically, dozens of times the General Assembly and the Security Council have discussed the Palestinian question and adopted numerous resolutions, especially 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) of the Security Council, which chart the road to peace. Nevertheless, they have not been applied. There has been paralysis in the Council, due to the United States threat of veto, which creates a double standard, notes United Nations Press Release GA/9793, 20 October 2000.
The US has even threatened to withdraw from the United Nations if Israel were to be suspended for failing to abide by UN resolutions.
Here are some of the more critical draft resolutions that have been vetoed by the United States:
S/11940 of 23 January 1976 (9 in favour, U.S. veto, 3 abstentions-Italy, Sweden, UK. China and Libya did not participate.) The U.N. affirms "The right of Palestinian refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours to do so and the right of those choosing not to return to receive compensation for their property" and also "That Israel should withdraw from all the Arab territories occupied since June 1967."
S/12022 of 24 March 1976 (14 in favour, U.S. veto) Noted that the U.N. is "Deeply concerned further at the measures taken by the Israeli authorities leading to the present grave situation including measures aimed at changing the physical, cultural, demographic and religious character of the occupied territories and, in particular, the City of Jerusalem, the establishment of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories and other violations of the human rights of the inhabitants of those territories."
S/14943 of 1 April 1982 (13 in favour, U.S. veto, 1 abstention-Zaire) Noted that the U.N. "Calls on Israel, the occupying Power, to rescind its decision disbanding the elected municipal council of El Bireh and its decision to remove from their posts the Mayors of Nablus and Ramallah."
S/15185 of 8 June 1982 (14 in favour, U.S. veto) Noted the U.N. "Reiterates its demand that Israel withdraw all its military forces forthwith and unconditionally to the internationally recognised boundaries of Lebanon."
S/15347/Rev.1 of 6 August 1982 (11 in favour, U.S. veto, 3 abstentions-Togo, UK, Zaire) Requested that "all the States Members of the United Nations should refrain from supplying Israel with any weapons and from providing it with any military aid until the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from all Lebanese territory."
S/17769 of 29 January 1986 (13 in favour, U.S. veto, 1 abstention-Thailand) Noted that the U.N. "Determines once more that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that the policy and practices of Israel of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East."
S/20945/Rev.1 of 7 November 1989 (14 in favour, U.S. veto) Noted that the U.N. "Strongly deplores those policies and practices of Israel, the occupying Power, which violate the human rights of the Palestinian people in the occupied territory, and in particular the siege of towns, the ransacking of the homes of inhabitants, as has happened at Beit Sahur, and the illegal and arbitrary confiscation of their property and valuables."
S/21326 of 31 May 1990 (14 in favour, U.S. veto) Attempted to establish "a Commission consisting of three members of the Security Council, to be dispatched immediately to examine the situation relating to the policies and practices of Israel, the occupying Power, in the Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem, occupied by Israel since 1967."
S/1997/241 of 21 March 1997 (13 in favour, U.S. veto, 1 abstention-Costa Rica) Noted that the UN "Demands that Israel immediately cease construction of the Jabal Abu Ghneim settlement in East Jerusalem, as well as all other Israeli settlement activities in the occupied territories."
S/2001/270 of 27 March 2001 (9 in favour, U.S. veto, 4 abstentions-France, Ireland, Norway, United Kingdom) Noted "Voting against efforts to establish a United Nations observer force to protect Palestinian civilians, the United States vetoed a draft resolution expressing the Council's readiness to set up such a mechanism."
Related Links:
A list of UN resolutions, from 1947 to present, that made it through the Security Council without being vetoed, can be accessed: here
The list of Security Council Draft Resolutions on Palestine that have been vetoed by the U.S. can be accessed here: here
Search UNISPAL for the actual details of vetoed draft resolutions on Palestine: here
Seeing as the US have been saying the UN will be a toothless tiger if the security council veto's the next resolution tabled on Iraq the following makes interesting reading about the times the US have veto'd resolutions when it suits them............
US hypocrisy paralyses UN
crikey.com.au March 03, 2003
With George Bush calling on the United Nations to honour Resolution 1441 and sanction an invasion of Iraq, now may be a good time to take a quick look at the list of United Nations resolutions the U.S. has vetoed or ignored regarding the Middle East.
Historically, dozens of times the General Assembly and the Security Council have discussed the Palestinian question and adopted numerous resolutions, especially 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) of the Security Council, which chart the road to peace. Nevertheless, they have not been applied. There has been paralysis in the Council, due to the United States threat of veto, which creates a double standard, notes United Nations Press Release GA/9793, 20 October 2000.
The US has even threatened to withdraw from the United Nations if Israel were to be suspended for failing to abide by UN resolutions.
Here are some of the more critical draft resolutions that have been vetoed by the United States:
S/11940 of 23 January 1976 (9 in favour, U.S. veto, 3 abstentions-Italy, Sweden, UK. China and Libya did not participate.) The U.N. affirms "The right of Palestinian refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours to do so and the right of those choosing not to return to receive compensation for their property" and also "That Israel should withdraw from all the Arab territories occupied since June 1967."
S/12022 of 24 March 1976 (14 in favour, U.S. veto) Noted that the U.N. is "Deeply concerned further at the measures taken by the Israeli authorities leading to the present grave situation including measures aimed at changing the physical, cultural, demographic and religious character of the occupied territories and, in particular, the City of Jerusalem, the establishment of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories and other violations of the human rights of the inhabitants of those territories."
S/14943 of 1 April 1982 (13 in favour, U.S. veto, 1 abstention-Zaire) Noted that the U.N. "Calls on Israel, the occupying Power, to rescind its decision disbanding the elected municipal council of El Bireh and its decision to remove from their posts the Mayors of Nablus and Ramallah."
S/15185 of 8 June 1982 (14 in favour, U.S. veto) Noted the U.N. "Reiterates its demand that Israel withdraw all its military forces forthwith and unconditionally to the internationally recognised boundaries of Lebanon."
S/15347/Rev.1 of 6 August 1982 (11 in favour, U.S. veto, 3 abstentions-Togo, UK, Zaire) Requested that "all the States Members of the United Nations should refrain from supplying Israel with any weapons and from providing it with any military aid until the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from all Lebanese territory."
S/17769 of 29 January 1986 (13 in favour, U.S. veto, 1 abstention-Thailand) Noted that the U.N. "Determines once more that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that the policy and practices of Israel of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East."
S/20945/Rev.1 of 7 November 1989 (14 in favour, U.S. veto) Noted that the U.N. "Strongly deplores those policies and practices of Israel, the occupying Power, which violate the human rights of the Palestinian people in the occupied territory, and in particular the siege of towns, the ransacking of the homes of inhabitants, as has happened at Beit Sahur, and the illegal and arbitrary confiscation of their property and valuables."
S/21326 of 31 May 1990 (14 in favour, U.S. veto) Attempted to establish "a Commission consisting of three members of the Security Council, to be dispatched immediately to examine the situation relating to the policies and practices of Israel, the occupying Power, in the Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem, occupied by Israel since 1967."
S/1997/241 of 21 March 1997 (13 in favour, U.S. veto, 1 abstention-Costa Rica) Noted that the UN "Demands that Israel immediately cease construction of the Jabal Abu Ghneim settlement in East Jerusalem, as well as all other Israeli settlement activities in the occupied territories."
S/2001/270 of 27 March 2001 (9 in favour, U.S. veto, 4 abstentions-France, Ireland, Norway, United Kingdom) Noted "Voting against efforts to establish a United Nations observer force to protect Palestinian civilians, the United States vetoed a draft resolution expressing the Council's readiness to set up such a mechanism."
Related Links:
A list of UN resolutions, from 1947 to present, that made it through the Security Council without being vetoed, can be accessed: here
The list of Security Council Draft Resolutions on Palestine that have been vetoed by the U.S. can be accessed here: here
Search UNISPAL for the actual details of vetoed draft resolutions on Palestine: here
- Banned
- #14
Good work in the research Dreamkillers, makes for very interesting reading indeed. There is some hypocrisy from France's and Germany's side as i hear that France was a big importer in Iraqi goods plus some Iraqi military stuff is from France and Germany built some of their nuclear stuff? Something like that...
