Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Charlatan
The reason the UN was "impotent" was because of the veto power certain members of the security council carry. There was plenty of impetus to do something in Rawanda but the US and others vetoed this involvment.
This veto power needs to be removed or seriously curtailed.
|
completely unworkable politically.
so... the US
and others (which, i believe ended up being majority of the security council) vetoed it yet there was plenty of support? not likely. even if all the banana republics in the world banded together they wouldn't have the resources or technology to do the job. the problem was that there was very little internal political impetus in the countries who could have acted.
the veto power each security council member weilds is the only thing holding the UN together. sure, it restricts some country's actions... but having control over what happens is essential for any world-power national government. what would happen if the the UN decided to take action but the nations who supply the teeth weren't on board? complete political chaos and the fracturing of the UN.
the UN is made of sovereign nations. compelling those sovereign nations to participate against their own political decisions would never do. simply taking those willing piecemeal is nothing more than an alliance with no need for a UN apparatus.