[Population: One] <A HREF="http://popone.innocence.com/ar

[bryant]

It occurs to me that one of the large obstacles in the way of invading Iraq is the Security Council veto. It further occurs to me that the rationale behind the veto, that being the great power status of the Allied nations after World War II, is somewhat antiquated.

I don't think any pro-war pundit can deny that the veto is tremendously frustrating. As so many have pointed out, it seems ridiculous that France can effectively stand in the way of UN action. That ability -- the ability of one nation to unfairly stop debate in its tracks -- prevents the UN from being effective. Again, many argue that the UN's inability to press the issue of Iraq is ruining the UN as we watch.

OK. Let's get rid of the veto. I won't go so far as to recommend that the permanent members of the Security Council lose that status, but let's get rid of the vetos and enable the UN to respond in a timely fashion without fear of being blackmailed by any single nation.

Nota bene: Russia has vetoed over 60% more resolutions than the next most frequent vetoer. Someone on NPR tonight was claiming that the US held the record. Incorrect; the link above has the real numbers.

Comments

[eyelessgame.livejournal.com]

I don't have a problem with things being frustrating to pro-war pundits -- or pro-war nations, for that matter -- independent of the current situation (for which war is perhaps a defensible intent, but an invasion of a nation that has not committed unanswered aggression against other nations certainly requires general acclaim first, which it lacks at this point, pending the case being made to the dubious nations.)

Pedant point: NPR was not wrong. Russia has not vetoed over 60% more resolutions than the next most frequent vetoer. The Soviet Union vetoed more than any other nation but is no longer a member of the Security Council. Of the current permanent members :) the US has vetoed the most resolutions.