When it comes to decision making, to actually enforcing the rules and values these countries once said to obey, the UN is paralysed.
Only if by “enforcement” you mean “going to war”, which, once again, is what the system is designed to prevent. Military intervention is difficult to authorize by design, precisely because it is, and should, be the last resort. Thinking of anything short of war as “paralyzed” is the exact “Stop-war association is worthless because it won’t let me go to war” anglo brainworms that are to blame for the 21st century being what it is.
to ensure for the global elite of nuclear powers that they’d never have to face a decision against their will.
Yes. Exactly. That’s how they prevent WW3. By making sure everyone else knows what the red lines of nuclear powers are. Otherwise, every time a nuclear power would want to take an action, it would be playing a game of chicken with all the other powers.
Because that theocratic regime determined to obliterate a whole nation
Who, Israel? Because from where I’m sitting, Iran’s foreign policy has been, on the whole, more than reasonable. Last I heard, they even agreed to completely stop uranium enrichment alltogether - and then the theocratic regime determined to destroy their whole nation murdered their head of state.
If what you’re saying is true, every single resolution on Iran’s nuclear program would have been vetoed by Russia, and none were. None. Zero. Instead, the nuclear rogue state under the veto shield by a global power is the exact country you’re defending.
No, by enforcement I mean actually applying the law to stop the trespassing of the law. Or at least punish the trespassing if you couldn’t stop the actual trespassing in time.
That’s how they prevent WW3.
How? WW3 would need a direct, open conflict between at least two major nuclear powers. A constellation we - luckily - haven’t seen since WW2. I’d argue that this is because each of those countries knows that a conflict like that cannot be reliably contained and would end in MAD. So nukes are the balancing factor keeping these countries at check. I cannot see how the architecture of the UN comes into play here.
Who, Israel? Because from where I’m sitting, Iran’s foreign policy has been, on the whole, more than reasonable.
I guess you’re sitting in an IRGC hq then. Because, not trying to downplay Netanyahu’s actions, calling Iran’s foreign policy, “on the whole, more than reasonable” is quite a hot take. One key aspect of Khomeini was to export the Islamic Revolution worldwide until everywhere on the globe we would shout “There’s no God but Allah”. I don’t know about you, but I don’t fancy to live in a theocracy under sharia law. Also, the position to outright annihilate Israel is one at least I cannot condone, won’t fly legally in my jurisdiction, and is a position that will not bring peace to the region, let’s be honest.
If what you’re saying is true, every single resolution on Iran’s nuclear program would have been vetoed by Russia, and none were. None. Zero.
As I said: Iran was so isolated that neither Russia nor China saw any gain in protecting them. That was then, though. Today, I think we both agree, Russia would veto.
is the exact country you’re defending.
Not blindly jumping on the echo chamber hate-wagon in every aspect is not defending. Netanyahu is a criminal and should be prosecuted. He does not want peace but to save his skin. Setting up more and more settlements on Palestinian soil and deporting the inhabitants is a crime. Starving the population in Gaza is a crime. But also: Israel has the right to exist as a country within its international borders. And those that cannot accept that are bringing injustice on themselves and are more part of the problem than of the solution.
Yes, that’s what the sanctions are for. And I once again point out you literally brought up a case in which they demonstrably worked.
A constellation we - luckily - haven’t seen since WW2
Yes. Thanks in no small part to the UN.
calling Iran’s foreign policy, “on the whole, more than reasonable” is quite a hot take.
I know, it’s crazy, and yet entirely correct. They took on the chin decades of open warmongering and multiple naked acts of war, retaliations that they did take were very carefully measured and precisely executed, going so far to telegraph their strikes a full day in advance so they would cause no casualties, and they even agreed to compromise on an armament program they (as we now see, rightfully) considered vital to the security if not outright survival of the country. It was like Ukraine agreeing to the Budapest agreement again. When their competition is a state that throws a hissyfit when asked nicely to stop killing children, I’d say they have been more than reasonable, even without considering we’re talking about an Islamic theocracy.
Iran was so isolated that neither Russia nor China saw any gain in protecting them.
So, then, you agree that “under the explicit protection of one of the big veto powers, be it Iran and Russia or Israel and the US” was a false equivalence?
Today, I think we both agree, Russia would veto.
Veto what? A naked war of aggression US and Israel can’t even articulate why they’re starting? I’d hope there would be no need to have to resort to a veto.
But also: Israel has the right to exist as a country within its international borders.
So does Iran. And the UN’s job is to try and enable both, no matter how much they’d like to run eachother over with a Zamboni machine. That’s the whole point.
…which won’t come into effect if the trespasser is (under the protection of) a veto power.
And I once again point out you literally brought up a case in which they demonstrably worked.
Iran failing to secure a veto power that saw something to gain in protecting it in the past isn’t proving or disproving anything. Today, since they are - as I said - a key enabler for Russia’s war ambitions, they would be protected.
So, then, you agree that “under the explicit protection of one of the big veto powers, be it Iran and Russia or Israel and the US” was a false equivalence?
No. I said:
As soon as you’re under the explicit protection of one of the big veto powers, be it Iran and Russia or Israel and the US, you can do whatever you want.
And that is still correct.
Veto what?
For example prosecution for killing its own citizens en masse a couple of weeks ago for daring to stand up against the ongoing oppression by the regime. You know, something people on the left side of the political spectrum normally show great sympathies towards (fighting the oppression, that is, not killing the citizens).
So does Iran.
Who said otherwise? I haven’t head many people opposing the mere “idea” of Iran. It is the sclerotic theocracy despised by the own populace, being so hellbent on annihilating another country, that makes that regime a strain on the international community. Mind you, of course it’s not the only strain. Yet, there’s an awful lot more people completely sympathetic to the idea of making Israel itself disappear from the map than there are that wish for maps without Iran.
And the UN’s job is to try and enable both, no matter how much they’d like to run eachother over with a Zamboni machine. That’s the whole point.
How good does that work if there’s an elite caste that can veto whatever goes against their will? How can you get countries to abide by the rules if these rules only apply to certain countries?
They didn’t need a veto, they secured a vote. By complying. To the sanctions. Because they worked. If anything, had the sanctions still been in place when Trump first won, I would expect a US veto on lifting them.
Today, since they are - as I said - a key enabler for Russia’s war ambitions, they would be protected.
[…]
And that is still correct.
No it is not.
You’re equivocating real, actual vetos on real, actual resolution proposals with vetos you imagine would be invoked to resolutions you imagine would be proposed. You keep making arguments that don’t exist outside your head. And possibly Congress.
For example prosecution for killing its own citizens en masse a couple of weeks ago for daring to stand up against the ongoing oppression by the regime.
Oh? So not the war? You’re arguing for illegal war because veto umbrellas make the UN useless, but even in your imagination the veto is used against sanctions, instead of a war?
Who said otherwise?
Uh… something something western world, something holy crusade, blabla Amalek, blablabla red heifer, blablabla Jesus coming back. It’s been all over the news recently, but various rephrasings and dogwhistles were around for decades. Hell, now that I think about it, Iran’s theocracy being sclerotic and unpopular might even be a point in Iran’s favour.
being so hellbent on annihilating another country, that makes that regime a strain on the international community.
See, this is another one of those equivocations: This entire phrase applies a lot more directly to Israel than it does to Iran. Iran makes a lot of noise, but I don’t remember them assassinating Israeli officials or bombing Israel out of the blue, and when the international community gets serious, they are willing to make concessions. Israel, on the other hand, is under cover of more than two dozen SC vetos, and currently arguably engaged in an ethnic cleansing, a genocide, and an illegal war of aggression two, actually, they just invaded Lebanon. Again.
How good does that work if there’s an elite caste that can veto whatever goes against their will? How can you get countries to abide by the rules if these rules only apply to certain countries?
That is an excellent question, except it would seem to basically only apply to US and Israel. Maaaybe the NorKs. Past Apartheit, Russia was by and large covering it’s own ass, and China was mostly backing Russia up, presumably to fuck with the yanks. America is the only one with a problem child that needs constant bailing out of juvie. So, really, the question is less about the UN, and more “how do we get the US to either reign in their brat, or stop covering for it”.
Where? Did the UN recently decided something grave against Iran?
They didn’t need a veto, they secured a vote. By complying. To the sanctions. Because they worked.
Sanctions that only came into place because the failed to gain the favour of a veto power.
You keep making arguments that don’t exist outside your head.
Are you seriously believing that Russia today would again allow the UN to sanction Iran and would not exert its veto? Honestly?
Oh? So not the war?
What? Why would Iran be sanctioned for this war??? Iran has its own actions to be sanctioned for, but this war isn’t one of them.
It’s been all over the news recently
I’d love to see “the news” that call for a map without Iran as a country.
Iran makes a lot of noise
Since day one of their existence as an “Islamic Republic”, they threatened Israel with annihilation. A threat that Israel knows only too well, after having to fight a war against all neighbours in the moment of founding of their state. I can’t blame them that they want to take that “noise” seriously. It is a core objective of the IRI to destroy Israel. Not Netanyahu’s Israel, but simply Israel. They don’t want a Jewish state in “their neighbourhood”. Israel, in turn, is capable of coexisting with Muslim countries around it if they accept that there will be an Israel around. Is Iran ready to accept that?
That is an excellent question, except it would seem to basically only apply to US and Israel.
Yes, yes. I know. We can’t talk about anything without immediately focussing on US and Israel. If you’re too fixated on these two to be able to discuss a broader picture, that’s fine. But then, that’ll be a very limited discussion to be had with you.
To conclude and loop back to where we actually started here: there’s a fundamental flaw in the principle of the UN. The veto powers created a system in which they are able to protect them and their proteges from whatever unwanted consequences they’d have to face. This effectively paralyses the UN, and especially the application of international law. A commenter wanted to criticise NATO’s actions in Yugoslavia, as they weren’t backed by an UN resolution. Although ethnic cleansing was going on.
You said:
But if you both accept that a veto blocks an intervention if backed by firepower, but doesn’t if not, then the vote itself is just window dressing and all you’re left is might makes right.
The veto would not necessarily block the intervention. It would only block the legitimisation by the UN of said intervention. The veto can stop the work of the UN, but not of the member states. As happened here: the UN was too paralysed to react to the human rights violations, so the NATO states took it in their own hands. That isn’t ideal but a direct consequence of the flawed architecture of the UN thanks to the veto the nuclear global elite gave themselves. And now, everyone is free to pick a side to stand: either saying that it is more important to end human rights violations, even if the body responsible to approve that is incapable of doing so - or saying that it is more important to strictly stick to the rules, even if that means idly watching ethnic cleansing when the responsible body has been deliberately put in standstill by other members affiliated with the perpetrator.
Where? Did the UN recently decided something grave against Iran?
recently
The fact that you’re trying to weasel out of the obvious answer tells me you know you’re wrong. So in lieu of falling for it, Did Russiarecentlyveto something grave against Iran?
failed to gain the favour of a veto power.
This is an argument that only makes sense if rely on a veto to cover your ass. Which, as we have seen, only works if you’re a permanent member. Or Israel, apparently.
Are you seriously believing that Russia today would again allow the UN to sanction Iran and would not exert its veto? Honestly?
Yes I am. They have before, and will again. If anything, I would expect it to let the sanctions happen, then break them, then veto being punished for breaking them. Fits the MO much better.
I’d love to see “the news” that call for a map without Iran as a country.
Israel, in turn, is capable of coexisting with Muslim countries around it if they accept that there will be an Israel around. Is Iran ready to accept that?
As long as the country isn’t Palestine.
We can’t talk about anything without immediately focussing on US and Israel.
We can, but your core argument hangs on a great power covering an ally with a veto no matter what, and we currently only have one actual example of it happening.
The veto would not necessarily block the intervention. It would only block the legitimisation by the UN of said intervention.
This is an excellent point! A country can, absolutely, act without UN legitimacy, and “get things done”. But it doesn’t just strip legitimacy from itself, it also strips it from the UN. Which then leads to geopolicy understanders online to call the UN useless, despite all the useful stuff it does.
You can choose yours, I’ve chosen mine.
I know. And what you have chosen is “Might makes right”. I can understand why, it’s an appealing fantasy, it’s why Dirty Harry is popular, but the flip side is that if you declare the rules don’t apply to you, you can’t object to everyone else doing it, whether it’s Russia invading Ukraine, or China invading Taiwan. Or, in fact, any of the Arab states attacking Israel.
What are you on about? I’ve always been talking about recently, status quo, today. The only one trying to make this into a historical competition on who vetoed for whom how many times is you. I’ve been trying to make that clear repeatedly. My problem isn’t who vetoed for whom but the possibility to veto at all, as that’s the core problem. If you want to discuss something else, fine. But that’s not the discussion I’m having here.
This is an argument that only makes sense if rely on a veto to cover your ass.
Why? Please elaborate.
Yes I am. They have before, and will again.
They have at a time when Iran was internationally isolated and Russia was in (superficially) good terms with the “West”. Now, Russia is also isolated, in bad terms with the “West” and dependent on Iran’s support for maintaining their war machine. Russia has too little allies left to be able to afford losing another, if they can help with as little effort as using their veto power. That’s the arguments I can provide for my opinion that they wouldn’t let Iran be punished by the UN. What are yours for your point of view?
As long as the country isn’t Palestine.
True as of today. But in Israel, the people can vote for another direction entirely and have the possibility to rid themselves of unpopular Netanyahu. In Iran, the political cornerstones are set since 1979 and the will of the people for change was just brutally slaughtered. The question remains: is Iran ready to accept the existence of Israel?
But it doesn’t just strip legitimacy from itself, it also strips it from the UN. Which then leads to geopolicy understanders online to call the UN useless, despite all the useful stuff it does.
But that’s a UN problem and not a “persons that call that out” problem. After WW2, there was the understandable desire to create a platform where international topics could be resolved in peace. Good idea! However, the big players didn’t trust each other and also didn’t want to be subjugated to anything else than their own free decisions. That’s also understandable. But a true and fair international platform issues the same rights to all its members. Which the UN doesn’t, so that’s an elemental design flaw it will always stumble upon.
And what you have chosen is “Might makes right”.
No. Because I don’t advocate a general free-for-all where every nation can do as it pleases. I just can accept that in a situation where the body responsible for exerting international law and the protection of basic human rights is not working, its member states, facing exigent circumstances, themselves take matters into their own hands instead of watching idly.
Why should people let themselves get killed just because the UN is incapable of fixing its design flaws?
you can’t object to everyone else doing it, whether it’s Russia invading Ukraine, or China invading Taiwan. Or, in fact, any of the Arab states attacking Israel
Let’s not pretend they care at all, even today. Russia invaded Ukraine although everyone knew there was not justification behind it whatsoever, besides the wish of a small, ageing man to be the one in the history books that restored the “lost empire”. Similarly, China doesn’t care at all if the world thinks there’s any justification to them trying to annex Taiwan, when the sole reason they’ll try it is petty-minded revenge and the inability to accept a “Chinese” country outside their oppressive control. All these examples of yours are already operating under the principle “might makes right”.
No you haven’t. You’ve been talking in hypotheticals. If you have a non-imaginary example, I’d love to hear it.
Why? Please elaborate.
Because normal countries don’t see the veto as a first line of defense. In fact, normal countries don’t see the veto at all. SC vetos are not, as you present it, normal procedure for normal countries. Hell, even permanent SC members don’t just plop vetos willy-nilly. Seeing the veto as the first, last, and only option requires a very specific mindset, that is simply not how countries operate. Well, except for…
They have at a time when Iran was internationally isolated and Russia was in (superficially) good terms with the “West”. Now, Russia is also isolated, in bad terms with the “West” and dependent on Iran’s support for maintaining their war machine. Russia has too little allies left to be able to afford losing another, if they can help with as little effort as using their veto power. That’s the arguments I can provide for my opinion that they wouldn’t let Iran be punished by the UN. What are yours for your point of view?
This isn’t an argument, it’s an opinion. It’s not unreasonable, but it goes against both prior and current behavior of the parties involved.
True as of today. But in Israel, the people can vote for another direction entirely and have the possibility to rid themselves of unpopular Netanyahu. In Iran, the political cornerstones are set since 1979 and the will of the people for change was just brutally slaughtered. The question remains: is Iran ready to accept the existence of Israel?
Once again, you’re criticizing Iran for announcing destruction they haven’t actually done, but credit Israel for hypothetically being capable of deciding not to do the destruction they currently literally are doing. You’re doing the thing again.
No. Because I don’t advocate a general free-for-all where every nation can do as it pleases.
Yes you do, you just don’t realize it, because you think right isn’t made by might if it’s made by might you agree with.
Let’s not pretend they care at all, even today. Russia invaded Ukraine although everyone knew there was not justification behind it whatsoever, besides the wish of a small, ageing man to be the one in the history books that restored the “lost empire”. Similarly, China doesn’t care at all if the world thinks there’s any justification to them trying to annex Taiwan, when the sole reason they’ll try it is petty-minded revenge and the inability to accept a “Chinese” country outside their oppressive control. All these examples of yours are already operating under the principle “might makes right”.
Exactly! Let’s not pretend they care at all, even today. US invaded Iraq although everyone knew… And since you agree that laws are stupid and working through the system to get what you want is a waste of time, then clearly you’re fine with them following the precedent.
Only if by “enforcement” you mean “going to war”, which, once again, is what the system is designed to prevent. Military intervention is difficult to authorize by design, precisely because it is, and should, be the last resort. Thinking of anything short of war as “paralyzed” is the exact “Stop-war association is worthless because it won’t let me go to war” anglo brainworms that are to blame for the 21st century being what it is.
Yes. Exactly. That’s how they prevent WW3. By making sure everyone else knows what the red lines of nuclear powers are. Otherwise, every time a nuclear power would want to take an action, it would be playing a game of chicken with all the other powers.
Who, Israel? Because from where I’m sitting, Iran’s foreign policy has been, on the whole, more than reasonable. Last I heard, they even agreed to completely stop uranium enrichment alltogether - and then the theocratic regime determined to destroy their whole nation murdered their head of state.
If what you’re saying is true, every single resolution on Iran’s nuclear program would have been vetoed by Russia, and none were. None. Zero. Instead, the nuclear rogue state under the veto shield by a global power is the exact country you’re defending.
No, by enforcement I mean actually applying the law to stop the trespassing of the law. Or at least punish the trespassing if you couldn’t stop the actual trespassing in time.
How? WW3 would need a direct, open conflict between at least two major nuclear powers. A constellation we - luckily - haven’t seen since WW2. I’d argue that this is because each of those countries knows that a conflict like that cannot be reliably contained and would end in MAD. So nukes are the balancing factor keeping these countries at check. I cannot see how the architecture of the UN comes into play here.
I guess you’re sitting in an IRGC hq then. Because, not trying to downplay Netanyahu’s actions, calling Iran’s foreign policy, “on the whole, more than reasonable” is quite a hot take. One key aspect of Khomeini was to export the Islamic Revolution worldwide until everywhere on the globe we would shout “There’s no God but Allah”. I don’t know about you, but I don’t fancy to live in a theocracy under sharia law. Also, the position to outright annihilate Israel is one at least I cannot condone, won’t fly legally in my jurisdiction, and is a position that will not bring peace to the region, let’s be honest.
As I said: Iran was so isolated that neither Russia nor China saw any gain in protecting them. That was then, though. Today, I think we both agree, Russia would veto.
Not blindly jumping on the echo chamber hate-wagon in every aspect is not defending. Netanyahu is a criminal and should be prosecuted. He does not want peace but to save his skin. Setting up more and more settlements on Palestinian soil and deporting the inhabitants is a crime. Starving the population in Gaza is a crime. But also: Israel has the right to exist as a country within its international borders. And those that cannot accept that are bringing injustice on themselves and are more part of the problem than of the solution.
Yes, that’s what the sanctions are for. And I once again point out you literally brought up a case in which they demonstrably worked.
Yes. Thanks in no small part to the UN.
I know, it’s crazy, and yet entirely correct. They took on the chin decades of open warmongering and multiple naked acts of war, retaliations that they did take were very carefully measured and precisely executed, going so far to telegraph their strikes a full day in advance so they would cause no casualties, and they even agreed to compromise on an armament program they (as we now see, rightfully) considered vital to the security if not outright survival of the country. It was like Ukraine agreeing to the Budapest agreement again. When their competition is a state that throws a hissyfit when asked nicely to stop killing children, I’d say they have been more than reasonable, even without considering we’re talking about an Islamic theocracy.
So, then, you agree that “under the explicit protection of one of the big veto powers, be it Iran and Russia or Israel and the US” was a false equivalence?
Veto what? A naked war of aggression US and Israel can’t even articulate why they’re starting? I’d hope there would be no need to have to resort to a veto.
So does Iran. And the UN’s job is to try and enable both, no matter how much they’d like to run eachother over with a Zamboni machine. That’s the whole point.
…which won’t come into effect if the trespasser is (under the protection of) a veto power.
Iran failing to secure a veto power that saw something to gain in protecting it in the past isn’t proving or disproving anything. Today, since they are - as I said - a key enabler for Russia’s war ambitions, they would be protected.
No. I said:
And that is still correct.
For example prosecution for killing its own citizens en masse a couple of weeks ago for daring to stand up against the ongoing oppression by the regime. You know, something people on the left side of the political spectrum normally show great sympathies towards (fighting the oppression, that is, not killing the citizens).
Who said otherwise? I haven’t head many people opposing the mere “idea” of Iran. It is the sclerotic theocracy despised by the own populace, being so hellbent on annihilating another country, that makes that regime a strain on the international community. Mind you, of course it’s not the only strain. Yet, there’s an awful lot more people completely sympathetic to the idea of making Israel itself disappear from the map than there are that wish for maps without Iran.
How good does that work if there’s an elite caste that can veto whatever goes against their will? How can you get countries to abide by the rules if these rules only apply to certain countries?
Which, as we can plainly see, they are not.
They didn’t need a veto, they secured a vote. By complying. To the sanctions. Because they worked. If anything, had the sanctions still been in place when Trump first won, I would expect a US veto on lifting them.
No it is not.
You’re equivocating real, actual vetos on real, actual resolution proposals with vetos you imagine would be invoked to resolutions you imagine would be proposed. You keep making arguments that don’t exist outside your head. And possibly Congress.
Oh? So not the war? You’re arguing for illegal war because veto umbrellas make the UN useless, but even in your imagination the veto is used against sanctions, instead of a war?
Uh… something something western world, something holy crusade, blabla Amalek, blablabla red heifer, blablabla Jesus coming back. It’s been all over the news recently, but various rephrasings and dogwhistles were around for decades. Hell, now that I think about it, Iran’s theocracy being sclerotic and unpopular might even be a point in Iran’s favour.
See, this is another one of those equivocations: This entire phrase applies a lot more directly to Israel than it does to Iran. Iran makes a lot of noise, but I don’t remember them assassinating Israeli officials or bombing Israel out of the blue, and when the international community gets serious, they are willing to make concessions. Israel, on the other hand, is under cover of more than two dozen SC vetos, and currently arguably engaged in an ethnic cleansing, a genocide, and an
illegal war of aggressiontwo, actually, they just invaded Lebanon. Again.That is an excellent question, except it would seem to basically only apply to US and Israel. Maaaybe the NorKs. Past Apartheit, Russia was by and large covering it’s own ass, and China was mostly backing Russia up, presumably to fuck with the yanks. America is the only one with a problem child that needs constant bailing out of juvie. So, really, the question is less about the UN, and more “how do we get the US to either reign in their brat, or stop covering for it”.
Where? Did the UN recently decided something grave against Iran?
Sanctions that only came into place because the failed to gain the favour of a veto power.
Are you seriously believing that Russia today would again allow the UN to sanction Iran and would not exert its veto? Honestly?
What? Why would Iran be sanctioned for this war??? Iran has its own actions to be sanctioned for, but this war isn’t one of them.
I’d love to see “the news” that call for a map without Iran as a country.
Since day one of their existence as an “Islamic Republic”, they threatened Israel with annihilation. A threat that Israel knows only too well, after having to fight a war against all neighbours in the moment of founding of their state. I can’t blame them that they want to take that “noise” seriously. It is a core objective of the IRI to destroy Israel. Not Netanyahu’s Israel, but simply Israel. They don’t want a Jewish state in “their neighbourhood”. Israel, in turn, is capable of coexisting with Muslim countries around it if they accept that there will be an Israel around. Is Iran ready to accept that?
Yes, yes. I know. We can’t talk about anything without immediately focussing on US and Israel. If you’re too fixated on these two to be able to discuss a broader picture, that’s fine. But then, that’ll be a very limited discussion to be had with you.
To conclude and loop back to where we actually started here: there’s a fundamental flaw in the principle of the UN. The veto powers created a system in which they are able to protect them and their proteges from whatever unwanted consequences they’d have to face. This effectively paralyses the UN, and especially the application of international law. A commenter wanted to criticise NATO’s actions in Yugoslavia, as they weren’t backed by an UN resolution. Although ethnic cleansing was going on.
You said:
The veto would not necessarily block the intervention. It would only block the legitimisation by the UN of said intervention. The veto can stop the work of the UN, but not of the member states. As happened here: the UN was too paralysed to react to the human rights violations, so the NATO states took it in their own hands. That isn’t ideal but a direct consequence of the flawed architecture of the UN thanks to the veto the nuclear global elite gave themselves. And now, everyone is free to pick a side to stand: either saying that it is more important to end human rights violations, even if the body responsible to approve that is incapable of doing so - or saying that it is more important to strictly stick to the rules, even if that means idly watching ethnic cleansing when the responsible body has been deliberately put in standstill by other members affiliated with the perpetrator.
You can choose yours, I’ve chosen mine.
The fact that you’re trying to weasel out of the obvious answer tells me you know you’re wrong. So in lieu of falling for it, Did Russia recently veto something grave against Iran?
This is an argument that only makes sense if rely on a veto to cover your ass. Which, as we have seen, only works if you’re a permanent member. Or Israel, apparently.
Yes I am. They have before, and will again. If anything, I would expect it to let the sanctions happen, then break them, then veto being punished for breaking them. Fits the MO much better.
Oh, we’ll get there, don’t you worry…
As long as the country isn’t Palestine.
We can, but your core argument hangs on a great power covering an ally with a veto no matter what, and we currently only have one actual example of it happening.
This is an excellent point! A country can, absolutely, act without UN legitimacy, and “get things done”. But it doesn’t just strip legitimacy from itself, it also strips it from the UN. Which then leads to geopolicy understanders online to call the UN useless, despite all the useful stuff it does.
I know. And what you have chosen is “Might makes right”. I can understand why, it’s an appealing fantasy, it’s why Dirty Harry is popular, but the flip side is that if you declare the rules don’t apply to you, you can’t object to everyone else doing it, whether it’s Russia invading Ukraine, or China invading Taiwan. Or, in fact, any of the Arab states attacking Israel.
What are you on about? I’ve always been talking about recently, status quo, today. The only one trying to make this into a historical competition on who vetoed for whom how many times is you. I’ve been trying to make that clear repeatedly. My problem isn’t who vetoed for whom but the possibility to veto at all, as that’s the core problem. If you want to discuss something else, fine. But that’s not the discussion I’m having here.
Why? Please elaborate.
They have at a time when Iran was internationally isolated and Russia was in (superficially) good terms with the “West”. Now, Russia is also isolated, in bad terms with the “West” and dependent on Iran’s support for maintaining their war machine. Russia has too little allies left to be able to afford losing another, if they can help with as little effort as using their veto power. That’s the arguments I can provide for my opinion that they wouldn’t let Iran be punished by the UN. What are yours for your point of view?
True as of today. But in Israel, the people can vote for another direction entirely and have the possibility to rid themselves of unpopular Netanyahu. In Iran, the political cornerstones are set since 1979 and the will of the people for change was just brutally slaughtered. The question remains: is Iran ready to accept the existence of Israel?
But that’s a UN problem and not a “persons that call that out” problem. After WW2, there was the understandable desire to create a platform where international topics could be resolved in peace. Good idea! However, the big players didn’t trust each other and also didn’t want to be subjugated to anything else than their own free decisions. That’s also understandable. But a true and fair international platform issues the same rights to all its members. Which the UN doesn’t, so that’s an elemental design flaw it will always stumble upon.
No. Because I don’t advocate a general free-for-all where every nation can do as it pleases. I just can accept that in a situation where the body responsible for exerting international law and the protection of basic human rights is not working, its member states, facing exigent circumstances, themselves take matters into their own hands instead of watching idly. Why should people let themselves get killed just because the UN is incapable of fixing its design flaws?
Let’s not pretend they care at all, even today. Russia invaded Ukraine although everyone knew there was not justification behind it whatsoever, besides the wish of a small, ageing man to be the one in the history books that restored the “lost empire”. Similarly, China doesn’t care at all if the world thinks there’s any justification to them trying to annex Taiwan, when the sole reason they’ll try it is petty-minded revenge and the inability to accept a “Chinese” country outside their oppressive control. All these examples of yours are already operating under the principle “might makes right”.
No you haven’t. You’ve been talking in hypotheticals. If you have a non-imaginary example, I’d love to hear it.
Because normal countries don’t see the veto as a first line of defense. In fact, normal countries don’t see the veto at all. SC vetos are not, as you present it, normal procedure for normal countries. Hell, even permanent SC members don’t just plop vetos willy-nilly. Seeing the veto as the first, last, and only option requires a very specific mindset, that is simply not how countries operate. Well, except for…
This isn’t an argument, it’s an opinion. It’s not unreasonable, but it goes against both prior and current behavior of the parties involved.
Once again, you’re criticizing Iran for announcing destruction they haven’t actually done, but credit Israel for hypothetically being capable of deciding not to do the destruction they currently literally are doing. You’re doing the thing again.
Yes you do, you just don’t realize it, because you think right isn’t made by might if it’s made by might you agree with.
Exactly! Let’s not pretend they care at all, even today. US invaded Iraq although everyone knew… And since you agree that laws are stupid and working through the system to get what you want is a waste of time, then clearly you’re fine with them following the precedent.