Democratic reform proposal: 1. General assembly is basis 2. Votes waited by population of each country 3. Countries without monitored free elections have no vote 4. Referendums allowed from petitions in any one country
Hello Simon, you and your team do such an amazing job on covering all bases and spreading awareness on topics that aren't discussed in mainstream media. Please consider doing a video on Project 2025. It's truly terrifying stuff.
Small reminder for Simon Russia and China veto the resolutions that does not contain a "permanent" ceasefire or wording that leading to it..... not anything relating to condemning Khamas whatsoever, at least with this amount of viewers i would expect sth more......true😊😊
@@glike2you must be from india.... truth is noone cares about this reform as after all the shitshow everyone knows who is the culprit... and major rotten apple in the bunch. Countless wars made by someone have made people aware of them eventhough channel like this keeps pumping out misinfo trying to hide or divert attentions 😂😂. One solution >>> disband the Council immediately as it served not as a peace guarantee for the world as it lacks media power thus it does not serve the world population even if it did as the media can either twisted reso or hid it from the population. Depending on how it may look disbanding the council never let to another war as it has never prevented one in the first place......need to curve media power before trying to say that such org has power when noone in the real world knows what it is doing thanks to to media😅😅
@@StoneInMySandalare you asleep all this time to see no war ? How many wars have the US and Nafo commited ? I cant keep counting yet somehow russia is going rogue...... bet this channel is sponsored for a reason 😂😂😂😂. Prove me wrong pls, would like to see some greatest minds here resorted to anything other than AI censhorshit
When you don't realize Mao was controlled by the same tribe that the bolsheviks came from and they're the same tribe that controls the west through Rothschild central banks
@@wmlukepriest8012 No, I think @Maadhawk understood quite well that Nixon's push to have the PRC replace the ROC, in an effort to leverage the Sino-Soviet split to needle the USSR, backfired spectacularly...
It's just like every international organization: An old dog that sure can bark but lacks the teeth to bite. In this world, you're not gonna be taken seriously if you don't have the muscle to back it up. And even then, whether you are listened to is a whole other matter.
Ya ya that’s nice and all dude, but am I seeing this right, India gave up their seat on the most powerful council in the world?😭who fumbled that badly??
@@blackwatertv7018 why exactly? Let's say the UNSC voted for a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas (oh wait, they did). What happens next? UN troops invade Israel to enforce the ceasefire? Who is going to do that? Guyana? Mozambique? Without input from the permanent members, nothing would ever happen.
@@blackwatertv7018 the veto power is the only reason the UN as a whole exists 😂 no other country is relevant. No other country can challenge the permanent members militarily besides other permanent members.
If we want the Security Council to actually have teeth, then we need to give it some control over other countries. That infraction of sovereignty is something no one wants.
@@madkabalunfortunately, speaking that can't happen because if it were to happen every nation with a sense of sovereignty would pull out. That is why the UN will never have teeth.
The entire UN needs reform. It's the League of Nations 2.0 How can anyone take an organisation that allows nations like North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran etc to lecture us on human rights seriously?
@@AbzuhuzwnTell that to Canadian General Romeo Dallaire who led the Peace Keeping Mission. He still suffers from PTSD till this day from what he saw. You can’t help people who don’t want help.
Roosevelt's plan was for *four* policemen: France was out and China should be in according to Roosevelt himself. The veto power forces decisions to be taken by all the greatest powers and it was designed that way to avoid a war between these countries - something that would be catastrophic. The only solution is to get those nations with veto power to talk to each other - increasing members or veto powers would only make it less efficient.
The UN's actual and quite successful purpose was to keep the great powers from engaging in direct conflict. Proxy wars all day long, don't fight each other.
I'm fairly certain the reason France was added was because the British wanted another European power so they weren't responsible for Europe and the Soviet Union wanted another power that wouldn't always vote with America since the republic of china was still in charge and would side with America. France is European and has a very independent attitude and was likely to not always side with America.
@@7stormy334 Let's also recall that at the end of WWII, France was in tatters, and with it's easy capitulation to Nazi Germany, it's reputation and credibility were severely compromised.
Enforcement of the UN's political will is tough without force, which is the first UN problem. The 2nd problem, which is more serious, is that the UNSC cannot agree on what to be done since its members are continually vying for power over each other. Therefore serious but contentious topics, like ending the Ukraine war or the Hamas war, is not possible, as members disagree on the conditions for peace. Thirdly, asking for the UN to enforce anything it decides is a double edged sword, as your particular nation can both benefit or be harmed by this. Russia would love for the US to be embarassed by the UN enforcing an anti-israel/pro-hamas settlement of gaza, but they sure don't want the UN to force Russia out of Ukraine. This final reason is the worst, as it means that all UN members (including the US, China, and Russia) are incentivized to demand their rivals to obey the UN, yet they themselves disobey the UN when it's convenient for them to do so. Finally, UN enforcement requiring force also inherently means that a hypothetical UN armed forces would be in wartime conflict with many nations over the course of its life, including nuclear powers. For these reasons, the UN and all international organizations will be an "International group text". This will persist until an international organization or powerful nation becomes a global government. Edit: spelling errors corrected
A global government would be awful. All the evil power grubbing people would ascend to the top with no opposition. At least now you have competition between nations to keep them somewhat on course. There are consequences for poor administration. People can leave. Sure you can close your borders like North Korea but that has consequences.
The UN is the only thing that makes America possible. Our complex treaties with the countries that supply everything we buy are only possible because of the leverage the UN provides to the negotiations.
You are mistaken in saying that the UN Security Council has the power to "make binding international laws". The UN is NOT a legislative body and does not have the power to make laws. In response to threats to peace the UN Security Council has the power to impose sanctions and authorize military action as a last resort. In practice it has only used the power to authorize military action twice, in 1950 in Korea and in 1990 in Kuwait. There is no body with the power to legislate internation law. What is known as "international law" is a series of treaties that are binding on those states that have signed them. The 1949 Geneva conventions have been signed by almost every nation on earth, and as such are considered binding on everyone. Note that the additional protocols have not been signed by all coutries, and there is significant debate if they apply to nations that have not signed.
Unfortunately it’s one of those situations where you can’t win for losing. They demand the UN intervenes and when if it even tries suddenly you go from saviours to occupiers and colonizers.
I'd argue the UNSC works exactly as it's supposed to. Why is it that as soon as Israel-Palestine comes up, everyone wants to toss sovereignty out the window? It authorizes missions that are frankly, not geopolitically significant, blocks those that are (unless the world's power dynamics shift considerably i.e. the Gulf War), and keeps a balance between the West on one hand and the China-Russia axis on the other. It was never intended to be the world's police force and frankly, I don't want a world police force. All that would happen with UNSC reform or expansion is more poorly thought out interventions around the world with no stop gap measures from the world's main power brokers.
Because hamas started the conflict and hamas decuded to ignore the icc ruleing for a mandatory isralei hostage release which was the pandoras box that let everyone elese start ignoreing the icc and the U.N because it was on the "world stage" and not quitely, hamas was the straw that broke internatinol rules camals back
Because the creation of Israel was a huge mistake. The UN created country which should never have been created, the Palestinians were never compensated for the property they lost, or the property they loose every week in the West Bank.
id argue that a group of 4 countries having a combined 8% global population shouldnt be given the power to control the rest of the population. either remove veto powers completely or atleast try to include the major global population centers. otherwise i agree with you
@@davidboi4025 the fact of the matter in the Israel v Palestine conflict is that both sides are wrong. But a wrong done by Hamas doesn't justify Israel also doing a wrong. I can't come to ur house and steal and ur stuff just because you punched me in the street
The law isn't the joke, the problem is enforcement. And it makes sense, if you are in the top 10 most powerful country, why would you give your power away to anyone else without really gaining anything in return?
It's working as intended. Yes, it has plenty of veto points but if the big nuclear powers didn't have those vetoes it would just end up sidelined as totally useless. A security council which can sometimes come together to take coordinated action is better than one which is simply ignored because it doesn't include some of the big players.
@YakuzaSRC none of those have anything close to the expeditionary capabilities as the p5, and the power that counts is the power anywhere not just the power to protect yourself
No, because the UN is specifically designed to prevent the issues of the League of Nations, i.e. letting countries gang up on other ones, by giving ultimate veto powers to the permanent security council. The League didn't fall because it had no teeth, it's because it gave smaller nations the ability to do things the bigger ones didn't like.
@@resileaf9501yet at the end of the day, they both have extremely little to no actual effect on any conflict/issue and is just for a bunch of diplomats to get together in a room and yell at each other
Everytime I click a video of his it's either him saying something completely retarded or its him talking about something he doesn't actually understand
A few more seats might be good, but imo I think dropping veto's and making a 67% pass to offset the veto loss. Things can get done while leaving the door open to block bad plans. Maybe even make a seat for each continent/area.
I have nothing to add about the subject that hasn't already been said below, but am I the only one that finds Keep's insistence on their discreteness weird? It's hair loss, not an STD! Who gives a hoot about that?
Dear Simon, The solution of more power to the General Assembly is extremely dangerous! First of all, one-country one-vote is maybe "egalitarian" but profoundly unjust. The current behaviour of continental blocs would make parameters like religion or race key in jeopardizing the survival of countries with characters that do not conform with what neighbours would want. We must be aware that only about 70 out of the nearly 200 UN members are democracies... Faced with "majority" mechanisms (apparently democratic), that do not guarantee minorities, any country could be singled out through the misuse of bloc politics, carpet marketing and blackmail towards other General Assembly members. Historically, the short-lived moral compass of the UN soon gave way to power politics. Now it is gang politics, often dictated by rancour and jealousy. Education, dialogue and knowledge should be, but are not, priorities, whereas violence and scapegoating are more frequent than ever. IMHO, a credible alternative is the EU model, where certain (high) standards are required to become members, the Commission and Parliament have a role in setting national legislative parameters, and failing statutory requirements limits powers, prerogatives and opportunities for faulty members. The EU has shown itself to be capable in times of crisis... The fact that populists and extremists want yo bring it down is a tell-tale medal of honour. Know thy enemies and chose your friends! All the best
Remind us where they have been capable in a crisis. And don't waste my time with Ukraine. They've been dancing on their dicks about Ukraine since Germany and France vetoed it's NATO membership in '08. Then tried to force them to reprise Czechoslovakia's role in 1938 to appease putler so they could pronounce pEaCe In OuR tImE with Minsk. And every call for them to settle now. And if munitions and equipment were supplied to the allies the same way and under the same usage restrictions Ukraine is under, we'd still be fighting WW2.
I'd be curious to know which countries you count as the democracies, what you consider to be abused of the system, and what nations exactly you think are fit to be in charge of this system.
It isn't that hard on paper. Add 4 rotating seats and 2 permanent (South Africa and Brazil). Make the rotating seats a full 2 year term. Make it more representative by getting rid of the absolute veto for one that can be overturned. To keep the new P-7 politically comfortable, 80% of the new council needs to approve the override.
An update is certainly needed. Make the G4, minus Germany, permanent members. Drop France and give their seat to the EU. The UK's seat is to be rotated every two years between the UK and Norway. A new permanent seat is to be rotated every two years between Nigeria and South Africa. This should leave Brazil, Russia, India, Japan, the US, The EU and China the sole permanent members of the Security Council.
22:40 Nobody living in a permanent Security Council nation either hopes or has any expectation that the Security Council functions as "a world government capable of effecting peace." Granting any organization that kind of power is dystopian in the extreme, so I'm forced to ask: are there people in the world that have those expectations of the UN? Because if there are, they are living a wildly different reality than anyone in China, France, Russia, the UK, and the US. We all think of the UN as a mostly toothless debating body; are there actually people that think it's supposed to be a world government?
There is a fundamental misunderstanding here, and it's of the purpose of the UN and the security council. The primary goal of the UN, above all the lofty ideals it claims to have, is to prevent WW3 and a nuclear war. The existence of the Security Council serves that purpose, by preventing the tangle of alliances that caused WW1 and preventing the ganging up of countries on other ones that led to the dissolution of the League of Nations by giving the most powerful countries in the world veto powers.
No, you're being purposely obtuse. Yes, the prevention of another world war is a main goal of the security council, but it's absolutely not the only one. The goal of the security council is to prevent war itself by creating a mechanism by which the powerfully nations of the world will unite to stop aggressors. The idea assumed that the permanent members would behave and work together to at least control smaller rogue states. Instead, the security council today has just devolved into a vehicle to calcify the power dynamics that existed at the middle of the 20th century. "World wars" have been replaced with endless intractable proxy wars which kill millions of people and accomplish nothing. I guess if your only concern in the world is people in the West, it sure looks like this system works. But this is a system which acts with the purpose and effect of just enabling the law of the jungle. And the jury is still out on if the UN is able to stop a nuclear conflict or third world war. We're closer today than we have been since the cold war on multiple fronts, and obviously Russia and China have their own guilt, but man, the USA just takes the cake in violating intentional law. If the U.N. is really meant to prevent anything, it should be imperial beasts like the U.S.
@@resileaf9501 is there not something weird about the fact that your reflective response to any criticism of the West is to just accuse a person of being a Russian. It's almost as if that's a thought terminating comfort blanket that you deploy the second you see someone criticize the West so you can just preserve your sense of perfection. What a hollow existence.
A very well made and objectively factual video Simon, that last line about the order of things being ripe for renewal gave me a heavy chill. It is scary to think that almost everybody that fought the last world war is gone, leaving nothing but peoples hatred for one another to slowly overtake higher reasoning, without living reminders of why war is hell and horror.
The EU having a permanent seat would be as useful as a chocolate fire blanket !! That would simply mean a further 27 nations would essentially be given an individual veto due to the EU's need for internal agreement.
crazy it’s almost like the biggest actors that have stakes in every major conflicts will vote in their self interest and they should therefore not have veto power
Problem is that Fundamentally for the UN to function requires nations to Forego there own Self interest in favor of the Common good. Which doesn't work as a Nation not supporting its own Self interest can easily have its own people set against it. After all, why should a Population sacriface there own self interest for some country they can hardly find on a Map.
True though Australia is often put with the Pacific islands or Asia for regional groupings (for another association football analogy, the continental confederations)
I believe many individuals, like myself, find that they gain a deeper understanding of global events through in-depth online content rather than the fleeting updates provided by traditional news sources.
Personally, i could see a two part solution here. Part one is to give the general assembly the ability to overturn an SC veto with a super majority vote of 2/3. Part two is to set up a system by which rouge states could be suspended from the UN entirely by a super majority vote of 3/4. This would give a mechanism for dealing with rouge states and help give other parts of the world a larger say against the dictates from the SC. All that said , as a USA citizen and one sworn to uphold the constitution of the USA , i find the USAs involvement with the UN at any level legal, financial, militarily, ect. unconstitutional and treasonous. So make of my suggestion what you will.
Anything short of making the UN a global government will not do anything. And no nation in the right mind will give up their sovereignty. Therefore the UN a joke and worthless.
I did part of my thesis in international law on the Security Council and to me the cynnical aproach is the only one that works because is the only one that see the reality of the facts. Lets, imagine, for example, that Russia didnt had veto power. So, the SC pass a resolution demanding Putin stops his illegal war in Ukraine and Putin just ignore. What then? Would the UN send troops to Ukraine to force him to stop? What countries would want to give troops to something like that? Even now, in the world as it is, does anyone think that in the OTAN calculation of whatever send troops or not to Ukraine the lack of autorization from the SC ever plays any role in the decision making process? Anyone think German is like "I wish I could send troops to Ukraine, but darn, I dont have an autorization from the SC". Off course not, no one cares, the OTAN never cared.There is no fixing the SC because he is not broken, you can improve, off course, but he was never able to stop things like the war in Ukraine and he was never mean to. The existance of the veto is a reflex of the victorious powers wanting a way to keep the UN out of their interest and of their allies interest and thats what it does and even if it didnt existed, the UN would still stay away from their business, the veto just helps to save face. The SC does exactly what it was design to do, it just that only now some people are noticing what it was design to really do.
The problem with the Security Council is that some of its members have no military power today, so they have no influence. It needs to be reformed to take into account military rankings to make it work again. For example, if some countries with fewer total soldiers than countries like as Myanmar, Vietnam then they do not deserve to be leaders.
So basically you want the UN to formalize and solidify the power of nations that just build up their militaries? Oh, I wonder what incentives that would create... I actually think the fact that the security council brings the more peaceful nations on is a virtue. The U.S. has never seen a war it didn't like.
"No one in the 2020s is comfortable with European nations trying to tell African countries what to do, for really good historical reasons" This attitude is in large part why these countries are so screwed.
I would rather disagree. Those countries are so screwed because the western world screwed them for years. And they would try it again, if given the slightest chance.
The ability of the P5 to veto any resolution, and their unwillingness to divulge power to the general assembly cripples the security councils authority and and destroys the influence the P5 crave
Calling the Premier league approach “fair” is arguably debatable. Dissolve the security council. If current UN rules don’t allow that, dissolve the UN and develop version 2.0.
An effective international security council would be tyrannical, and just make everything worse. Countries have sovereignty for a reason, that isn't just a relic of a bygone era.
This gives super Earth vibes from helldivers. If the UN were to be a global government, it would be something along the lines of the Super Earth Federation.
UNSC should be fixed Top 5 Economic powers + Top 5 in Population (total 10 members, overlapping can accommodate next in line, updated every 5 years) Edit: **without veto*
The entire UN is simply a waste of taxpayers' money at this point. I think that Canada should simply withdraw until 'those that sit on their thumbs' (looking at you US, Russia and China) are willing to bring about real reform. The amount of money Justin Trudeau spent trying twice to get a seat on the security council are ludicrous.
As a Brit, I don't want us to keep pretending we still have an empire, so I wouldn't mind losing our permenant UNSC seat. Being a superpower is resource intensive and often more of a responsibility than a benefit, so losing our seat may be good for us. In terms of who would get our seat though I am not keen on giving the general assembly more power. The League of Nations failed because power was too evenly distributed. All large organisations need a few individuals that are owed respect or their mission will fail. In terms of making the UNSC like the premier league where countries get positions due to certain preselected metrics, it will be very important to select metrics carefully. Governments (or effectively international governments like the UN can turn useful measures into perverse incentives). GDP may seem like an obvious choice, but this encourages countries to maximise their states (not citizen's) wealth, and minimize the wealth of their rivals. Thus mass immigration is encouraged, proping up failing businesses for looking good short term in the statistics, sanctioning and blockading rivals, and invading and annexing wealthy regions are all incentivised - all likely to reduced world peace. Using military budget does all the same as the above, but also encourages an arms race - bad. I wonder if using Gross Import/Exports would be best. International trade implies and incentivises peaceful cooperation. Countries would want to minimise damage to trade routes. It also aids and therefore aligns with wealth creation and subsequent power (both soft and hard). It still may encourage blockading. If russia was sanctioned by the US more than four years ago, they may have invaded Ukraine eralier (because they would have already suffered consequences so f it, why not?). But no one would sanction China enough to remove them from the UNSC, they are just to valuable globally.
Not only that me and you the American taxpayer we pay for over 80% of the entire funding of the United Nations. Just like NATO we pay the majority. Any reform that takes power away from the United States is unacceptable to the American taxpayer, and if those Europeans have a f****** problem with it, those Europeans can go and try to create their own United Nations.
@@PF2girlswould this include a limit on proposals that involve the same topics? Otherwise you undermine the reason the veto exists if you can just out propose the vetos
Great question, Why is Russia as a current aggressor, still allowed in the UN Security Council? In my opinion that whole Security council should be removed.
Scrap the idea of security council altogether the fact is that the world desires security from a particular group of elites truly tells you how screwed we are as a society
So this is just IMO but I think there should be a limit on the AU refusing the UN. For example if AU is unable to end the Sudanese civil war in five years (gotta give time for slow bureaucracy ) the UN is then allowed to intervene.
the major powers would just withdraw. At that point the UN becomes the Non-Aligned Movement. Which then ironically turns it into an alliance when it no longer has great powers to be unaligned from.
The only way it will ever work is that nations will have to give up some of their sovereignty. That is why, for all its problems, the European Union works, nations give up some of their sovereignty to a central entity. If they don't, it will fail like the League if Nations, and the first United States government, under the Articles of Confederation (not to be confused with the Civil War Confeferacy, altbough many of the same problems aroused due to "State's Rights). A central Federal government that can independently enforce its rulings has to be set up, but NO nation is going to allow that.
I've been against the current UNSC ever since my first Model UN conference. truly what's the difference between a 16 yr old vetoing a resolution cause they didn't like the delegate submitting it and current reasons behind P5 vetos
110% Veto has ruined the UN and made it so nothing can ever get done. I'm in the camp that no nation should have veto power however I also think the General Assembly needs more power than the Security Council because it represents far more nations.
Giving it to everyone makes it impossible for anything to happen. Removing it from everyone is the only answer. Then again, the UN still has no true power over anyone. If the UN mandates something, and a country like the US, Russia, or China simply say 'no', then there's literally nothing they can do.
More members with veto means even less will get done. . Veto means you have to have,100% consensus. It can only be add more, but.remove veto entirely. Countries get a vote, and there's a high threshold to pass. Stops any 1 country blocking something.. The problem is with laws at a country at level. Countries can just ignore them. Just like the EU and NATO, it only really works if everyone agrees. If 1 doesn't, they in reality can't actually be forced to play along. Which then circles us back to why veto and 100%.consensus the way geopolitics is handled generally for this kind of thing.
As someone who vehemently opposes a world government, I go with the cynics option. Also, growing up in the 1970s and 1980s, it was filled with resolution after resolution condemning the US. While some were justified, most we socialist/communist style request to take from us because we've been successful. Let's face it. 99,9% of the world population wouldn't notice if the UN disappeared tomorrow. Especially if other agencies took over its humanitarian efforts.
I agree. The only seemingly functional part of the UN are the humanitarian organisations. Just put them under a new umbrella organisation that nations pay to that deals with purely humanitarian issues.
20:13 alright now we really know Simon didn't write this given his lack of enjoyment for football, but that is an incredibly interesting idea of how to reform the security council.
None of these arguments recognize why the UN security council was set up in the way it was or the reality of membership. It was based on power. It was never intended to be a representative body, the 5 permant members were there because at the time they were the most powerful countries by far representing only themselves, nobody else. If they agreed something could be done, if not, they would avoid direct conflict between each other. If the veto was ignored the power would do what it pleased. It is no more now disfunctional than it has always been, look at the vetos. Regarding representation why Brazil, it does not represent Argentina any more than the US represents Canada. There is no major African power economically, militarily or for now technilogicaly or for that matter the entire continent. You don't want more than 15 on the council because cabinet theory says it can't function as there are two many voices. also if you want to be on the council perhaps you should pay serious money for the priviledge and with a veto twice as much. Don't pay you loose your position. How about this, population above 300 million and a GDP above 3 Trillion you get a seat with veto. Beyond that semi permanent groups get seat based on existing organizations or newly created ones made up of groups of countries with some agreed structure. No veto but permanet seat if 200 million population 4 trillion GDP. Britan. France and Russia get to keep their vetos( to get their agreement) but must meet the numbers requirement France through the EU, Britain by trying to build a colalition, Russia with CSO. If any grouping falls below the requirement they are off with no vote so the group will require a level of agreement between themselves forcing some moderation. This would better reflect actual power and be to some degree representative of power in a region. Some countries would not be represented, North Korea anyone but probably others simply by policy Switzerland for example. Countries could partner up as they wished but existing unions would likely be represented such as the african Union ans the Arab Leaque. Brazil would have to partner
I loved it that you managed to name most of the countries that are wannabe or are in the P5, except India.... Would like to know your view on it- with over 1.4 billion people and GDP of over 3.5 trillion, does it qualify to your Security Council??
I think one thing that might help is if the UN had it's own military force, made up of volunteers or 10% from member nations to help enforce the will of the UN or the UNSC.
P5 vetoes are important, but there should be a way to override them. Here are my suggestions: - If one of the P5 uses their veto, it can be override by a majority of the non-permanent members plus a support from at least one of the remaining P5. - If two of the P5 use their veto, it can be overried by a majority of the non-permanent members plus a support from at least two of the remaining P5. - If three or four (majority) of the P5 use their veto, it can be override by a unanimous vote of the non-permanent members plus a support from at least one of the remaining P5. - If all P5 use their veto, it can't be override. - If the non-permanent members vote against a resolution, it should be considered a veto. It can only be override by three of the P5.
Been saying this a for a while, especially ever since Russia used its veto to block an Ukraine resolution. And I’ve reaffirmed my position when the United States used its veto power to block cease-fires in Israel.
Of course they are. The US will allow Israel to murder millions of people for oil and power. Just like Russia blocked UN intervention in South Sudan. Just like the French and the US blocked intervention in Rwanda and contributed to the deaths of 800,000 Tutsis. The UN Security Council is broken. There needs to be reform.
You can't remove the veto because the people with the veto can veto the decision to remove the veto. However, what if the non veto powers simply choose to ignore it? What if they say that if a resolution would have passed if not for the veto then they will consider it binding?
@@silluete What is your definition of a "gang"? And what's your definition of a "cartel", if it doesn't involve criminals who are on friendly terms with each other? Words have meanings, you know... It's poor form to just define them however the heck you want. Especially if you're not going to tell us that you're using unconventional definitions!
@@Bertinator-nm9ld they both have defined area and fight another gang for area and willing to use violence if necessary . And also collect protection money on people on their area. Guess I describe nation or gang.
I've been saying that because the Soviet Union had a lifetime veto or whatever but the Russian State should not be able to retain that as if they were the Soviet Union
Until the world holds the same values. A body to implement “values” will be toothless. We have veto power to get everyone involved. Who would stay if that was taken away?
There should be no permanent members. Theres also a case to be made that russia and china were never actually granted those permenent positions since we inumerated the soviet union and republic of china in the charter.
@@williambrock3534That's dumb That's like arguing that the US seat was given to the US under the Democratic party so they should lose it every time the Republicans are in charge
That president was Boris Yeltsin, and he was only the leader of the Russian soviet federative socialist republic, not the entire Soviet Union itself, that title goes to the last leader of the ussr, mikhail Gorbachev
This vid was basically my final year international politics essays & dissertation......in 2010.......in relation to the failings of the UNSC & multiple international interventions in the 90s. The UNSC has never functioned properly because every permanent member has a stake and can't be seen to 'lose'. Those stakes are even higher and more obvious now due to globalization, the internet and social media
Because how is it fair than a 3M (or even less ) inhabitans country, poorer than Jeff Bezos has the same rights than a 1.5B inhabitants country with one of the largest economy of the world? You are not in class, members are not equal and the UN has been designed as such: heavy weight who dictate and ligh weight... who follow, after all, these five created the UN and if they weren't benefit from it... they would quit...
What major power would subject themselves to those rulings, then? Having a veto is the only reason that the US, Russia, or China are willing to involve themselves in the security council
The majority of the countries on the planet right now are illiberal states. We shouldn’t be told what to do by Russia or China, and by extension, China, being 1 out of 8 of the population, should not be told what to do by small countries like the Netherlands. It would be “majority voting” without any consideration for how massive the populations of these countries are.
Add the 4 large unrepresented economies, 2/3s majority for definitive action and replace veto power with a move to a vote by the general assembly. More representation stronger ability to call to action and a global check on the power of the select few. Would never be agreed to but would solve the problems that the security council currently faces.
Here's a thought: Russia was not guaranteed a veto on the security council, the soviet union was. If putin thinks Ukraine is part of Russia, we should just agree with him, and recognize Zelensky as the legitimate leader of Russia.
Thanks to Keeps for sponsoring this video! Head to keeps.com/SIMON to get a special offer. Individual results may vary
Democratic reform proposal:
1. General assembly is basis
2. Votes waited by population of each country
3. Countries without monitored free elections have no vote
4. Referendums allowed from petitions in any one country
Simon, you may be bald, but you have the greatest beard on the internet.
Hello Simon, you and your team do such an amazing job on covering all bases and spreading awareness on topics that aren't discussed in mainstream media. Please consider doing a video on Project 2025. It's truly terrifying stuff.
Small reminder for Simon Russia and China veto the resolutions that does not contain a "permanent" ceasefire or wording that leading to it..... not anything relating to condemning Khamas whatsoever, at least with this amount of viewers i would expect sth more......true😊😊
@@glike2you must be from india.... truth is noone cares about this reform as after all the shitshow everyone knows who is the culprit... and major rotten apple in the bunch. Countless wars made by someone have made people aware of them eventhough channel like this keeps pumping out misinfo trying to hide or divert attentions 😂😂. One solution >>> disband the Council immediately as it served not as a peace guarantee for the world as it lacks media power thus it does not serve the world population even if it did as the media can either twisted reso or hid it from the population. Depending on how it may look disbanding the council never let to another war as it has never prevented one in the first place......need to curve media power before trying to say that such org has power when noone in the real world knows what it is doing thanks to to media😅😅
"The determination to never let it happen again" rarely lasts more than one or two generations.
True dat
It has been 80 years since the last major international war. That’s pretty solid performance.
@@StoneInMySandalyeah but not the best,hopefully we surpass the record of the congress of vienna of 99 years without a major international war
@StoneInMySandal yes. However we've had 80 years of minor conflicts, wars, rebellions, etc. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Sudan, etc.
@@StoneInMySandalare you asleep all this time to see no war ? How many wars have the US and Nafo commited ? I cant keep counting yet somehow russia is going rogue...... bet this channel is sponsored for a reason 😂😂😂😂. Prove me wrong pls, would like to see some greatest minds here resorted to anything other than AI censhorshit
Maybe the real veto powers are the friends we made along the way.
I veto that notion
Pretty Cure Veto
France the most vile evil ever to befall this world
It was inside of us the whole time!
@SR3willitfit the best "friends we made along the way," reference I saw was about a quote. "You do not recognize the bodies in the water."
"included at the insistence of the United States... China" Boy, that sure aged well.
When you don't realize Mao was controlled by the same tribe that the bolsheviks came from and they're the same tribe that controls the west through Rothschild central banks
China was a western ally at that point
"don't worry kid, we'll just openly trade with them until they become like us!" Nixon probably.
Apparently you missed the part where China was Tiawan until 1970.
@@wmlukepriest8012 No, I think @Maadhawk understood quite well that Nixon's push to have the PRC replace the ROC, in an effort to leverage the Sino-Soviet split to needle the USSR, backfired spectacularly...
It's just like every international organization:
An old dog that sure can bark but lacks the teeth to bite.
In this world, you're not gonna be taken seriously if you don't have the muscle to back it up.
And even then, whether you are listened to is a whole other matter.
Ya ya that’s nice and all dude, but am I seeing this right, India gave up their seat on the most powerful council in the world?😭who fumbled that badly??
That's because the teeth decided not do what the mouth of the dog decided to do ...
@@hollister2320it’s already bad with Russia and China being in the council with veto power. Add India to the mix and it becomes an absolute circus.
That's interesting. Can you explain that a bit more?@hollister2320
I mean, you could say the same for the United Nations in general
True
Not necessarily the UN is fine. It’s the UN Security Council in the Veto powers from permanent members, which are the problem.
Remember the league of nations? Those guys were about as effective, can we bring them back?
@@blackwatertv7018 why exactly? Let's say the UNSC voted for a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas (oh wait, they did). What happens next? UN troops invade Israel to enforce the ceasefire? Who is going to do that? Guyana? Mozambique? Without input from the permanent members, nothing would ever happen.
@@blackwatertv7018 the veto power is the only reason the UN as a whole exists 😂 no other country is relevant. No other country can challenge the permanent members militarily besides other permanent members.
If we want the Security Council to actually have teeth, then we need to give it some control over other countries. That infraction of sovereignty is something no one wants.
They should start the apl anti-piracy league that justs pays america.
Perhaps if the UN Security Council had their own military forces, a Global Defense Intiative, if you will 🤔
@@madkabaluh oh time to call thr Brotherhood of NOD
@lu544 no one its impossible. The UN is a political joke that isn't funny anymore.
@@madkabalunfortunately, speaking that can't happen because if it were to happen every nation with a sense of sovereignty would pull out. That is why the UN will never have teeth.
The entire UN needs reform. It's the League of Nations 2.0
How can anyone take an organisation that allows nations like North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran etc to lecture us on human rights seriously?
Or Tony Blair Peace Envoy to the middle east. It's a joke.
It's like poetry, the lines rhyme stanza to stanza. Chinese always did have the same ring as naz1s.
@@AbzuhuzwnTell that to Canadian General Romeo Dallaire who led the Peace Keeping Mission. He still suffers from PTSD till this day from what he saw. You can’t help people who don’t want help.
Or Qatar, Eritrea, Syria, or even China for that matter with how they treat the Uyghurs or Tibetans.
Don't forget the US
Fix: Remove the Veto
Every permanent country: REEEEE
It can't be fixed then.
The tyranny of the majority is a VERY real threat.
US still has real world veto for Israel. EVEN after your FIX. Just useless in United forest
Roosevelt's plan was for *four* policemen: France was out and China should be in according to Roosevelt himself. The veto power forces decisions to be taken by all the greatest powers and it was designed that way to avoid a war between these countries - something that would be catastrophic. The only solution is to get those nations with veto power to talk to each other - increasing members or veto powers would only make it less efficient.
The UN's actual and quite successful purpose was to keep the great powers from engaging in direct conflict. Proxy wars all day long, don't fight each other.
I'm fairly certain the reason France was added was because the British wanted another European power so they weren't responsible for Europe and the Soviet Union wanted another power that wouldn't always vote with America since the republic of china was still in charge and would side with America. France is European and has a very independent attitude and was likely to not always side with America.
@@7stormy334 Let's also recall that at the end of WWII, France was in tatters, and with it's easy capitulation to Nazi Germany, it's reputation and credibility were severely compromised.
1:10 - Mid roll ads
2:35 - Chapter 1 - Global policemen
7:25 - Chapter 2 - Fighting for peace ?
11:40 - Chapter 3 - The misuse of veto power
15:15 - Chapter 4 - Change vs inertia
19:45 - Chapter 5 - Alternatives solutions
Legendary, thanks!
Enforcement of the UN's political will is tough without force, which is the first UN problem. The 2nd problem, which is more serious, is that the UNSC cannot agree on what to be done since its members are continually vying for power over each other. Therefore serious but contentious topics, like ending the Ukraine war or the Hamas war, is not possible, as members disagree on the conditions for peace. Thirdly, asking for the UN to enforce anything it decides is a double edged sword, as your particular nation can both benefit or be harmed by this. Russia would love for the US to be embarassed by the UN enforcing an anti-israel/pro-hamas settlement of gaza, but they sure don't want the UN to force Russia out of Ukraine. This final reason is the worst, as it means that all UN members (including the US, China, and Russia) are incentivized to demand their rivals to obey the UN, yet they themselves disobey the UN when it's convenient for them to do so. Finally, UN enforcement requiring force also inherently means that a hypothetical UN armed forces would be in wartime conflict with many nations over the course of its life, including nuclear powers.
For these reasons, the UN and all international organizations will be an "International group text". This will persist until an international organization or powerful nation becomes a global government.
Edit: spelling errors corrected
A global government would be awful. All the evil power grubbing people would ascend to the top with no opposition.
At least now you have competition between nations to keep them somewhat on course. There are consequences for poor administration. People can leave. Sure you can close your borders like North Korea but that has consequences.
How would the UN stop the war in Ukraine?? A stern word? Those don’t work lol
Or….. don’t reform it, and disband the UN. That building would make a great hotel.
trump would like that 😂
@@StavrosKingall the more reason to vote for him
@@josephmccarthy6098 if only i could
Don't kid yourself. It'll be used to house more illegal immigrants, just like the rest of the hotels in Manhattan.
The UN is the only thing that makes America possible. Our complex treaties with the countries that supply everything we buy are only possible because of the leverage the UN provides to the negotiations.
You are mistaken in saying that the UN Security Council has the power to "make binding international laws". The UN is NOT a legislative body and does not have the power to make laws.
In response to threats to peace the UN Security Council has the power to impose sanctions and authorize military action as a last resort. In practice it has only used the power to authorize military action twice, in 1950 in Korea and in 1990 in Kuwait.
There is no body with the power to legislate internation law. What is known as "international law" is a series of treaties that are binding on those states that have signed them. The 1949 Geneva conventions have been signed by almost every nation on earth, and as such are considered binding on everyone.
Note that the additional protocols have not been signed by all coutries, and there is significant debate if they apply to nations that have not signed.
Unfortunately it’s one of those situations where you can’t win for losing. They demand the UN intervenes and when if it even tries suddenly you go from saviours to occupiers and colonizers.
France the most vile evil ever to befall this world
I'd argue the UNSC works exactly as it's supposed to. Why is it that as soon as Israel-Palestine comes up, everyone wants to toss sovereignty out the window? It authorizes missions that are frankly, not geopolitically significant, blocks those that are (unless the world's power dynamics shift considerably i.e. the Gulf War), and keeps a balance between the West on one hand and the China-Russia axis on the other.
It was never intended to be the world's police force and frankly, I don't want a world police force. All that would happen with UNSC reform or expansion is more poorly thought out interventions around the world with no stop gap measures from the world's main power brokers.
Because hamas started the conflict and hamas decuded to ignore the icc ruleing for a mandatory isralei hostage release which was the pandoras box that let everyone elese start ignoreing the icc and the U.N because it was on the "world stage" and not quitely, hamas was the straw that broke internatinol rules camals back
Because the creation of Israel was a huge mistake. The UN created country which should never have been created, the Palestinians were never compensated for the property they lost, or the property they loose every week in the West Bank.
id argue that a group of 4 countries having a combined 8% global population shouldnt be given the power to control the rest of the population. either remove veto powers completely or atleast try to include the major global population centers. otherwise i agree with you
@@aaravshah9548 and the majority should not have the power over the minorty and drag em around like they please
@@davidboi4025 the fact of the matter in the Israel v Palestine conflict is that both sides are wrong. But a wrong done by Hamas doesn't justify Israel also doing a wrong. I can't come to ur house and steal and ur stuff just because you punched me in the street
Want to hear a joke? International law.
HAHAHAHAHAHA
The law isn't the joke, the problem is enforcement. And it makes sense, if you are in the top 10 most powerful country, why would you give your power away to anyone else without really gaining anything in return?
@@cyberfunk3793The U.N. needs to go.
Here is another joke human rights
@@setsunatenma9467a fan of evil I see
It's working as intended. Yes, it has plenty of veto points but if the big nuclear powers didn't have those vetoes it would just end up sidelined as totally useless.
A security council which can sometimes come together to take coordinated action is better than one which is simply ignored because it doesn't include some of the big players.
A council without India, Germany & Brazil is "big players"?
@YakuzaSRC none of those have anything close to the expeditionary capabilities as the p5, and the power that counts is the power anywhere not just the power to protect yourself
When have they ever done such a thing? When have we worked together?
What most people see:
United Nations.
What most of us here see:
League of Nations 2: Electric Boogaloo.
Same as it ever was.
No, because the UN is specifically designed to prevent the issues of the League of Nations, i.e. letting countries gang up on other ones, by giving ultimate veto powers to the permanent security council. The League didn't fall because it had no teeth, it's because it gave smaller nations the ability to do things the bigger ones didn't like.
@@resileaf9501yet at the end of the day, they both have extremely little to no actual effect on any conflict/issue and is just for a bunch of diplomats to get together in a room and yell at each other
Man who would have thought letting non democratic countries be in charge of a democratic institution would have gone poorly?
Since when was the UN a democratic institution? I don't recall ever voting for the UN secretary general or getting the option to do so.
A relegation system for countries might be the worst single idea I've ever heard of.
Everytime I click a video of his it's either him saying something completely retarded or its him talking about something he doesn't actually understand
If they can win enough wars next season, they get back in
Clearly you havent heard a lot of ideas in your time.
@@handeggchan1057They'll get in sooner than Leeds, then!
A few more seats might be good, but imo I think dropping veto's and making a 67% pass to offset the veto loss. Things can get done while leaving the door open to block bad plans. Maybe even make a seat for each continent/area.
I have nothing to add about the subject that hasn't already been said below, but am I the only one that finds Keep's insistence on their discreteness weird? It's hair loss, not an STD! Who gives a hoot about that?
Possible embarrassment? Maybe it's not obvious unless you look closely so you don't want roommates or others to find out you have hair loss.
Some men are still embarrassed about it
If hair loss drugs actually worked, Trump would have a full head of hair. So, don’t waste your money on them.
The only way the UN would ever get any teeth is if aliens invade or some other international crisis that jeopardizes humanity's survival as a whole 😅
Hi Simon, I tried to talk about this on Question Time in Scotland and David Dimbletory cut me off when I was just 16, thank you for this 🙌🏾🙌🏾🙌🏾
Dear Simon,
The solution of more power to the General Assembly is extremely dangerous!
First of all, one-country one-vote is maybe "egalitarian" but profoundly unjust. The current behaviour of continental blocs would make parameters like religion or race key in jeopardizing the survival of countries with characters that do not conform with what neighbours would want. We must be aware that only about 70 out of the nearly 200 UN members are democracies...
Faced with "majority" mechanisms (apparently democratic), that do not guarantee minorities, any country could be singled out through the misuse of bloc politics, carpet marketing and blackmail towards other General Assembly members. Historically, the short-lived moral compass of the UN soon gave way to power politics. Now it is gang politics, often dictated by rancour and jealousy.
Education, dialogue and knowledge should be, but are not, priorities, whereas violence and scapegoating are more frequent than ever.
IMHO, a credible alternative is the EU model, where certain (high) standards are required to become members, the Commission and Parliament have a role in setting national legislative parameters, and failing statutory requirements limits powers, prerogatives and opportunities for faulty members. The EU has shown itself to be capable in times of crisis... The fact that populists and extremists want yo bring it down is a tell-tale medal of honour.
Know thy enemies and chose your friends!
All the best
Remind us where they have been capable in a crisis.
And don't waste my time with Ukraine. They've been dancing on their dicks about Ukraine since Germany and France vetoed it's NATO membership in '08.
Then tried to force them to reprise Czechoslovakia's role in 1938 to appease putler so they could pronounce pEaCe In OuR tImE with Minsk. And every call for them to settle now.
And if munitions and equipment were supplied to the allies the same way and under the same usage restrictions Ukraine is under, we'd still be fighting WW2.
I'd be curious to know which countries you count as the democracies, what you consider to be abused of the system, and what nations exactly you think are fit to be in charge of this system.
It isn't that hard on paper. Add 4 rotating seats and 2 permanent (South Africa and Brazil). Make the rotating seats a full 2 year term. Make it more representative by getting rid of the absolute veto for one that can be overturned. To keep the new P-7 politically comfortable, 80% of the new council needs to approve the override.
As an American if we lose veto power we should stop paying so much. We pay like 20%. Take the veto that’s ok but find the money 🤷♂️
If we lose veto power we should stop spending on the UN at all and ignore any UN dictates in their entirety. What are they gonna do about it?
Nobody needs your money 💷
@@abdirahmaanmohamed1582 That’s legit a lie. When we cut unrwa people were outraged. You can dislike the US that’s fine but lying is weird.
"Get yoself a jobby job!"- Snoops dad.
Sun we pay well over 20% repeat something like 75 to 80% of the entire United Nations budget it's why headquarters is located in the United States.
An update is certainly needed. Make the G4, minus Germany, permanent members. Drop France and give their seat to the EU. The UK's seat is to be rotated every two years between the UK and Norway. A new permanent seat is to be rotated every two years between Nigeria and South Africa. This should leave Brazil, Russia, India, Japan, the US, The EU and China the sole permanent members of the Security Council.
22:40 Nobody living in a permanent Security Council nation either hopes or has any expectation that the Security Council functions as "a world government capable of effecting peace." Granting any organization that kind of power is dystopian in the extreme, so I'm forced to ask: are there people in the world that have those expectations of the UN? Because if there are, they are living a wildly different reality than anyone in China, France, Russia, the UK, and the US. We all think of the UN as a mostly toothless debating body; are there actually people that think it's supposed to be a world government?
The people that want a world government want the expanse IRL. I doubt worldwide unification would happen without a major calamity/aliens
This has to be one of the best channels on youtube, great job guys
There is a fundamental misunderstanding here, and it's of the purpose of the UN and the security council. The primary goal of the UN, above all the lofty ideals it claims to have, is to prevent WW3 and a nuclear war. The existence of the Security Council serves that purpose, by preventing the tangle of alliances that caused WW1 and preventing the ganging up of countries on other ones that led to the dissolution of the League of Nations by giving the most powerful countries in the world veto powers.
No, you're being purposely obtuse. Yes, the prevention of another world war is a main goal of the security council, but it's absolutely not the only one. The goal of the security council is to prevent war itself by creating a mechanism by which the powerfully nations of the world will unite to stop aggressors. The idea assumed that the permanent members would behave and work together to at least control smaller rogue states.
Instead, the security council today has just devolved into a vehicle to calcify the power dynamics that existed at the middle of the 20th century. "World wars" have been replaced with endless intractable proxy wars which kill millions of people and accomplish nothing. I guess if your only concern in the world is people in the West, it sure looks like this system works. But this is a system which acts with the purpose and effect of just enabling the law of the jungle.
And the jury is still out on if the UN is able to stop a nuclear conflict or third world war. We're closer today than we have been since the cold war on multiple fronts, and obviously Russia and China have their own guilt, but man, the USA just takes the cake in violating intentional law.
If the U.N. is really meant to prevent anything, it should be imperial beasts like the U.S.
@@gray5817 Get better material, Dimitri
@@resileaf9501 is there not something weird about the fact that your reflective response to any criticism of the West is to just accuse a person of being a Russian.
It's almost as if that's a thought terminating comfort blanket that you deploy the second you see someone criticize the West so you can just preserve your sense of perfection. What a hollow existence.
@@gray5817 Nah.
Great to see that keeps is sponsoring you. I wait to see the Merlin beard down to your solar plexus.
Why not add a veto override based on 2/3 or 3/4 votes of council members?
every obvious solution is blocked by p5 member(s)
Most of the members will veto that proposal
A very well made and objectively factual video Simon, that last line about the order of things being ripe for renewal gave me a heavy chill. It is scary to think that almost everybody that fought the last world war is gone, leaving nothing but peoples hatred for one another to slowly overtake higher reasoning, without living reminders of why war is hell and horror.
The EU having a permanent seat would be as useful as a chocolate fire blanket !! That would simply mean a further 27 nations would essentially be given an individual veto due to the EU's need for internal agreement.
Isn't there arleady france?
@@gaviantxc8213 Yeah but he was saying about them being replaced by the EU as a collective
Basically more bureaucracy for the EU😅
crazy it’s almost like the biggest actors that have stakes in every major conflicts will vote in their self interest and they should therefore not have veto power
Problem is that Fundamentally for the UN to function requires nations to Forego there own Self interest in favor of the Common good. Which doesn't work as a Nation not supporting its own Self interest can easily have its own people set against it.
After all, why should a Population sacriface there own self interest for some country they can hardly find on a Map.
Bro never Mentioned Australia as a Continent
True though Australia is often put with the Pacific islands or Asia for regional groupings (for another association football analogy, the continental confederations)
So?
He's listing it as it's listed by the UN. It's not Simon's mistake, it's that of the United Nations
I believe many individuals, like myself, find that they gain a deeper understanding of global events through in-depth online content rather than the fleeting updates provided by traditional news sources.
No more adverts in the middle
Personally, i could see a two part solution here. Part one is to give the general assembly the ability to overturn an SC veto with a super majority vote of 2/3. Part two is to set up a system by which rouge states could be suspended from the UN entirely by a super majority vote of 3/4.
This would give a mechanism for dealing with rouge states and help give other parts of the world a larger say against the dictates from the SC.
All that said , as a USA citizen and one sworn to uphold the constitution of the USA , i find the USAs involvement with the UN at any level legal, financial, militarily, ect. unconstitutional and treasonous. So make of my suggestion what you will.
Anything short of making the UN a global government will not do anything. And no nation in the right mind will give up their sovereignty. Therefore the UN a joke and worthless.
Red states? I think you mean rogue states.
I did part of my thesis in international law on the Security Council and to me the cynnical aproach is the only one that works because is the only one that see the reality of the facts. Lets, imagine, for example, that Russia didnt had veto power. So, the SC pass a resolution demanding Putin stops his illegal war in Ukraine and Putin just ignore. What then? Would the UN send troops to Ukraine to force him to stop? What countries would want to give troops to something like that? Even now, in the world as it is, does anyone think that in the OTAN calculation of whatever send troops or not to Ukraine the lack of autorization from the SC ever plays any role in the decision making process? Anyone think German is like "I wish I could send troops to Ukraine, but darn, I dont have an autorization from the SC". Off course not, no one cares, the OTAN never cared.There is no fixing the SC because he is not broken, you can improve, off course, but he was never able to stop things like the war in Ukraine and he was never mean to. The existance of the veto is a reflex of the victorious powers wanting a way to keep the UN out of their interest and of their allies interest and thats what it does and even if it didnt existed, the UN would still stay away from their business, the veto just helps to save face. The SC does exactly what it was design to do, it just that only now some people are noticing what it was design to really do.
The problem with the Security Council is that some of its members have no military power today, so they have no influence. It needs to be reformed to take into account military rankings to make it work again. For example, if some countries with fewer total soldiers than countries like as Myanmar, Vietnam then they do not deserve to be leaders.
So basically you want the UN to formalize and solidify the power of nations that just build up their militaries? Oh, I wonder what incentives that would create...
I actually think the fact that the security council brings the more peaceful nations on is a virtue. The U.S. has never seen a war it didn't like.
The UN is the superpowers Club. The Security Council is working as intended.
I sometimes wonder if aliens watch earth like we watch animal planet or the discovery channel.
Absolutely riveting content!
"No one in the 2020s is comfortable with European nations trying to tell African countries what to do, for really good historical reasons" This attitude is in large part why these countries are so screwed.
Nobody wants to tell a group of people they can't manage themselves , even if they can't. When before you have managed then equally bad or worse
Yeah I laughed at that! Like pick one. Do you want Western involvement or not.
I would rather disagree. Those countries are so screwed because the western world screwed them for years. And they would try it again, if given the slightest chance.
@MrPlummer10 what makes you think they ever actually left 😂
The ability of the P5 to veto any resolution, and their unwillingness to divulge power to the general assembly cripples the security councils authority and and destroys the influence the P5 crave
Calling the Premier league approach “fair” is arguably debatable. Dissolve the security council. If current UN rules don’t allow that, dissolve the UN and develop version 2.0.
Those last words represent the true and painful reality
I NEED TO KNOW WHERE TO FIND THAT VIOLIN FROM THE BACKGROUND!!!😭😭😭
I mean literally the first background song.
Please help!
Probably the TH-cam sound archive. That's where other music from his videos comes from.
If France does not deserve to be on it, then surely the UK does not either.
An effective international security council would be tyrannical, and just make everything worse.
Countries have sovereignty for a reason, that isn't just a relic of a bygone era.
This gives super Earth vibes from helldivers. If the UN were to be a global government, it would be something along the lines of the Super Earth Federation.
@@paulgoodridge2269 I find the argument that Helldivers represents the values of our current ruling establishment rather compelling.
UNSC should be fixed Top 5 Economic powers + Top 5 in Population (total 10 members, overlapping can accommodate next in line, updated every 5 years)
Edit: **without veto*
The entire UN is simply a waste of taxpayers' money at this point. I think that Canada should simply withdraw until 'those that sit on their thumbs' (looking at you US, Russia and China) are willing to bring about real reform. The amount of money Justin Trudeau spent trying twice to get a seat on the security council are ludicrous.
As a Brit, I don't want us to keep pretending we still have an empire, so I wouldn't mind losing our permenant UNSC seat. Being a superpower is resource intensive and often more of a responsibility than a benefit, so losing our seat may be good for us.
In terms of who would get our seat though I am not keen on giving the general assembly more power. The League of Nations failed because power was too evenly distributed. All large organisations need a few individuals that are owed respect or their mission will fail. In terms of making the UNSC like the premier league where countries get positions due to certain preselected metrics, it will be very important to select metrics carefully. Governments (or effectively international governments like the UN can turn useful measures into perverse incentives).
GDP may seem like an obvious choice, but this encourages countries to maximise their states (not citizen's) wealth, and minimize the wealth of their rivals. Thus mass immigration is encouraged, proping up failing businesses for looking good short term in the statistics, sanctioning and blockading rivals, and invading and annexing wealthy regions are all incentivised - all likely to reduced world peace.
Using military budget does all the same as the above, but also encourages an arms race - bad.
I wonder if using Gross Import/Exports would be best. International trade implies and incentivises peaceful cooperation. Countries would want to minimise damage to trade routes. It also aids and therefore aligns with wealth creation and subsequent power (both soft and hard). It still may encourage blockading. If russia was sanctioned by the US more than four years ago, they may have invaded Ukraine eralier (because they would have already suffered consequences so f it, why not?). But no one would sanction China enough to remove them from the UNSC, they are just to valuable globally.
Not giving up my veto as an American. We literally are the only teeth in the UN
You’re a nation of cowards.
Agreed, veto power should be reformed to allow a limited number of yearly vetoes.
Not only that me and you the American taxpayer we pay for over 80% of the entire funding of the United Nations. Just like NATO we pay the majority.
Any reform that takes power away from the United States is unacceptable to the American taxpayer, and if those Europeans have a f****** problem with it, those Europeans can go and try to create their own United Nations.
@@PF2girlswould this include a limit on proposals that involve the same topics? Otherwise you undermine the reason the veto exists if you can just out propose the vetos
@@phukewe4730just a limit on saying no. you can only say no to so many things before you become intentionally antagonistic.
I can only imagine Jaishankar sir in 2015/16 Leicester City kit, being Jamie Vardy.
Great question, Why is Russia as a current aggressor, still allowed in the UN Security Council? In my opinion that whole Security council should be removed.
No defence to Russia but they're not the first country on the permanent Security Council to have started an illegal war.
TLDR; 5 year olds at recess with no teachers :p
Just one thing, the g4 proposition currently dont ask for veto powers, they would be kind of intermediaries, always on the SC but without veto.
Scrap the idea of security council altogether the fact is that the world desires security from a particular group of elites truly tells you how screwed we are as a society
France the most vile evil ever to befall this world
So this is just IMO but I think there should be a limit on the AU refusing the UN. For example if AU is unable to end the Sudanese civil war in five years (gotta give time for slow bureaucracy ) the UN is then allowed to intervene.
The organization was founded to promote something in which the autocratic axis of envious resentment has no interest --- cooperation and peace.
I know that none of the members that have it would go for it but it sounds like the best option is to eliminate the veto power entirely.
Then the UN would lose over half of its funding
the major powers would just withdraw. At that point the UN becomes the Non-Aligned Movement. Which then ironically turns it into an alliance when it no longer has great powers to be unaligned from.
Too early for sponsorblock
Sneaky that wasn’t it! 😊
It’s rare Simon does a here’s how video I’m excited
The security council doesn’t need to be reformed. The UN needs to be disbanded.
France the most vile evil ever to befall this world
The only way it will ever work is that nations will have to give up some of their sovereignty. That is why, for all its problems, the European Union works, nations give up some of their sovereignty to a central entity. If they don't, it will fail like the League if Nations, and the first United States government, under the Articles of Confederation (not to be confused with the Civil War Confeferacy, altbough many of the same problems aroused due to "State's Rights). A central Federal government that can independently enforce its rulings has to be set up, but NO nation is going to allow that.
I've been against the current UNSC ever since my first Model UN conference. truly what's the difference between a 16 yr old vetoing a resolution cause they didn't like the delegate submitting it and current reasons behind P5 vetos
P5 vetoes have diplomats who can sound like adults when vetoing a resolution cause they didn't like the delegate.
Either take away the veto power or give it to all members
Spot on. Or at least allow for a small number with the resolution still passing.
110% Veto has ruined the UN and made it so nothing can ever get done. I'm in the camp that no nation should have veto power however I also think the General Assembly needs more power than the Security Council because it represents far more nations.
Giving it to everyone makes it impossible for anything to happen. Removing it from everyone is the only answer. Then again, the UN still has no true power over anyone. If the UN mandates something, and a country like the US, Russia, or China simply say 'no', then there's literally nothing they can do.
Sovereignty is the issue.
More members with veto means even less will get done.
.
Veto means you have to have,100% consensus.
It can only be add more, but.remove veto entirely. Countries get a vote, and there's a high threshold to pass. Stops any 1 country blocking something..
The problem is with laws at a country at level. Countries can just ignore them. Just like the EU and NATO, it only really works if everyone agrees. If 1 doesn't, they in reality can't actually be forced to play along.
Which then circles us back to why veto and 100%.consensus the way geopolitics is handled generally for this kind of thing.
Please put these into podcasts
The United Nations is a tower of Babel.
Facts
no tower of babel was united and people had 1 language and 1 nacionality. UN is a mess
@@reinoldgaming9780 Touché
Hi Simon. I love your shows brother.
As someone who vehemently opposes a world government, I go with the cynics option.
Also, growing up in the 1970s and 1980s, it was filled with resolution after resolution condemning the US. While some were justified, most we socialist/communist style request to take from us because we've been successful.
Let's face it. 99,9% of the world population wouldn't notice if the UN disappeared tomorrow. Especially if other agencies took over its humanitarian efforts.
I agree. The only seemingly functional part of the UN are the humanitarian organisations. Just put them under a new umbrella organisation that nations pay to that deals with purely humanitarian issues.
20:13 alright now we really know Simon didn't write this given his lack of enjoyment for football, but that is an incredibly interesting idea of how to reform the security council.
None of these arguments recognize why the UN security council was set up in the way it was or the reality of membership. It was based on power. It was never intended to be a representative body, the 5 permant members were there because at the time they were the most powerful countries by far representing only themselves, nobody else. If they agreed something could be done, if not, they would avoid direct conflict between each other. If the veto was ignored the power would do what it pleased. It is no more now disfunctional than it has always been, look at the vetos.
Regarding representation why Brazil, it does not represent Argentina any more than the US represents Canada. There is no major African power economically, militarily or for now technilogicaly or for that matter the entire continent.
You don't want more than 15 on the council because cabinet theory says it can't function as there are two many voices. also if you want to be on the council perhaps you should pay serious money for the priviledge and with a veto twice as much. Don't pay you loose your position.
How about this, population above 300 million and a GDP above 3 Trillion you get a seat with veto. Beyond that semi permanent groups get seat based on existing organizations or newly created ones made up of groups of countries with some agreed structure. No veto but permanet seat if 200 million population 4 trillion GDP. Britan. France and Russia get to keep their vetos( to get their agreement) but must meet the numbers requirement France through the EU, Britain by trying to build a colalition, Russia with CSO. If any grouping falls below the requirement they are off with no vote so the group will require a level of agreement between themselves forcing some moderation. This would better reflect actual power and be to some degree representative of power in a region. Some countries would not be represented, North Korea anyone but probably others simply by policy Switzerland for example. Countries could partner up as they wished but existing unions would likely be represented such as the african Union ans the Arab Leaque. Brazil would have to partner
I loved it that you managed to name most of the countries that are wannabe or are in the P5, except India.... Would like to know your view on it- with over 1.4 billion people and GDP of over 3.5 trillion, does it qualify to your Security Council??
What does the UN Charter say about reforming UNSC? I don't see it say anything about that.
"As weak and neutered as the league of nation prior to WW2" send shivers down my spine.
So much blood had to be poured just for this to be a generalized statement. It has always been the pinkest biggest elephant in the tiniest room
The UN Security Council is a perfectly balanced council with no exploits
France the most vile evil ever to befall this world
premier league mention in a warographics video?? simon you’re spoiling me 😂
Why bother? It's a complete failure and waste of money, bad faith is the only language being spoken there.
I think one thing that might help is if the UN had it's own military force, made up of volunteers or 10% from member nations to help enforce the will of the UN or the UNSC.
Imagine thinking anyone cares what the UN thinks. 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
P5 vetoes are important, but there should be a way to override them. Here are my suggestions:
- If one of the P5 uses their veto, it can be override by a majority of the non-permanent members plus a support from at least one of the remaining P5.
- If two of the P5 use their veto, it can be overried by a majority of the non-permanent members plus a support from at least two of the remaining P5.
- If three or four (majority) of the P5 use their veto, it can be override by a unanimous vote of the non-permanent members plus a support from at least one of the remaining P5.
- If all P5 use their veto, it can't be override.
- If the non-permanent members vote against a resolution, it should be considered a veto. It can only be override by three of the P5.
Been saying this a for a while, especially ever since Russia used its veto to block an Ukraine resolution.
And I’ve reaffirmed my position when the United States used its veto power to block cease-fires in Israel.
Of course they are. The US will allow Israel to murder millions of people for oil and power. Just like Russia blocked UN intervention in South Sudan. Just like the French and the US blocked intervention in Rwanda and contributed to the deaths of 800,000 Tutsis.
The UN Security Council is broken. There needs to be reform.
You can't remove the veto because the people with the veto can veto the decision to remove the veto. However, what if the non veto powers simply choose to ignore it? What if they say that if a resolution would have passed if not for the veto then they will consider it binding?
Give Israel a permanent seat on the council. Loving my new Ghaza city lego set, I just threw the pieces on the floor and it was assembled.
America's permanent seat makes that unnecessary; they follow their precious ally like a dog.
How about instead of adding or removing permanent members, the title of permanent member or the power to veto which comes with it is removed entirely
In the end it's just a cartel inside coalition of cartel.
You say that like the US, Russia, and China are on the same team and playing nicely with each other. Why?
@@Bertinator-nm9ld no I saying nation just another form of gang. And united nation is a cartel of it.
@@silluete What is your definition of a "gang"? And what's your definition of a "cartel", if it doesn't involve criminals who are on friendly terms with each other?
Words have meanings, you know... It's poor form to just define them however the heck you want. Especially if you're not going to tell us that you're using unconventional definitions!
@@Bertinator-nm9ld they both have defined area and fight another gang for area and willing to use violence if necessary . And also collect protection money on people on their area.
Guess I describe nation or gang.
@@silluete What's your definition of a cartel, if it includes "gangs" that' hate each other?
Thanks
I've been saying that because the Soviet Union had a lifetime veto or whatever but the Russian State should not be able to retain that as if they were the Soviet Union
the russian state is more significant militarily and arguably soft power wise than britain and france.
Until the world holds the same values. A body to implement “values” will be toothless. We have veto power to get everyone involved. Who would stay if that was taken away?
There should be no permanent members. Theres also a case to be made that russia and china were never actually granted those permenent positions since we inumerated the soviet union and republic of china in the charter.
@@nicholasbrown668 i debate that. Its not including what 6-8 new countries and again successor state be dammed its not enumerated in the charter.
@@williambrock3534That's dumb
That's like arguing that the US seat was given to the US under the Democratic party so they should lose it every time the Republicans are in charge
That president was Boris Yeltsin, and he was only the leader of the Russian soviet federative socialist republic, not the entire Soviet Union itself, that title goes to the last leader of the ussr, mikhail Gorbachev
This vid was basically my final year international politics essays & dissertation......in 2010.......in relation to the failings of the UNSC & multiple international interventions in the 90s. The UNSC has never functioned properly because every permanent member has a stake and can't be seen to 'lose'. Those stakes are even higher and more obvious now due to globalization, the internet and social media
Why the hell not just go with Majority voting?
Because how is it fair than a 3M (or even less ) inhabitans country, poorer than Jeff Bezos has the same rights than a 1.5B inhabitants country with one of the largest economy of the world? You are not in class, members are not equal and the UN has been designed as such: heavy weight who dictate and ligh weight... who follow, after all, these five created the UN and if they weren't benefit from it... they would quit...
Because the majority is often wrong, sometimes devastatingly so!
veto
What major power would subject themselves to those rulings, then? Having a veto is the only reason that the US, Russia, or China are willing to involve themselves in the security council
The majority of the countries on the planet right now are illiberal states. We shouldn’t be told what to do by Russia or China, and by extension, China, being 1 out of 8 of the population, should not be told what to do by small countries like the Netherlands. It would be “majority voting” without any consideration for how massive the populations of these countries are.
Add the 4 large unrepresented economies, 2/3s majority for definitive action and replace veto power with a move to a vote by the general assembly. More representation stronger ability to call to action and a global check on the power of the select few. Would never be agreed to but would solve the problems that the security council currently faces.
Here's a thought: Russia was not guaranteed a veto on the security council, the soviet union was. If putin thinks Ukraine is part of Russia, we should just agree with him, and recognize Zelensky as the legitimate leader of Russia.
That could never happen, but it's the most humorous suggestion I've heard.
That’s not a bad idea. Since China replaced Taiwan, how about Ukraine replacing Russia.
@@stevenschwartz-vf2lgGeopolitical favouritism. If anything it should go to Kazakhstan.
And how do you suppose you're going to get anyone to recognise any of this?
Could require two vetos instead of one to stop a resolution.