Considering the current state of affairs in Syria and Russia and China’s use of the veto to prevent a resolution being passed is it time to either start again or reform the organisation?

Should there be permanent members of the security council who if they choose can scupper the majorities will to save lives so that they can secure trade deals?

The whole thing stinks imo and whilst i accept that the UN as an organisation does do alot of good in some areas i can’t but help thinking that an overhaul is long over due.

Russia and China only vetoed it, as they are the only two countries that would use Military force against it’s own public (as tweeted by Ai wai wai)

The whole thing stinks

Couldn’t agree more. The main purpose of the UN seems to be to give some sort of legitimacy to invasions lead by the permanent members.

We Did Nothing: Why the Truth Doesn’t Always Come Out When the UN Goes in – well worth a read.

Russia vetoed it because Syria are one of their strongest allies, buy a lot of weapons from them, and contain one of their only military bases outside of their own borders. They originally proposed ammendments to the resolution to prevent Western powers supplying weapons and military assistance to what they percieve as terrorists within syria. These ammendments were rejected by the USA who pushed for the restrictions to be applied only to one side (the Syrian Government) of the fighting in Syria. No surprise they couldn’t agree.

Although we are being led by our media to view Russia and China as a single threat here, Chinese opinion is more concerned with the previous NATO abuse of UN mandates in Lybia, Iraq, and Afganistan.

In March, China abstained from a council vote that authorised western military intervention in Libya. That resolution became the basis for a Nato air campaign that led to the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi. Beijing and Moscow regarded the campaign as going beyond the resolution.

“Libya offers a negative case study. Nato abused the security council resolution about establishing a no-fly zone and directly provided firepower assistance to one side in the Libyan war,” said the People’s Daily.

It cited Iraq and Afghanistan in its case against the Syria resolution. “[These] calamities of Iraq and Afghanistan should be ample to wipe clear the world’s eyes. Forceful prevention of a humanitarian disaster sounds filled with a sense of justice and responsibility.

“But are not the unstoppable attacks and explosions over a decade after regime change a humanitarian disaster?”

from :http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/06/china-syria-veto-peoples-daily

It would seem so….

TBH, I don’t think the UN was ever meant to be an instrument for implementation of selective regime change and US imperialism.

why the big deal about russia and china vetoing something, the US veto stuff all the time. It was a waste of time long before this week.

Let’s not forget that UN Agencies like WHO, UNICEF, UNDP etc have done a lot of good despite the realpolitik of the P5 on the UNSC. Also, the UN should be striving to maintain the international system of sovereign states. Encouraging minority groups to use violence to achieve their nationalist aspirations leads to the sort of regional instability that has blighted the Balkans, Iraq, Afgahnistan and the Caucases for over a decade.

My personal experience..as a remote medic who used to arrive back in Kabul after a few months of living ferral in the Northern mountains and seeing the well connected more concerned with getting their ball gowns dry cleaned for the next party…

I will reserve my comment!

That’s kind of my point, i don’t think any country should have a veto as they seem to use to secure their personal interests rather than what is best for everyone, or at least populations that are being massacred.

The UN was formed just after WWII and was an attempt to stop future wars. Like its predecessor (The League of Nations) it has not done that, but its spin off organisations (UNHCR, Unicef, WHO) have had a significant impact on the world. Perhaps we should look at what it has done rather than what is has not achieved.

Should there be permanent members of the security council who if they choose can scupper the majorities will to save lives so that they can secure trade deals?

I not sure why you think that military intervention in Syria, which would clearly have been the next step following the successful passing of that resolution, would “save lives”. The US is far more effective at killing people in the Middle East than any Middle Eastern government.

The situation in Syria is truly tragic and horrendous, the last thing it needs is for the US to wade in and make the situation even worst, before finally leaving after totally screwing everything up. On average more people die in Iraq from violent deaths every month, than the monthly average in Syria since the uprising.

I think I said the same as this in another thread, but if you judge the UN on its failures it can look poor, but not so much if you judge it on its successes. Having a goal “to stop all wars” doesn’t mean you’re useless if you only stop some.