Read other letters about this article

• Tuesday, January 13, 2009 11:42 AM

  @ Two Eyes:

  A general response: The UN is not a government in and of itself. It merely carries out what its most powerful member nations do, or do not, want it to do. It's like an ongoing ad-hoc committee of nations which really don't want to be subject to each others' approvals.

  Under Article 27 of the UN Charter, Security Council decisions on all substantive matters require the affirmative votes of nine members. A negative vote, or veto, by a permanent member prevents adoption of a proposal, even if it has received the required number of affirmative votes (9). Abstention is not regarded as a veto despite the wording of the Charter. Since the Security Council's inception, China (ROC/PRC) has used its veto 6 times; France 18 times; Russia/USSR 123 times; the United Kingdom 32 times; and the United States 82 times. The majority of Russian/Soviet vetoes were in the first ten years of the Council's existence. Since 1984, China (ROC/PRC) has vetoed three resolutions; France three; Russia/USSR four; the United Kingdom ten; and the United States 43.

  Procedural matters are not subject to a veto, so the veto cannot be used to avoid discussion of an issue.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council#Veto_power

  Just like with the U.S. Presidential veto power, the potential of a likely veto is enough to heavily influence UN activity.

  It's better to think of the UN as something which at minimum tries to help prevent the superpowers from going to war with each other.

  If the UN manages to accomplish anything else, consider yourself lucky.

  —El Cid Read El Cid's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel