Why does the UN security council have any legitimacy?

[fujiyama]

Is it just me, or is this an extremely undemocratic institution? How do 5 countries have complete power to veto resolutions?

Or how about even extending this to the other 10. They haven't exactly showed a backbone to Bush either. These countries can and have been bribed in the past to vote in favor of the US.

The UN seems to be nothing more than a rubber stamp for US hegemony and imperialism.

[DarkSim]

1. The VETO exists....

To prevent world war 3 from breaking out. The 5 countries that have this privilidge are the countries with massive armies.

Why obey any UN resolution when you have unsurpassed military dominance? It is there to stop nations with big armies from does what they want, as once a VETO is used a new resolution needs to be written. If anything it will certainly make world war 3 take more time to start.

[I thought so.]

2. Thats why a beggar country....

never has to obey. Can you guess which one it is?

[htuttle]

3. The veto power is held by the 'winners' of WWII

That's why France is included, for example, but Germany is not.

I'd suggest changing the veto structure. If they must keep the veto, they should put India, Brazil and South Africa onto the SC and give them veto power also. They are large enough, and both hold considerable influence in their geographic regions. India has quite a large army as well (not to mention nukes).

The other problem they need to solve is how to deal with SC members that disregard the UN's rulings -- case in point would be the United States. Already there is a rule that countries can't vote on resolutions that are about themselves, but I don't think that's enough (since the US could count on the UK for a veto if needed, for example).

I think that the UN needs to hand greater power to the General Assembly in some way. There are plenty (and plenty here at DU) who would hate this idea, but I think it's about time that the millions who have had no voice in the last 500 years to get one.

[I thought so.]

4. Hear,Hear!

I don't know either,but it is time to change. It is a different world,its not 1945. I would bet that some people know how to modernize it.
The UN also does very good non-political things. It will take an upheaval in one powerful SC nation to change things.

It just might happen. Soon.

[fujiyama]

5. These are along the lines

of what I was thinking. If the structure of the security council is to exist, then I would definetely consider adding the nations you named (for God's sake India has almost the same population as China), as well as several more.

The problem is that the general assembly is also corrupt and many of the nations represented are ruled by undemocratic and/or despotic regimes.

Either way though, it gives some voice to what these nations have to say. As we know all too well, our own government doesn't represent us all too well on either the national or international stage.

It just pisses me off that so many other countries have gone along with these various resolutions the US and UK have put forward. I'm sick of all the spinning about the great "victories". Either way, I don't trust the way it works. The other countries can be bribed when necessary (military aid, debt relief, etc). France, Germany, and Russia have their own interests in Iraq as well. They want cheap oil as much as anyone.

That's why I never understood some on the left that believed this war was justified if the UN gave permission. What nonsense. If a war is unjustified, it's unjustied. That's all there is to this.

So, I think I'm just really cynical and trust neither this government nor others.