this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2023
69 points (85.6% liked)
World News
32280 readers
750 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Okay, but he was right about this part:
"Lula said the United Nations had failed to assume its “responsibility” because permanent members of the Security Council “are the ones who foment wars.”
The UN security council is a joke and there shouldn't be permanent members. It's just neo imperialism.
I imagine that when it was formed there were two options - allow permanent members or form without the most important members.
This is it. How to do bring super powers to a group of nations and tell them they'll have the same voice as tiny countries. Why would they bother showing up?
The world has changed since then, though. I dont think it makes much sense anymore to have France and the UK as permanent members though. Even Russia has shown itself to be more of a minnow than we thought...
Nukes. That's all it is.
Russia is currently stalemated in a limited war against a substantial (but similarly limited) chunk of the NATO arsenal. As a point of comparison, in the last 20 years the U.S. has lost two wars against non-state actors where it used everything but nukes.
The U.S. hasn't fought a war like the Russian-Ukranian War since Vietnam or Korea, and the results there weren't a lot better than what Russia is seeing now (despite the U.S. doing far more indiscriminate strategic bombing).
Irak?
The permanent members are, or at least were so powerful that if they didn't agree nothing could stop them .
The point of the permanent members of security council was to bring superpowers to the table and keep them there. Otherwise they could play their games and the smaller countries would all suffer for it.
Of course there are still problems, but through the security council and MAD we now have proxy wars and culture wars rather than a World War every couple decades.
In the perspective of actually preventing a new World War by drawing lines between superpowers instead of appeasement, I believe that the UN actually fulfills its role the best they can. Unlike its predecessor, the League of Nations, which went so much into the "appeasement against war" from its founding members (Britain and France) that it functionally collapsed in thw wake of WW2