Personal tools

Argument: UN veto harms US interests more than it benefits them

From Debatepedia

Revision as of 16:33, 16 June 2010; Lenkahabetinova (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision | Newer revision→ (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Parent debate

Supporting evidence

  • John Ikenberry and Anne-Marie Slaughter. "Forging a World of Liberty Under Law, U.S. National Security In The 21st Century". The Princeton Project on National Security.[1] - "America does not need it to block action of which we do not approve; we are almost always pushing the Security Council to take action, rather than not, and in those cases where we are unpersuaded of the wisdom of a particular course, we prefer to use diplomacy rather than the veto. Instead, the veto is a license for prevarication, obstructionism, and disillusionment. The veto should instead be replaced by a supermajority vote - of perhaps three quarters of voting members - in an enlarged Security Council." The document then stresses that the veto can be used to block politically motivated condemnatory resolutions."
  • Tad Daley and David Lionel. "Reinventing the United Nations". The Foreign Service Journal. September 2006 - "It's often declared as self-evident that the U.S. "would never give up the veto" -- that is, give up our ability to prevent the rest of the world from doing something we don't want it to do. But the veto's existence also allows other countries to keep us from doing something too. Consider an initiative Washington wants very much to pursue, which garners the support of 10 or 11 or even 14 Security Council members. If it is Russia, China, Britain, or France that stands opposed, the U.S. is forced to choose between dropping the initiative or pursuing it without Council authorization and in defiance of international law. This, of course, is why curtailing Iran's nuclear program has been so difficult, because the five have consistently had very different ideas about how to proceed. This too, of course, is what happened in early 2003, when the U.S. abruptly dropped its efforts to secure a resolution authorizing a U.S. invasion of Iraq, and launched such an invasion anyway - in the view of most international lawyers, illegally."

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits