this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2026
245 points (100.0% liked)

World News

57878 readers
1469 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world

Ask Historians !askhistorians@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Austria, Denmark, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Romania, Spain and Sweden are pushing to explore the idea of moving from unanimity to qualified majority in foreign policy.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kokesh@lemmy.world 35 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Why should anyone have veto? Same goes for UN. The only thing it does is letting few being free to do whatever they want. Would terrorist country like US or Russia decide to nuke some smaller country? They have veto, so why not!

[–] itisileclerk@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago

Or terrorist country like USA decide to kidnap President of another country and steal their Oil, for example.

[–] Klear@piefed.world 45 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The UN is a diplomatic platform, not a global government. The idea is that if the particular countries couldn't veto, they'd leave the organisation altogether instead. Having everyone take part in the same diplomatic organisation is the main goal, not producing actionable resolutions.

[–] kokesh@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago (4 children)

So what is the point of it then? Small country roes something terrible, they get condemned. US murders people without any oversight.

[–] cantstopthesignal@sh.itjust.works 29 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

The point is to have a dialogue and to allow the largest influences to shape the dialogue. It's not meant to have any power beyond diplomatic conversation. The most hostile countries to the US still get in a plane and fly to New York to participate. Think about that.

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Because getting small countries to stop helps reduce war deaths.

[–] Rat_in_a_hat@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Who gets the big countries to stop killing the small countries?

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If nothing else works, other big countries. However, it is generally a high bar to get two big countries to go to war with each other.

[–] Rat_in_a_hat@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You have a deeply flawed understanding of who is leading the world in amount of war deaths and why.

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 1 points 1 day ago

Feel free to correct me, but you're the one who asked the question. Just insulting isn't a good rhetorical device.

[–] GreenBeard@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago (3 children)

No one. That's supposed to be NATO's job.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago

No? NATO is there to prevent revolutionary backlash against imperialist countries.

[–] kuiskaaja@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

that's what they want you to believe

[–] GreenBeard@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I never said they were good at it, I said that was their job.

[–] Rat_in_a_hat@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago

No, it's supposed to be a defensive alliance by definition (cough - Libya - cough). Not world police.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago

To allow the big countries a place of communication to prevent wider conflict.

[–] AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 day ago

I think once the US and EU realize that the "Unipolar moment" is fucking over we'll get a lot more use out of the UN.

[–] Kyrias@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 day ago

People wanted to join the EU and not lose sovereignty.

[–] BestBouclettes@jlai.lu 17 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The veto is the sole reason these institutions still exist. There's no way in hell any member would give up that power.

[–] Tango@piefed.ca 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You should put more thought into the arguments you make, because clearly 11 members would.

[–] BestBouclettes@jlai.lu 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Cool, in the EU all countries have veto power. In the UN, all permanent members of the security council have veto power. You just need one of them to refuse to give up that power. In the EU, I believe this could somewhat work, but in the UN ? No way the US, China, Russia, France or the UK would give it up without leaving the institution.

[–] Rat_in_a_hat@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I think that's what OP meant. That changing the veto rule with the EU is something that's possible. Your prior comment made it seem like the whole EU wouldn't exist