but “Actually, Russia does veto more!” isn’t the interesting part.
Your words:
Because normal countries don’t see the veto as a first line of defense. In fact, normal countries don’t see the veto at all. SC vetos are not, as you present it, normal procedure for normal countries. Hell, even permanent SC members don’t just plop vetos willy-nilly.
I didn’t sneak it in, I wrote “directly” because Israel has attacked Iran directly, and repeatedly.
Please refrain from moving goal posts. Your words:
Once again, you’re criticizing Iran for announcing destruction they haven’t actually done
..implying Iran is only words but no actions. Although they very much act, but through the hands of their affiliated terror groups.
Frankly, I think they already have accepted it
Doesn't sound like it, when you're listening to their officials. Not now, not prior to Israel's attack. So what's your basis for this assumption?
You “can accept […] member states, facing exigent circumstances, themselves take matters into their own hands”, and that “exigent circumstances” is defined by the mighty, “As has been the case all along”.
No. The existence of these exigent circumstances never was up for debate: the occurring ethnic cleansing was not a secret. It is not like those states made up a "trust me bro" story like for example the US did a couple of years later with Iraq. The UN knew about it but still wasn't capable to act accordingly due to being deadlocked - yet again. Hence, as was the case numerous times before and will be the case countless times in the future, states acted on their own behalf. And in this case, I can understand it, as, we've been through this before, the existing exigent circumstances called for immediate action. I don't see the same quality of reasons when Russia, because it can, invades Ukraine, or the US, because it can, decides to abduct Maduro.
The main problem I have is that the UN, due to this veto architecture, is not capable of responding appropriately in situations where it, as the guardian and agent of the international law we once agreed upon, should defend this law specifically. There's a backdoor for certain countries to hinder, stop, override the actions of the UN. But not for others, rendering these principles undemocratic and useless.
so you accept might to make right sometimes, but other times, nations must be limited and not do as they please.
Most of the times, nations must be limited and not do as they please. But that mechanism isn't here. A group of nations CAN do just as they please. For decades. And right now, they are as unhinged as ever, showing us that they no longer care what we think about that.
And it’s not a competition, but a comparison.
Time and time again, I see arguments made by what I’m sure are people who consider themselves egalitarian, that basically boil down to “the good guys should just kill all the bad guys”
Fine. But since I never made that claim, please don't vent that frustration on me. I told you what I'm criticising - the general principle irrespective of who is using it - and how little this has to do with the whole tribalistic competition between the badness of the individual actors of the Middle East conflict ... Frankly, these are the most toxic and useless discussions to be had on the internet. I'm really not interested.
However, to prevent enforcement turning into Another Other Big One, the major powers were given the veto, to block actions that would end with them fighting eachother.
But what has that given us? In a world full of nukes, these countries wouldn't fight directly with each other anyway. As, luckily, no-one is keen on fighting a war that can't be won. On the other hand though, these countries effectively received a perpetual get-out-of-jail card. This card frees them from consequences from their own actions, frees them from the need to compromise. All of which the other countries that weren't as privileged didn't receive. So we have a two-class system: the vast group of commoners that must play along nicely or sufficiently suck up to one of the elites to be protected (fueling political bloc formation), and the elites that can choose how much they want to play along. At the same time, this severely undermines and even destroys the effectiveness of international law, as it can at any point be halted/stalled by these countries and they can't be held responsible. It is a flaw that must be fixed, should the whole construct of international law have any form of future.
Worse yet, if a country breaks the law, then hides under a veto to get away with it, the veto itself is still the same as a regular veto stonewall, but instead of freezing an issue or kicking the can down the road, it has turned into an “I can do what i want” card. If the lawbreaking continues, and there’s no response, countries will eventually decide there are no laws and go rogue, until they’re either brought back in line or the line disappears. It won’t happen instantly, but every time it happens the community gets a little bit closer to falling apart. And if it does, you’re back to might-makes-right, at least until another war reminds everyone why we made the system in the first place.
My point exactly.
“I find this decision, that the majority of the council agrees with, so unacceptable that I am considering going to war over this!”
(X) Doubt. And big time! Look at the linked source. Most of the first 30ish? vetoes were about countries' membership applications. This was pure tactical political power play to secure/gain majorities but nothing you actually would send your tank for against the other political bloc.
we now have a situation of the international community facing at least two veto powers wilding out. This is not good.
Yes. Exactly. Being a veto power is a privilege and should be honoured accordingly by the nations holding this privilege. I can see that less and less.
I take a dim view of “yes, it’s illegal, but it’s the right thing to do”.
It depends on the circumstances. And, let's be real, most don't really care about these but rather only about who's doing it. Back at the tribalistic m.o. For some, it is just fundamentally wrong because it was "NATO"/"the US" and they build their entire (political) world view around the core principle of opposing them. I'm not implying you're one of them, but I guess you'll know what kind of people I mean. On the other hand, you've got those that cheer for the US whatever they do. Who don't care about the countries on the receiving end of US military ambitions, because it is the land of the free bringing democracy. But we're speaking about this case specifically, and I really have to say, given these specific circumstances, I can understand why NATO did what they did.
It’s also why I have more patience with countries that operate by supporting their enemies’ enemies, instead of blowing up embassies and murdering negotiators outright.
Well. I don't. Because I'm certain its not their determination holding them back but their possibilities. An Iran with the political and military possibilities of the US wouldn't resort to funding terrorist groups in the counties neighbouring their enemy. Similarly, if Trump was "only" the president of a US with the strength and the possibilities of Iran, he couldn't kidnap Maduro with impunity or bomb other countries just as he pleases. He also would have to resort to stirring up as much dirt with the means he has at hands. But his goals and ambitions would remain the same power-hungry, criminal and outright unhinged. Same with the Mullahs.
Again, your words:
Frankly, graph and link show that this is not true.
You're mixing up aspiration and possibilities.
NATO 1999: evident violations of basic human rights. Do you agree?
Maduro: IS a dictator and IS illegitimate, but still I say abducting him like that is wrong.
Russia: NATO or any of its member states didn't invade a neighbouring country in the biggest war since WW2 in order to annex and expand the own borders. I know too well that Russia and their sycophants love to play that "just mirroring NATO!!1" card as a shabby veil to hide their indigenous blatant imperialism under. But that "argument" has always just been a steaming pile of bs.
It isn't restrictive as it didn't hinder them to do what they wanted to do all along. Rather, in a world of Putins and Trumps, no side is trying to be the "better" side by following the rules - more or less. Instead, they released all brakes and don't care anymore. Yes, I understood your explanation on why the UN was designed that way, but that cannot be the end of the story. Especially, after seeing what kind of problems come along with it. This thing needs to be further evolved instead of just saying: well, it is what it is. Otherwise, as can be seen right now, the whole thing will go down.
Well, it is a dangerous world we live in, merely hanging by a thread. No point hiding from that hard truth. The only thing keeping us kinda safe is that neither of these geriatrics has the power to completely single-handedly actually fire the nukes. There's other people in the lines of command from his button to the ship/silo carrying the warhead that the lunacy of only one mustn't necessarily mean the end of us all. But a UN, which especially is toothless against the veto peers, is of no use for the disputes between the nuclear elite.
Since we're eventually deal with people here, there will always be the drive to test out boundaries. If there's the possibility, there will be law-breaking. Hence, since the law-breaking will occur, you must ensure that it can be punished.
An announcement must be treated as a veto. Otherwise, there's no point announcing it.
Well. In a world with the UN working the way it does (or rather doesn't), we'll face that dilemma time and time again. Instead of reacting to urgent causes like violation of human rights, we will argue about the existence of these urgent causes, their legitimacy, who brought them forward, what they might gain from it, etc.. but we won't respond to it, helping those in need. As said, I made my choice regarding this specific intervention - knowing that I'd also prefer a system that would actually work internationally and would abolish the need (and possibility) of unilateral action. But until we have that..
That largely depends on what you mean by "approve" and the actual bombing done. Carpet-bombing Israeli cities to kill as many "Jewish infidels" as possible won't find my "approval", especially as in advocating, ever. But an hypothetical Iran without the wish to simply annihilate Israel targetting IDF and other legitimate targets to get them to retreat to their international borders, I could "approve", as in I understand why they did it - same as I understand why NATO bombed Yugoslavia.