Putin’s War Is an Existential Crisis for the United Nations
foreignpolicy.com
foreignpolicy.com
Kicking nations out or overriding their vote would defeat the purpose as this would trigger several of them to leave the organization and turn it into a Western club. A “world police” does not exist, nor is it attainable. No world power will accept any foreign court to decide on its fate, as can also be seen from who’s vetoing what in the UN.
Furthermore, other countries have certainly taken note of the actions of the US, EU and allies and their attempt to impose their will on other countries. While that may be morally correct, I assume that it will be politically very problematic especially in relation to China.
All in all a poor article. It’s incredibly hard to get quality information on this war.
This is actually the point you also made: > …or overriding their vote would defeat the purpose as this would trigger several of them to leave the organization…
Their veto _is overriding the vote of others_.
And by this principle of might over right, the very purpose you point out in your comment is actually undermined by the veto-countries. > My impression is that the UN is a place where all nations come together to negotiate and communicate
This makes the current arrangement of the UN quite useless to have any meaningful effect on world politics and to fulfil its purpose of saving humanity from its own destruction.
I agree with you that there is no good solution for this situation to be found in removing nations from the positions that they currently occupy in the UN Security Council, and, even though it is certainly not Vindman alone calling for a veto override along the lines of the mechanism available to our legislative bodies here in the USA, it is not going to happen in the existing UN -- nor is the existing UN able to do anything meaningful for Ukraine.
We should not be under any illusions that this crisis ends with Ukraine, even for Europe : Putin's Serbian allies are already arming for another go at Kosovo and Moldova would not even last a week if Ukraine (or even just Odessa) falls..
Given that, as you write here, no world power will accept the jurisdiction of a foreign court (even if formulated as transnational like the ICC) and that punitive moves by the West have a high risk of cleaving the world into the West vs the rest, the question, in my opinion, becomes one of how the world - or at least the G7 (and probably most of the G20) - deal with wars of aggression such that they do not destroy the global economy (or, you know, trigger nuclear Armageddon) but without alienating the non authoritarian / totalitarian governments that comprise the bulk of the nations that just voted against Russia in the existing UN General Assembly.
Does NATO just keep expanding (I mean beyond the fait accompli of Finland and Sweden)? Does the EU continue its plans for militarization (and accept Ukraine into its (NATO overlapping) security structure)? What about ASEAN vis-à-vis Chinese ambition in the South China sea? What about the Norks scaring South Korea and even Japan into increasingly militaristic stances that then provoke China? And, of course, there is the problem of the democratic, independent and very sovereign island of Taiwan...
From my perspective at least, the largest economies of the world except for China rallying behind the values of the "rule of law" / "liberal world order" and doing all that they can to avoid WWIII - including a forklift upgrade to the existing global organizations that were created after the previous world war is not the worst outcome I can imagine..
-Former UK Cabinet Secretary
It was way more unbalanced immediately after the war. So, when you're a US politician, and you have to consider the interests of, say, Texas, against the interests of France, it's not just that Texas is closer to home. It's also that Texas is a bigger deal on the world stage, i.e. if France and Texas got into a pissing match, for most of 20th century history, France would have run out of piss first.
Unless the US was absolutely committed to the UN (which it hasn't been), it could never work as anything but an extension of US power, just because the US was so powerful in the post-war period that they warped the frame.
PS : written by "Yevgeny Vindman, a colonel in the U.S. Army JAG Corps" who claims "The world is on the precipice of a return to wars of aggression by tyrants only interested in power." OK...
"A successor to the U.N. or a modified U.N. must follow this war. It must be an organization where one nation cannot escape accountability because it is in a special class. Tyrants and despots are watching this war and will learn what they can get away with. Other nations will draw lessons about giving up nuclear weapons. The stakes in the outcome of the present conflict cannot be overstated. Undoubtedly, the interest in ending the conflict and providing off-ramps is high. Policymakers will have to balance providing a face-saving exit for a nuclear-armed autocrat against saving the international rules-based system. They will need to be creative about ending the war and considerate of the lessons learned when shaping a successor organization or modified U.N. system. Whatever the new organization, a total veto by one special status state will be antithetical to the purpose of that body. There are many ideas on how to address this problem"
WHO as in World Health Organization? If so, can you please point out your rationale for your link between the WHO and "an unelected world government"?