http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/09/obama-rogue-state-tramples-every-law

You could almost pity these people. For 67 years successive US governments have resisted calls to reform the UN security council. They've defended a system which grants five nations a veto over world affairs, reducing all others to impotent spectators. They have abused the powers and trust with which they have been vested. They have collaborated with the other four permanent members (the UK, Russia, China and France) in a colonial carve-up, through which these nations can pursue their own corrupt interests at the expense of peace and global justice.

Eighty-three times the US has exercised its veto. On 42 of these occasions it has done so to prevent Israel's treatment of the Palestinians being censured. On the last occasion, 130 nations supported the resolution but Barack Obama spiked it. Though veto powers have been used less often since the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the US has exercised them 14 times in the interim (in 13 cases to shield Israel), while Russia has used them nine times. Increasingly the permanent members have used the threat of a veto to prevent a resolution being discussed. They have bullied the rest of the world into silence.

Who do you count as 'the world'? Vetoes may seem undemocratic, but as per the thread concerning democracy I would observe that democracy is only as good as the values of those living under it. When you mention the U.N and single out it's huge number of motions against Israel you are really talking about the UNHRC, which is in effect a motley collection of Islamic dictatorships and tinpot commie republics, I would have no problem vetoing anything they come up with any more than I would a motion to allow cannibals a reservation in the New Forest.

A final thought, the U.N doesn't need reform, it needs abolishing altogether.

Prove the facts wrong; don't shoot the messenger! The two paras quoted are simply the first paragraphs of the article linked. I didn't even give my own opinion, Dan.

The article is an attack on the UN for being ineffective, with which almost anyone would agree. BUT much of the ineffectiveness lies with the permanent members of the security council.

Between 1946 and 2007 (the latest date I can find), Russia has used its veto 123 times, most of these under Molotov, the US 82, the UK 32, France 18, and China 8. Since the break-up of the USSR, most vetoes have been by the US.

There seems to be a choice between abolishing the UN altogether as ineffective, or keeping it as a forum in which world issues can be discussed. The latter would at least keep open a place where matters could be discussed.... but inevitably that means some kind of voting mechanism.

Yes, democracy is a miserably ineffective approach, but show me a better one.

There is very good reason for the US vetos against the corrupt hypocrites of the UNHRC.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhWgZu6tcZU

I think it is a simple statement to say Israel has very few friends and the USA is one of them.

The US was a major sponsor of the UN from the beginning, and probably still pays the biggest share of its budget. Then, when it doesn't like what the UN does, it uses its veto.

This is the old story; the powerful states, US, Russia, and China, simply do what they damn well like, irrespective of international conventions. (China simply doesn't bother much about the UN, though)

Then, when it doesn't like what the UN does, it uses its veto.

If it were not for that veto power, we never would have joined the UN. It is looking more and more like we should not have bothered.

I guess the UN is a little like certain posters on here, you will express your approval, or of course disapproval, like or v e t o, to the person who is your ally, neither doing the right thing, or doing things right. A circular objective that does nobody any credit. But like an Ascot or Kentucky thorough bred, blinkers on and ear defenders firmly in place. To heel with the future, let's live in the past, May the Lord in all his me r c y be kind to ................

The UN is a shining example of corruption and self indulgence that is nothing more than another NGO, the US would be better off using its dues elsewhere.

The UN is a shining example of corruption and self indulgence that is nothing more than another NGO, the US would be better off using its dues elsewhere.

United States debt to the United Nations, in both the regular and peacekeeping budgets, exceeded $1.5 billion at the start of 2009. After passage of the 2009 appropriations bills, U.S. debt for peacekeeping alone was over $1.3 billion. These arrears make the United States the largest debtor to the United Nations and threaten its ability to leverage the international community toward achieving key U.S. national security priorities (status 2009).

http://www.betterworldcampaign.org/assets/pdf/briefing-book/us-debt-to-the-un.pdf

The US pays far more than other countries. The U.S. is assessed 22 percent of the regular budget, which was nearly $567 million in gross contributions for 2012. The U.S. is assessed more than 180 other U.N. member states combined and 22,000 times more than the least assessed countries.

The UN is a shining example of corruption and self indulgence that is nothing more than another NGO, the US would be better off using its dues elsewhere.

United States debt to the United Nations, in both the regular and peacekeeping budgets, exceeded $1.5 billion at the start of 2009. After passage of the 2009 appropriations bills, U.S. debt for peacekeeping alone was over $1.3 billion. These arrears make the United States the largest debtor to the United Nations and threaten its ability to leverage the international community toward achieving key U.S. national security priorities (status 2009).

http://www.betterworldcampaign.org/assets/pdf/briefing-book/us-debt-to-the-un.pdf

The US pays far more than other countries. The U.S. is assessed 22 percent of the regular budget, which was nearly $567 million in gross contributions for 2012. The U.S. is assessed more than 180 other U.N. member states combined and 22,000 times more than the least assessed countries.

Assessed, UG, but IT DOES NOT PAY ITS BILLS.

Correction. It does not pay all its bills, but it still pay more than anyone else.

Perhaps Naam has something a little more current than 2009?

Just asking.

The banana republics that send their heads of states to NYC for opulent shopping sprees and dinner parties while their country men are starving is just one common example of the Failing of the untied nations. The back door deals that have been uncovered is another and the power of its pen is as weak as it's roar. IMO it would be better located in Palestine.

Then, when it doesn't like what the UN does, it uses its veto.

If it were not for that veto power, we never would have joined the UN. It is looking more and more like we should not have bothered.

You did not "join" it, you invented it - just like the "League of Nations". (I presume you are a US-Citizen)

Then, when it doesn't like what the UN does, it uses its veto.

If it were not for that veto power, we never would have joined the UN. It is looking more and more like we should not have bothered.

You did not "join" it, you invented it - just like the "League of Nations". (I presume you are a US-Citizen)