Secret Squirrel Comments On The United Nations Veto.

Secret Squirrel's attention has been recently drawn to the ridiculous and improper United Nations veto, as one was presently cast by The United States of America, in efforts to see to it that a free nation, a new nation, the nation of a free Palestine coming about, in and after the very self-same fashion that Israel came about.Squirrel will not comment here on that putrescent and sad fact, that of the United States casting a veto preventing the nation of Palestine coming in to being, but rather here will comment on the United Nations veto itself.

Veto power circumvents the power and rule of the majority and subjects to nations to the slavery and idiocy, of the few, or given, one of the few at any given time.It subjects the majority to the will of a minority,it binds, it enslaves.It removes rights, and freedoms.The putrescence of the veto, is in the same fashion as the presentation of The Noble Peace Prize, to war mongers at any given time.It is subjectively imprisoning in its effects. It enforces the will of the one,over the will of the many, the belief of the one, over the belief of the many,Veto Power, we need to eliminate it. This was created more than half a century ago.Ambassador Charles W. Yost cast the first U.S. veto in 1970, regarding a crisis in Rhodesia, and the U.S. cast a lone veto in 1972, to prevent a resolution relating to Israel. Since that time, it has become by far the most frequent user of the veto, mainly on resolutions criticizing Israel; since 2002 the Negroponte doctrine has been applied for the use of a veto on resolutions relating to the ongoing Israel-Palestinian conflict. This has been a constant cause of friction between the General Assembly and the Security Council. On 18 February 2011, the Obama administration vetoed resolutions condemning Israeli settlements.and used mostly by the US to veto resolutions involving Israel starting in the 1970's, "(and the U.S. cast a lone veto in 1972, to prevent a resolution relating to Israel)".

Regard the comments here found at..

http://www.centerforunreform.org/node/394

Reform of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) encompasses five key issues: categories of membership, the question of the veto held by the five permanent members, regional representation, the size of an enlarged Council and its working methods, and the Security Council-General Assembly relationship. Member States, regional groups and other Member State interest groupings developed different positions and proposals on how to move forward on this contested issue.

The reform of the Security Council requires the agreement of at least two-thirds of UN member states and that of all the permanent members of the UNSC, enjoying the veto right
Member States met on 16 and 17 March,2009 to discuss the veto in the second of five meetings devoted to different substantive issues connected to Security Council reform.The Philippines noted that “...even in the face of this extreme difficulty to remove the veto power, we may yet consider the need to curtail its exercise or use. There is a big chance for that,” ambassador Hilario G. Davide pointed out. To address this issue, the ambassador not only supported disallowing or denying the use of the veto power in certain grave cases, he also reiterated a Philippine proposal for a veto to be set aside or overturned by an absolute majority of the General Assembly, or by a vote of two-thirds of the Security Council itself.Reportedly, almost half of all Member States took the floor during the almost two-day long meeting. According to several delegates present, a number of African countries stated - in accordance with the common African position - that they are against the veto in principle.Italy's Ambassador Giulio Terzi said that even when not used, the veto can alter or block the discussion of urgent issues. "Again and again the 'hidden veto' has prevented substantial discussions of questions that are crucial to international peace and security," he said. German Ambassador Thomas Matussek apparently stated that the veto was "an anachronism and should be abolished." But hopes of scrapping or giving it to new council members were unrealistic and should not be used as a pretext to halt reform, he added.Apparently China, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States, permanent members of the Security Council, all signaled unwillingness to give up, change or reform the current veto structure.

Here ends the epistle .

 The United Nations Security Council "power of veto" refers to the veto power wielded solely by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States), enabling them to prevent the adoption of any "substantive" draft Council resolution, regardless of the level of international support for the draft. The veto does not apply to procedural votes, which is significant in that the Security Council's permanent membership can vote against a "procedural" draft resolution, without necessarily blocking its adoption by the Council.

The veto is exercised when any permanent member — the so-called "P5" — casts a "negative" vote on a "substantive" draft resolution.However The idea of states having a veto over the actions of international organizations was not new in 1945. From the foundation of the League of Nations in 1920, each member of the League Council, whether permanent or non-permanent, had a veto on any non-procedural issue.[1] From 1920 there were 4 permanent and 4 non-permanent members, but by 1936 the number of non-permanent members had increased to 11. Thus there were in effect 15 vetoes. This was one of several defects of the League that made action on many issues impossible.The idea of states having a veto over the actions of international organizations was not new in 1945. From the foundation of the League of Nations in 1920, each member of the League Council, whether permanent or non-permanent, had a veto on any non-procedural issue.[1] From 1920 there were 4 permanent and 4 non-permanent members, but by 1936 the number of non-permanent members had increased to 11. Thus there were in effect 15 vetoes. This was one of several defects of the League that made action on many issues impossible.

The UN Charter provision for unanimity among the Permanent Members of the Security Council (the veto) was the result of extensive discussion, including at Dumbarton Oaks (August–October 1944) and Yalta (February 1945). The evidence is that the UK, US, USSR, and France all favoured the principle of unanimity, and that they were motivated in this not only by a belief in the desirability of the major powers acting together, but also by a hard-headed concern to protect their own sovereign rights and national interest. Truman, who became President of the US in April 1945, went so far as to write in his memoirs: "All our experts, civil and military, favoured it, and without such a veto no arrangement would have passed the Senate."

The UNSC veto system was established in order to prohibit the UN from taking any future action directly against its principal founding members. One of the lessons of the League of Nations (1919–46) had been that an international organization cannot work if all the major powers are not members.It had already been decided at the UN's founding conference in 1944, that Britain, China, the Soviet Union, the United States and, "in due course" France, should be the permanent members of any newly formed Council. However,they all wanted control over issues, plurality, will of the majority,rule of the majority, was not and is not for either of them,nor shall it ever really be.The veto, is a representation of injustice,a mockery of any forms of democratic prinicples the United Nations is supposed to uphold and represent.Removal of veto would address the lack of meaningful action in the face of atrocities and other urgent crises.The presence of veto allows those possessing same, to rule the roost.A former Pakistani Ambassador to the UN, Ahmad Kamal, states that in a democracy no one can be more equal than others and he terms the veto anachronistic and undemocratic, a sentiment echoed by many African countries. Abolishing the veto altogether seems to appeal to quite a few member states.Among those who oppose abolishing the veto—and the P5 are the most prominent in that group—references are made to the League of Nations, which many believe ended up in demise because major powers such as the US refused to join. This, they argue, is exactly what would happen if the veto was abolished: the major powers of the world would either leave the UN or disregard or refuse to pay for UN actions they oppose.I either case, what the veto is is the enslavement of the member nations of the United Nations, enslavement of an entire group of United Nations, to the will of a single one,the dominating one, the enslaving one,the democracy destroying one,the nation which casts the Veto.If the United Nations is ever to be a free and democratic institution devoted to world rule,world self-rule, world democracy,world peace,global stability,the veto must be removed in its entirety.However,the domintating nations holding the veto being what they in reality are,sadly this will never,ever come about.