The Problem With the UN Veto Power | NowThis World 

Yeah I dont understand that either. I mean first the UN had 3 countries and it made sense to call veto. I might be wrong but I dont get why veto is used and not majority or some other form to vote for something.

@@AllenBaby7 It was made to ensure none of the P5 will leave UN😂

United Nations Space Command!

*Halo intensifies*

Democracy isn't always right.

Nank Dug you voted against Israel... what next? War against Israel? Boycot against Israel? Arab and Muslim countries did it already. And they didn’t accept UN resolution in 1947

DartLuke thats bc in 1947 the majority of the population was Arabs in the area, yet the UN proposed to give them a minority of the land and give a majority to the Jews(who were minority population). Think about it, the majority population gets a minority of land, and the minority of population gets a majority of the land. Seem fair?

Nice one

The entire world economy depend on china communist system to thrive, A democratic system will bring the economy down to disaster. please wake up.

@superfisher28 Yes you are right but it is sold where they are made.

@Riyad they built toilet first than become permanent member of security council .

France & UK: Surely they will say no to this, we were acting like nice gentlemen XD

Because China、Rus and US have the largest and strongest Army in the world.Power comes from Power,This is the real world. Fra and UK they lost their power so they have no power. If Indian have power, Welcome to the UN Security Council.

Riyad quality over quantity

Its not based on population. Its based on the power to enforce the UN ruling. The UN is a show it only has the powers allowed it by world super powers. Its there to make everyone believe things are fair, but thats not how the world works.

Longest Joke in humanity

not all nations are created equal tho

of course it is a joke

@@kartunland people on the USA no .USA the nation yes in this context

Cosidering a non-democratic country also has veto power.

Because they are winners in world war two

In Theory the idea of not having a veto and all countries being equal is a great proposal as it is the most just proposal. In an ideal world all countries should have equal say. Unfortunately The veto is the only thing that makes the United Nations practical. Very few people understand the main function of the United Nations. The primary function of the United Nations is to prevent conflict from between great powers. War between the United States and Russia or China would be global in scale and would devastate large sections of the earth. The Last time great powers engaged each other was World War II. Today their existing additional threat of nuclear arsenals. It’s in all countries interests to prevent a hot war between great powers. The un provides a forum for great powers to discuss issues that they share a mutual interest in and a forum to work out a peaceful solution when possible. The five nations that are permanent members of the Security Council and have veto powers are the United States, the Russian Federation, the peoples Republic of China, the United Kingdom and France. The United States, the Soviet Union, and the uk were the strongest countries at the end of World War II. They included the Republic of China and France to form the five permanent members of the Security Council because they were major nations and fought against the axis countries. Later the peoples Republic of China replaced the Republic of China and the Russian Federation replaced the Soviet Union. Today most people would consider three strongest nations on earth to be the United States, the peoples Republic of China, and the Russian federation. France and the United Kingdom are still major powers and possess nuclear arsenals. It would do great damage to the world economy and environment if any of these countries went to war with another from the group. For that reason it makes sense to have all five of these countries permanent members of the Security Council. This way they will have input and the ability to express an opinion on all issues concerning global issues. The truth is not all countries are equal in terms of power. If Sweden is extremely upset they don’t have the military ability to damage the world a global scale. If Russia’s interests are damaged there exists the risk that this might provoke massive military retaliation. For that reason Russia should be given the ability to voice objections ahead of time. It’s in everybody’s best interest to avoid such negative outcomes. For any international resolutions to be enforced you would need the support of the great powers. For example in 1991 the UN voted to remove Saddam Hussein's Army from Kuwait and to end his occupation and invasion. The United Nations doesn’t have the military capabilities to perform this act. It would require one of the major powers to use its military to accomplish something like this. Since you are going to need the buy in of a major power there is no practical alternative other than involving them in the decision. Veto powers also prevent wars between great powers. Once again the reality is some Nations are much more powerful and potentially destructive than the average Nation. The veto helps ensure that no un resolution will ever be passed that is unacceptable to a great power and thus will prevent a situation that might provoke them to war. For example China would veto any un resolution that ordered them to withdraw from the Tibetan region. Russia would veto any resolution that would ask them to withdraw from Chechnya. The us would veto any resolution asking it to give back lands it took from Mexico. Imagine If the United Nations tried to force China to withdraw from Tibet. This would provoke ww3.

jacky tang at that time most countries just got independent now let us fight again we will destroy those so called winners

@@gamingparadise3390 your country have nukes?

@@gamingparadise3390 by Alla or Reading Koran day by day ?

And now in Saudi arabia women can drive and few days ago they had first female host on their national tv. i think UN put them on that spot for a reason.

@Am I disabled lol. "everything they have done in Yemen" that was supported and funded by UK and America. Also are you saying America didn't fund terrorists ever? Almost every permanent member up there funded some rebel group for their own means not just Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia isn't a role model but you can definitely see change. Also how are homosexuals in Russia?

Saral Thakur Homosexuals are allowed in Russia except in Chechnya. But, how does Saudi treat them? Even though they have problems, the UK and USA are not actively bombing Yemen. Even if you ignore that, Saudi treats Saudi women as second class citizens and migrant laborers as third class.

Art Man Anddd Chechnya is a majority muslim state in the Russian Federation... hence, the restriction of Homosexuals...

"Since Saudi Arabia is on the Human Rights Panel" Hey, Im a Political Analyst, Usually do jobs for local magazines or newepapers, this Saudi Arabia thing wouldve been true 30 or 50 years ago, but its not true in these times, Saudi Arabia has changed and its obvious to anyone not living under a rock, find some other country to whine about. Also Im guessing youre Canadian or LGBT?

No, power gives you VETO vote and not the other way around

@@Yummy_69 No, power gives you veto and veto gives you more power.

@@christophersalinas2722 you aren’t the brightest are you

@@freeeggs3811 he speaks the truth. Veto just made superpowers more powerful. It does nothing but let the P5 do whatever fits their political agenda states at the cost of the rest of the world

@@ananthmilan753 super powers can already do what they want

That's what I was about to suggest :) You're less prone to veto for useless things if you know that down the road, you may need your veto power to save your country.

They’ll all veto that😅🙈

That would only work if resolutions were limited too.

Not really - as long as the country can veto the same proposal, even if contained in multiple resolutions. Someone trying to carry a vote would just need to remove the specific proposal. For example - the US might veto any action on the US embassy in Jerusalem. Any number of resolutions addressing that issue would be blocked by just ONE of the limited number of vetoes.

Yeah that would work as long as the veto worked on a proposal as long and killed it (and any somewhat like it)

Veto powers prevent wars between great powers. The reality is some Nations are much more powerful and potentially destructive than the average Nation. The veto helps ensure that no UN resolution will ever be passed that is unacceptable to a great power and thus will prevent a situation that might provoke them to war. For example, China would veto any un resolution that ordered them to withdraw from the Tibetan region. Russia would veto any resolution that would ask them to withdraw from Chechnya. The USA would veto any resolution asking it to give back lands it took from Mexico. Imagine If the United Nations tried to force China to withdraw from Tibet. This would provoke WW3. I believe there is a simple test that can show if a country should be a permanent member of the UNSC. If going to war with that country would lead to the destruction or near destruction of the earth then they are powerful enough to be permanent members of the UN Security Council. This is why I actually think the UK and France should be replaced or removed, but that is where politics come to play. If Europe has no representatives on the UNSC, then they would most likely leave the UN and create their own UN or expand the powers of the EU to function more like the UN.

Well, this should be a topic of the UN General Assembly for the power to veto be taken down.

Simple! France leave their seat for European Union.

@Alistair Bolden No. We won’t accept that. We aren’t responsible for something that happened 80 Years ago.

I wanted to say something like this but didn't know how exactly. You are very spot on.

@@ImKevin PRoblem with your argument is that you still believe that Britain, France and Russia still great influential powers. Germany is way more powerful than them which is evident from de-facto leadership of European union. The global realities of power balance are shifting and more diverse than ever. Asia is definitely rising as more influential economical power and military power thus considering your argument they should accept present realities, not the notion that power remain constant or great powers are always great. Each power rises and falls and world adapts.

@Mohan Vankar You make some very valid points there. I agree with you that the global balance of power is shifting away from the traditional European powers and it is growing elsewhere, especially in Asia. That said, I don't think your argument is very applicable to the Security Counsel specifically. The SC's mandate is to maintain international peace and security, and it deals largely with international crises mostly related to military issues. As such, I think it's fair to say Britain, France and especially Russia still remain far more influential on the world stage than any others. Russia is actively involved in both Eastern Europe and the Middle East, France is engaged in a slew of countries across Africa, and Britain has troops deployed in various countries across the globe. By contrast, countries like Japan, Germany, India, Brazil, South Africa, etc. have very little or no foreign military missions, and are significantly less engaged on the world stage in that regard. As such, I think the current counsel still remains representative of reality, evidenced by the fact that it is still functioning with the endorsement of all the world's states. If, as you note, the balance of power continues to shift to the East, the status quo will definitely have to change. As the economic influence and power of Asia grows, so will their eventual military power. If / when that occurs, I suspect any relevant player will rightfully demand a seat at the table. (Thanks for reading and responding to my comment, I figured no one would even read it!)

@@caleblovell I agree with overall assessment but I like to counter it by saying that, first and foremost, current presence of military power in foreign state doesn't provide complete picture.They are remanants of the colonial era. I agree that it helps in projecting power but still to consider it as only parameter is little bit too much. INDIA is a prime example of that. It is well accepted fact that military strength of INDIA is 4th. But INDIA has the policy of non-interference until and unless UN approve it or directly affect INDIA.This shows that all nations with considerable military might may not choose to be there out of belief that too much foreign intervention may excerbate trouble example in the middle east. Current security council has hard loyalities, which is evident in VETO use. This shows failure to act in many cases, as video suggest. Recent examples were Syrian regime backed by Russia, Myanmar Rohingya cleansing by China, US intervention in multiple countries to impose their ideology which ultimately fails as evident from rise of Taliban and ISIS. I agree that great war era is now over but I think there is considerable contribution of UN in this regard but, mostly this is due to the fear of NUCLEAR WEAPON that calmed down world. INDIA and PAKISTAN are example of that, if war broke out we loose world that's harsh reality and every world leader is aware of that. The UN peacekeeping forces are mainly consist of INDIA and PAKISTAN. This suggests that they contribute more for world peace militariy than any other nations. I know economically western powers back those plan but, as you argue, you are considering facts only on basis of military power. I here suggest that considering failures and making reforms is necessary in order to be relevant in any era. The power to veto provides relevant power to remain engeged in world affairs but they also fails to accommodate new world order and distance those which are emerging as world powers. This rigidity, in the end, is costly. Either UN will become irrelevant or failed in 'final goal'. This both outcome are scary and I think this require through investigation before it is too late. We both know that current available data for this analysis is not available to you and me so concluding anything in this area is little bit naive. This are opinions but opinion does matter to push the causes but hard realities are determining factors.

Atleast someone has a very good understanding of how things work.

Exactly!

Yea this isnt fair to anyother countries

Why should they These 5 nations contribute maximum money and forces to UN

@@adee6467 but they get in the way of actual resolutions from getting passed so they can do what want

So you're saying a country with a few thousand citizens have the same say as a country like China with 1.7 Billion.

Not true at all. The UN is designed for peacekeeping, it always has been. China and the U.S. need to hold veto, as well as the EU as an organization. The UN is designed for peacekeeping so everyone has to be relatively okay with it. Also 3/5 would be wayy worse than no veto. It would basically be giving a veto singularly to the West.

@@boku955 The UN's main goal is literally written in it's charters. the maintenance of international peace and security. I think anyone can agree with that it has failed because since it's inception there has been no international peace or security and the veto power is one of the main reasons why. The Un has done a lot of good and continues to do so but preventing war and atrocities is just not something it's built to prevent at least not when said conflict has the interests of one of the permanent members which is common.

@@SherLock55 Why would veto loss change anything?

@@SherLock55 No organization could be built to stop a country declaring war... without using war itself. The UN is the best attempt at such an organization, an organization where everyone can agree to something.

@@SherLock55 The United Nations is to prevent wars between the United States, China, Russia, and the European Union, rather than other countries

Omg! Is this what they taught you in China?

@@octobersky9639 NO,but what he said is international reality.

@@octobersky9639 Do you really believe that there is absolute equality in the world ? The reason why U.S is superpower is just because of freedom and democracy(this is the Soviet slogan at the time)？ or do u think you are as important as Trump (yeah, all men are created equal)? How childish u r.

Truth is the range of a cannon, and the caliber of a cannon is justice

@@octobersky9639 瞧瞧巴勒斯坦，正义只是笑话

Yeah, some in the comments are just dumb saying “UN is useless.” I have to say we have been long in WW3 if UN didn’t exist. Some people just expect “Instant Solution” to every problem that arise and blame everything in the government, where in fact UN has been in the front line to prevent WW3.

Well written ! Excellent !

But that veto thing also ensures that their is no shift of power man! U dont understand! Lets say China or Russia or USA have a geo-political interest/conflict with any other nation(eg China with India or USA with Pakistan).They would just do things in their interest and if the nation complaints about it in the UNSC then CHINA or USA would just veto it. This is just unfair! Avoiding Justice to prevent a war is surely not the thing! Not punishing a serial killer only because a large family depends on him is not the correct way. There has to be another way around.

Qwokka Yes, and let’s tear down all boarders and just get along while your at it.

I believe there is a simple test that can show if a country should be a permanent member of the UNSC. If going to war with that country would lead to the destruction or near destruction of the earth then they are powerful enough to be permanent members of the UN Security Council. This is why I actually think the UK and France should be replaced or removed, but that is where politics come to play. If Europe has no representatives on the UNSC, then they would most likely leave the UN and create their own UN or expand the powers of the EU to function more like the UN.

This ain’t really about peace. It never has been. It’s all about the power. That’s why western countries control the security council.

@Green Sky which is bad

@@gabenewell3955But Australia is the only country in the middle of that big ocean...

@@meray6811 Oceania comprises of New Zealand and other Pacific Islands if I am not wrong.

asia is 70% off world polpulation

How not giving veto to powerful India solves this ? On any day India can start war against Pakistan or China can start war with India and that war would be far bigger than any war happened in west .

" Today most people would consider three strongest nations on earth to be the United States, the Peoples Republic of China, and the Russian Federation. France and the United Kingdom are still major powers and possess nuclear arsenals. " ok, but don't you think that the world has moved on, Now in those " great powers " countries like India, Brazil, South Korea should come too. In fact, India can put Toast to both Uk and France If it wasn't for NATO. Plus Pakistan and India are on each other throats involving future threats of large scale destruction ( Both being Nuclear powers ( MAD ) ). Also, we don't really know how much nuke India really has! So isn't it sensible enough to bring them in? If I go by your reasoning

Reasonable comment

@Alex Mercer nuclear weapons are homemade... No other weapons are important nowadays... Like f22 f35. Typhoon.. Etc... If... There's aww3... Oh god there should not be... But if.... These 5th gen fighter are all vain... The technology u say that France and uk have... It has only in making gadgets not arsenls... And they develop most of their wepons jointly... India is a lone wolf...but u don't know coz India doesn't stick it's nose like us uk France Germany Russia china in global politics... So u want to know the facts just google it.... So yes India should have given veto....

@@ayushkumar-bg1xf on any day? then why havent india start a war yet?

LOL

That was necessary dude. East Pakistan's growth was siphoned off to its west counterpart. If you all were still Pakistan, there would have been utter misery and chaos

Now Bangladeshi must be happy.

thank india who was russian ally then

@@arpitpatra What did India do? Russia was the one that cast the veto.

​@@duskingsun985 It was Indian prime minister Indira Gandhi that got Soviet Union to support Bangladesh independence in the first place and cast the veto in their favour

Somali pirate lmao

wasnt it started by india and brazil?

@@joebama6825 yes

its stupid organization of weak countries who wanted to choose neither sides. india should leave it

@@arpitpatra you cant use that brain of yours can you?

Ok, let's put it to a vote. US and China: Veto Veto Veto!

@@strawberryanimation9294 Rusia: Veto Britain and France: Veto Everyone else: sign...

The world ain't democratic or fair

Veto is nothing if u have money. noone can veto japan turkey or india

All countries agreed on India getting veto .now it's upto United Nations official to decide when they will do such change .

Actually its the US who doesn't want others in UNSC

I think India shouldn't care about VETO in UNSC,if we are truly that powerful than we can work for our interests without caring abt what others say

@@tejasmohite2651 not in case of india, 4 member (US , Russia, france and UK ) supporting india except china

@@dharmendernegi7310 China is ready to support only if India doesn't support japan for a permanent seat.

It actually makes sense, as who is the largest nations who are considered the most dangerous if you mess with? (Russia china and the US) France and the UK used to be big power's but honestly are weaker then nations like India and South Korea. the Veto is a don't get in my way warning to other nations about messing around in "their" business.

speedy01247 dude UK get that seat because it is British empire at the time UN is founded, how would ppl expect that it will decline into an island nation so quickly? And french empire was way larger and stronger than the current France too. It is just france and UK lowering the bar rather than India, Germany, Japan, Brazil is being strong enuff to ever qualify for a UN permanent seat.

Dazanar because it was the 4 nations fought and beat the axis in WW2, and then France for some reason.

''...no country from Africa, india excluded'' wait what? Since when is India part of Africa?

@sean sammon The P5 members in UNSC have aleady assured their support individually to include India in UNSC. But they are still reluctant in one way or the other to expand the UNSC.

LOL. They're actually the last two countries that should get a seat.. India should be sanctioned until they sort their population and resulting pollution out, and Japan was worse than Germany in WW2, and continue to flaunt internationally whaling laws. Germany should get a seat before Japan.

yes definitely the rapists needs a voice with india in a permanent member seat

AholeAtheist Christopher Chen You have the right to shut your mouth if you are ignorant. Also perhaps you missed the fact that the guest in this video, Salil Shetty is an Indian

And Brazil.

Japan and India already have a seat in the UN, just not in the Security Council.

Lol then the country that didnt get there way would still say no, and we would be in a world war with a world super power. The UN has no power over those nations, mostly USA Russia and China the UN is a show to give the illusion of fairness

@@learn2farm509 there are reasons why war between superpowers is unlikely now more than ever but ok

it's quality that counts not quantity ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

India don’t have qualifying

‘ Major contributor to UN Peace keeping ‘ Yeah right , by killing innocent Kashmiris .

India lacks development plus it’s politically unstable and it isn’t influential.

Ayush Hegde Because China is very very wealthy and Russia is not only a developed country but it has the second strongest military in the world .

@Mansuba's Counseling User or it is like choosing less worse than other options. Veto power is way less worse than actual war.

For the veto to be canceled. It's a failed policy

Wise man😂

exactly

It's there to stop any UN interventions if the world powers decide to invade a country.. in other words, useless.

What happened to that safety valve when US launched its military invasion against Iraq without any UN resolutions !!!!

This makes sense, the Veto is a hey, fight me and war could occur due to this disagreement. (all 5 member's are nuclear power's remember)

Fair point. If it was supposed to be fair in any way though, we should stop the veto power of individual countries alltogether, clearly. You could still have a Security Council, make it consist of appointed members, of which one is elected by 2/3 of the General Assembly every year with a 9 year term. 2/3 of that new Security Council would have to agree to an intervention or investigation, after the General Assembly has already agreed to it. Kind of like a Senate, in a way.

As if United Nations can exist if India , Germany and Japan decides to exit . Remember India is leader of G77 . India withdrawal can easily end United Nations

uh no. those countries (bar the G4) aren't powerful enough to hold a seat.

The council does seems very........uniform racial and political if you ask me

Germany and Japan? What a joke

What is the purpose of adding these countries In security council? We are demanding to abolish Veto power of P5 permanently only these 5 countries can dictatorship over 195 countries which makes UN powerless.

Haha you would find that the UN would still exist if the P-5 wanted it to, because the un power is drawn from them, mainly Russia USA and China. An if they agreed on some global decision even if it was about a country who dropped out the ruling would be just as powerful. The UN is a courtesy world super powers do to keep the peace and make the other countries feel they have a voice.

@Alistair Bolden Yeah...the UK and France definitely don’t need the USA for anything. That is why they won the Suez Crisis...oh...wait...they didn’t.

@@anothergermanmapper7754 and then Egypt sided with the USSR and turned against the USA, and the USA could do nothing about it. Britain then refused to help the USA in Vietnam, which was the only time they ever refused to help the USA since 1812, and coincidentally the USA lost. “World Superpower” btw.

Yay so we can have another world war

oh you think veto is preventing world war :O

Tollin Jose did not ? Reach and think again

@@TollinJosePalatty yes it is.

It's impossible

How would that work you have the Vatican City with population of 500 on one end and China and India with 1.4 billion each on the other end

We can’t completely eliminate biasness but just to minimise it better than autocratic voices by the 5P to veto resolution that might bring benefits to millions and billions of people

I'd support making the Security Council consist of appointed members, of which one is elected by 2/3 of the General Assembly every year with a 9 year term. 2/3 of that new Security Council would have to agree to an intervention or investigation, after the General Assembly has already agreed to it. Kind of like a Senate, in a way. Your proposal would be a good compromise that the current P5 could maybe even accept, if you get real lucky

That would do zero good, that structure is in place because thats how the world works... they just embody it in the UN. The UN has zero power if the USA, Russia and China say it doesnt. Who is going to enforce international law on Russia and USA? Is poland gonna straighten Russia out? or is Mexico gonna take back the land the USA took from it? No the UN is powerless to those countries bc their its source of power.

@@cheydinal5401 you live in a fairy tale. The UN exists because of the compromise of these five countries.The 5 countries not be rule by the UN. It's impossible for any small country or group to sanction US. Russia and China.The UN will not send troops to attack the countries with the largest share of fund.

It's A Nuclear Country With 3rd GDP should hv a veto

IKR.. they always come with stereotypical reply like 3rd world country,shithole country as if your country is a saint !! Have no problem !

@@fanta6285 tbh china is much more developed than India...we still have a long way to go😔

Or, you know, don't give any one country the power to overrule the majority of ALL other countries on earth? You could still have a security council, make it consist of appointed members, of which one is elected by 2/3 of the General Assembly every year with a 9 year term. 2/3 of that new Security Council would have to agree to an intervention or investigation, after the General Assembly has already agreed to it. Kind of like a Senate, in a way.

Random Boi I agree.

Veto powers prevent wars between great powers. The reality is some Nations are much more powerful and potentially destructive than the average Nation. The veto helps ensure that no UN resolution will ever be passed that is unacceptable to a great power and thus will prevent a situation that might provoke them to war. For example China would veto any un resolution that ordered them to withdraw from the Tibetan region. Russia would veto any resolution that would ask them to withdraw from Chechnya. The USA would veto any resolution asking it to give back lands it took from Mexico. Imagine If the United Nations tried to force China to withdraw from Tibet. This would provoke WW3.

@@larryh2099 how not giving veto to powerful India prevent war while giving veto to tiny UK helps .

​@@ayushkumar-bg1xf When the UN was established, the UK was a world player and India was not. It made sense back then, not anymore though. But getting rid of the UK would make Europe feel like they are not being represented in the UN anymore, and they might just start to ignore the UN. Besides, India is not powerful enough to start WW3 because they don't like a UN resolution.

Lazy Addict nah they are too weak to ever qualify for the job. France and UK were given that seat only because they were still great empire when UN is founded. And South africa really? The only thing I support is India taking British empire seat from UK since India was part of British empire and the most powerful one out of ex British empire states should be given that seat just like PRC taking over ROC seat because it own all of China’s mainland and Russia Federation taking over Soviet Union seat because it is the largest one after the Soviet split

India maybe in the future but South Africa? It’s smaller than Turkey.

Brazil? Never! Its the most corrupted and dangerous country in latinamerica

I think what most people do not recognize about the debate around the P5 is that it doesn't represent the nations in the UN. Sure, they might in terms of population, but in terms of the interests and a global view, they don't even come close.

South Africa is literally one of the worst and most corrupt countries in the world, I would rather have Cuba than them.

The Wattman it should be a representative or two from each major region. USA, Brazil, UK, Germany, Egypt, Nigeria, Russia, China, and Malaysia

I'd go even further and make it consist of appointed members, of which one is elected by 2/3 of the General Assembly every year with a 9 year term. 2/3 of that new Security Council would have to agree to an intervention or investigation, after the General Assembly has already agreed to it. Kind of like a Senate, in a way.

@@gryffith1378 these aren't world powers though. The point of the veto was to avoid conflict between superpowers. However I do agree Brazil, Germany and India should join as they are massive regional powers

I agree with you.

The United Nations was established due to World War II, with clear enemies being Germany and Japan.

India 😆

hahaha that would make the veto completely useless... 1 is all thats required to set a world war in motion

Semantics

I think she said "And Asia" but whatever...

It wil cause another world war

The UK also (secretly) gave them nuclear secrets for reactors and bombs, jet engines and computer/electronics tech after WW2.

Neither the UK or France should have veto power a single one of the big 3 would utter destroy them in a disagreement they both have it tho because they are USA mil allies

@@learn2farm509 They are still nuclear powers with significant global influence

France contributed the least towards the victory of Allied powers in WW2. Even India which was a British colony at that time contributed more than France.

81

FILM vid Then this new UN don’t work at all

only 5 countries in new UN?

Those nations would only have the power to enforce resolutions that affect those nations.

Only after India rejected to take seat of Taiwan . As at that time Nehru fool decided to go with delusion of hindi chini bhai bhai

LMAO China are just salty they got into the P5 because of India.

@@saipranavkishan7003 R u serious? Everyone of P5 had war with other four and at least win once .That is the power. India can't even handle Pakistan.

@@isaacelric1807 Since when did China defeat all other 4 of the P5? All I know is that it got heavily invaded by the Japanese in the WWII with tragic results. It also clearly lost the Sino-French War and the Opium Wars. Yes we are salty that we don't have veto as all other nations who don't have it are, as we should be. India cannot deal with Pakistan because Pakistan is armed with nuclear weapons. Also, why should we kill people to show 'POWER'. Dont confuse life with video games.

@〇 2.3 Million Indians fought for the allies in WW2. It has also heavily contributed military in UN Peacekeeping efforts. India has lifted 271 Million people out of poverty in last ten years alone.

@〇 Pure bs. No such rule exists. 🤣

Can the permanent 5 get rid of the UN? Because the answer to that Question is "LMAO, yes, by simply dropping their contribution" So the UN can´t get rid of the veto powers if the veto powers don´t feel like it. (Well, mainly talking about US, China and Russia, France and Britain are "legacy" veto powers, but they are not the problem anyway)

@@sircastic959 they are problem after what they did in last 70 year everywhere . especially USA it was involved in regime change in over 114 countries Directly and support autocratic thugs like Saudi.

Stupid, in fact, five countries take turns to veto

Russia China and USA are the only ones that should have the veto power no other country could cause the level of devastation those country have the potential to

@@learn2farm509 both france and uk has nuclear weapons, and has the economy to sustain a global war so...

india cannot sustain a war, even as we speak indians are starving to death.

No it shouldn't

Now with rise of India and other countries UK and France are less powerful and does deserve veto .they can't do anything to prevent third world war . On any vote at United Nations or anywhere on planet India always gets more vote than UK or France . Also in milatery India is far more powerful .India is also third largest economy with tag of fastest growing economy

Yes it is because these countries especially USA China and Russia could set the world on fire

@@ayushkumar-bg1xf India is the 5th largest economy.

@@sb8095 so?

Whose gonna do that? lol and what if they say no thank you? people are under the misconception the UN has power over nations like USA Russa or China, and the fact is if those three countries wanted to kick out every other member they could and there would be nothing anyone could do about it.

Quite interesting that you said about my country but....i don't agree with Singapore in the Usnc

@@thesaintftw2613 it's my country (SGP) too, but I don't think there are other country more suitable without it's share of problems and yet more neutrally aligned.

@@PrograError how about Switzerland?

neutral but, the UNHQ is already in Geneva... so i thought maybe some other country should pick up the mantle

i think the UN needs non-aligned members to the permanent seats

Only one of the P5 members has its fingers in multiple wars at one time