Why is there power of VETO in United nations (a league of all nations) Security council with 5 Nations?
The permanent members of the Security Council do not have veto power in the General Assembly, only the Security Council, which has very limited powers to legislate. They cannot overrule the decision of the majority of member states. The reason behind the veto is that it would be relatively simple for a coalition of some sort to form a majority in the council and either launch illegal wars without any fear of UN reprisal and/or push through resolutions making their wars "legal." The veto was very helpful in the Cold War, as it prevented both the Communist members and the non-Communist members from using the UN to further the conflict.
Will the United Nations invade the US? Why?
Of course! First they organize their army - wait they don't have one.Scratch thatFirst they hire an army - wait, 22% of their money comes from the USA so the will not have any extra money to hire an army.Scratch thatFirst they .....Never mind.No, the UN is has no independent military capabilities. All UN "forces" are loaned by member states and are only loaned for specific purposes and not available for invasions
How was the united nations involved in rwandan genocide??
they were there as a peace keeping force but their commander romero dalliare was not allowed to do much of anything. he was ordered to not use force in any way. a number of his soldiers were killed and their countries pulled them out. eventually, the un decided that it needed to take action but the tanks and supplies sat for months waiting to be pained with the un symbol, if you can believe that, before they were deployed. they arrived way too late.
How important is the United Nations to you?
As a United States citizen who has been around a long time you aren’t going to like my answer if you like the UN.They are a limited use political tool for the United States. The United Nations can help keep us out of some foreign locations which don’t require a military role or are better off taken care of by a neutral body. Most of the world doesn’t want our direct military presence because it comes at a cost they aren’t willing to pay. Obedience or obliteration of the existing government. Not a good look. When human or territorial rights are violated or unstable actors threaten destabilization of a region then we end up going in. We always try influence and proxy fighters … rebels are just the other sides freedom fighters and vice versa…When it gets to the point of a long term military presence then the damn mission has to be sold back home to justify the price in blood and treasure. There is seldom a good way to do this. Our presence is probably necessary to maintain a balance but the real reasons will seem either insufficient or are incomprehensible to the general public. There is of course the darker but undeniable need to maintain a military with battle tested troops. It is the curse of all major players. An army cannot function without combat experienced veterans and generals. Weapons development requires real mission effectiveness testing. So naturally the next generation must always be in training. Fortunately we don’t usually need to work very hard to find a bad actor somewhere. It’s hopefully beneath us most of the time to create an enemy. Better to let the other superpowers take turns starting conflicts. War is a big business. That’s just the way it is as Walter Cronkite used to say.The truth is never pretty. The bright side is that virtually none of the great technical and medical advances which save billions of lives would have ever come about without war. So like a supernova seeds the universe creating shockwaves which collapse the gas nebulas creating star nurseries. War is a part of life. Sucks don’t it?
Why did the United States wait until 1941 to enter World War II?
We were pursuing a national policy of "isolationism" (even if Roosevelt did not approve of it) in the hopes that it would just putter out and we would not have to deal with it. We felt we had gone to Europe in 1917, pulled their burning cookies out of the oven for them, then were snubbed as Johnny-come-lately's and country hicks. There was a widespread feeling that our effort had not been appreciated, and we were not going to come rescue them again.
Why is United Nations still silent on the India-China border issues? Are they waiting for a war to break out?
Border disput comes under Security Council dept of UNO, whose prior function is to check border disput of any two nation should not become a like situation.Its not that UNO is not doing anything. It is closely watching how India and China, two responsible Countries of South Asia are handling this situation. Once things goes beyond control UNO will definitely start ressolving issues.Any disput is first to be settled by two Countires first. Until then no third party will interfere damging its own corelation with either of the countires.We should remeber that even India has a good reputation at UNO, still China holds VETO power. Before interfering between India and China UNO must think many times(sadly UNO is now diplomatic in many ways .I hope this isinformative.Thanks for A2A