this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2025
471 points (99.2% liked)
Map Enthusiasts
5100 readers
65 users here now
For the map enthused!
Rules:
-
post relevant content: interesting, informative, and/or pretty maps
-
be nice
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Well if the UN was controlled by one nation there hardly would have been several condemnations by a majority of countries in the General Assembly regarding Israel's actions in Palestine
I will let you talk but i will not listen to you. Yes this is still control
If you think of it like this, let's say everyone in the General assembly or Security Council was a veto player, would they all be in control? Polish parliament lol
Completely aside from the op's statement, in this case, condemnations don't mean shit unless there is action associated with it.
At worst it's the political unions version of "thoughts and prayers", at best it's genuine dissention that's being ignored until it's too fucking late to matter.
Im sure there are political considerations I don't see as a layperson but nations speaking up and control being in the hands of a single or small minority of nations aren't mutually exclusive states.
My stance on the issue is obvious but I'm not arguing that stance here, just that your reply is logically shaky.
Sure. Condemn, condemn, condemn, now let's vote on actually doing something. Entire world says yes, US says no, oh well I guess that's it we can't do anything. "Control" might not have been the right word for OP but the outcome is no different. Any country having veto power in the UN is just a broken system.
Yes, let's sanctions israel and impose both way arms embargo
I'm possibly misreading the tone of your reply, but my reply is agreeing with your "now do something" stance.
I don't know enough about how the UN is supposed to work to say if it's broken or not.
I apologise, I was actually intending to reply to the comment you were replying to.
no worries
The General Assembly can't take any action. That power is reserved for the Security Council which neither is controlled by a single nation as 14/15 countries vote against the US.
The only thing the condemning states can do is assist the state failing to support it's population, which in this case is Palestine. If that can't happen, states should take collective action to protect the populace. They are however hindered by Israel and the Security Council is the only one who can decide for military intervention ¯\(--)_/¯
So no, my reply is not logically shaky. It accurately points out that there isn't a single state controlling the UN.
It's time to ignore the security council completely and do what the genocidr convention say
Bet! Sadly you face the issue of breaking against agreed upon international rules by intervening without SC mandate. So break the rules to follow the rules, or follow the rules and let a genocide happen?
There's big issues with both paths, one for the long term and the other is letting millions of innocents starve to death..
You don't need a security council to know international rules , to know that there is a genocide in Palestine and that you need to respect them .
You would never use this excuse if the USA vote against any country helping Ukrainians in the security council . Shouldn't be different for any other conflict
No, but under the UN charter the SC is the only ones who can decide for action that could actually stop the genocide.
This is an explanation, not an excuse mate. So no, it is not different from any other conflict.
Russia is a member of the SC that has the veto , it blocked all the resolutions against it does that mean no countries should support Ukraine and that supporting Ukraine goes against the security council decision?
The genocide convention has a superior legal status compared to Security Council resolutions.
No?
Looking at my reply i can see how it sounded.
I wasn't actually saying you were incorrect , i was saying the way you presented it was shaky.
The reply you just gave makes sense.
"it can't be controlled by one nation because some nations are complaining" does not.
Ah alright. I have a tendency to leave bits unsaid because I assume that people can read between the lines, which I understand is difficult both over the internet and when you have no prior experience talking to someone and how they think.
I'll try to be precise. There's some theories in international relations that the hegemon controls international organisations, which is heavily debated and I personally find to be a weak theory. The first commenter is using this to frame the UN as toothless and under US control, which it plainly ain't. So stating that the UN is controlled by a single state is wrong. What is happening is that a veto player is effectively hindering everyone else from acting, but that is not control, it is obstruction.
That sounds reasonable and is significantly more than i previously knew about the subject.
If there are no effective mechanisms for reigning in that obstruction wouldn't that be a form of control, even if only over a single aspect/issue.
Like if someone is obstructing the only exit door and i have no viable means of rectifying that situation they effective control over my ability to exit and anything that would follow on from that.