"Lula said the United Nations had failed to assume its “responsibility” because permanent members of the Security Council “are the ones who foment wars.”

The UN security council is a joke and there shouldn't be permanent members. It's just neo imperialism.

[–] nogooduser@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I imagine that when it was formed there were two options - allow permanent members or form without the most important members.

[–] anytimesoon@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is it. How to do bring super powers to a group of nations and tell them they'll have the same voice as tiny countries. Why would they bother showing up?

The world has changed since then, though. I dont think it makes much sense anymore to have France and the UK as permanent members though. Even Russia has shown itself to be more of a minnow than we thought...

[–] Fazoo@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

Nukes. That's all it is.

[–] bluGill@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

The permanent members are, or at least were so powerful that if they didn't agree nothing could stop them .

[–] Kata1yst@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The point of the permanent members of security council was to bring superpowers to the table and keep them there. Otherwise they could play their games and the smaller countries would all suffer for it.

Of course there are still problems, but through the security council and MAD we now have proxy wars and culture wars rather than a World War every couple decades.

[–] WolfhoundRO@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

In the perspective of actually preventing a new World War by drawing lines between superpowers instead of appeasement, I believe that the UN actually fulfills its role the best they can. Unlike its predecessor, the League of Nations, which went so much into the "appeasement against war" from its founding members (Britain and France) that it functionally collapsed in thw wake of WW2