• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    449 months ago

    Nothing wrong with that. It’s a good way to keep accountability and see where every country stands.

    • roastedDeflator
      link
      fedilink
      59 months ago

      I agree with you when you say that of accountability is important but this move doesn’t stop the Genocide.

        • roastedDeflator
          link
          fedilink
          8
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Of course , this is what the UN is there for. I believe we have to be vocal -literally and metaphorically- to stop this Genocide. For those who have access/work in bureaucracy they should do these actions. For the rest of us that do not, we should be on the streets etc

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        10
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        It won’t stop it, but we’ll at least see who’s on which side. Having a public record is good.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        89 months ago

        No, it won’t stop the genocide. Most likely nothing will. But all of these will be evidence in the future to label these countries as supporters of genocide. A stain that will never wash off.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      39 months ago

      If they didn’t veto it what would happen? Is there an article like NATO that would stipulate that the UN counties would go to war… I didn’t think there was. So I am unsure if would have any change.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        29 months ago

        Resolutions made by the UN security council (which this would have been) can be enforced through the UN peacekeeping mission (aka the blue helmets) by stationing UN troops along the contact line to prevent hostilities from resuming. This has had mixed success in the past, there is actually a peacekeeping mission stationed right now on the Israel/Lebanon border which hasn’t prevented either side from shooting at each other after the October 7 attack.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          09 months ago

          That’s good to know. So does that just require a majority vote? (Which if this wasn’t vetoed would have been a landslide). Or does it require some other percentage?

          • outrageousmatter
            link
            fedilink
            English
            19 months ago

            UN general assembly majority vote, but security council, the permanent members all need to agree as even one nay is a veto.

      • @snake_case_guy
        link
        English
        19 months ago

        The UN is not a military defense organisation la NATO. It has military efforts, but they are all Pacific in the sense that they don’t take part and only help the civilian population (e.g.: running medical and food supplies, or protecting hospitals, etc.)

        The UN could go for economic and political sanctions, or try to move this in the Hague Courts in case the request goes unheard.