Russia and the United States opposed any changes in the veto procedure

Russia and the United States came out on Monday against the infringement of the right of permanent members of the UN Security Council to impose a veto on decision-making, in this matter Moscow and Washington disagreed with Paris and London, reports TASS.

“For us, any ideas leading to the prejudice of the prerogatives of the current permanent members of the Security Council, including the veto, are unacceptable. It should be remembered: this institution is an important factor stimulating members of the Council to find balanced solutions. An attempt to veto would be wrong with historical and from a political point of view. Thus, the prerogatives of the current permanent members of the Security Council are not subject to audit, ”said Vladimir Safronov, Deputy Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the UN.

In turn, the US deputy envoy said that Washington "continues to oppose any change (right) to the veto," and the Chinese proposed "not to impose immature proposals" on the reform of the Security Council.

British permanent representative Matthew Rycroft, arguing his position, noted that his country "did not veto any resolution for more than 25 years". "We will take this step only in the most extreme situation."

He recalled that Britain "is among the group members for accountability, consistency and openness of the UN (Accountability, Coherence and Transparency Group, ACT)," promoting the idea of ​​limiting the veto "in cases where measures in response to crimes against humanity and other gross violations of human rights. ”

According to Rycroft, as a member of this group, Britain "has pledged never to vote against a decent draft resolution to prevent or end mass atrocities." “Unfortunately, we have seen others use their veto in narrow interests, which significantly undermined the Council’s reputation and responsibility for those who so desperately need our help,” he said.

At the same time, all 5 permanent members spoke in favor of expanding the UN Security Council, which now includes 15 countries. According to Vladimir Safronov, Moscow "considers it necessary to provide additional seats for the developing countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America." At the same time, “the optimal size of the Security Council should not exceed a little more than 20 members,” the diplomat said.

Comments

[Hunt]

Svidomo horses got another zrada, the hosts turned out to be traitors and performed together with Russia! The censor just vomits!

[Reserve officer]

Although in some ways Russia and the staff are unanimous.

[Alex777]

And China did not stand aside.
Let the restless ones rest.

[Awaz]

For the US, this veto makes it possible to create chaos and not be responsible for it. For Russia, this is an opportunity to defend themselves against the United States and its satellite, as well as all sorts of cunning asses, like Ukrainians. For the United States, the presence of a veto in the form that is most profitable.

[Manul]

Quote: AwaZ

For the US, this veto makes it possible to create chaos and not be responsible for it. For Russia, this is an opportunity to defend themselves against the United States and its satellite, as well as all sorts of cunning asses, like Ukrainians. For the United States, the presence of a veto in the form that is most profitable.

Catch the pros with both hands! Comments can no longer be read further (I always read, this is a figure of speech), because everything has already been said.

[DMoroz]

but they run into full even at the interstate level, forgetting that Russia is the successor of the USSR

Ukraine's Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN, Yuriy Vitrenko, said at a meeting of the Security Council that Russia had become a permanent member of the Security Council allegedly through an "unclear procedure."
Speaking about the election of Ukraine as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council for 2016 - 2017, he noted that representatives of 177 countries voted for this decision, another 14 abstained, which Russia, in his opinion, cannot boast of.

http://ren.tv/novosti/2016-11-08/v-kieve-reshili-
chto-rossiya-stala-chlenom-sovbeza-oon-cherez-ney
asnuyu-procedural

[Giant thought]

All attempts to change something in the UN Security Council have no chance of success, because the founders of the UN have come up with a cool design organization that changing the status quo is virtually impossible. The veto also somehow protects the world from a full-scale war.

[The black]

Quote: Thought Giant

The right of veto still somehow protects the world from a full-scale war

It no longer protects from anything. States have long spit on all resolutions if they go against their interests. Otherwise, for example, there would be no bombing of Belgrade.

All attempts to change something in the UN Security Council have no chance of success, because the founders of the UN have come up with a cool design organization that changing the status quo is virtually impossible.

I agree .... but here's the point. Both in the USA and in the Russian Federation understand that the changes will lead to the collapse of the UN, (although now it is a very weak organization)

[DMoroz]

the fact of the matter is that the founders of the UN came up with the status quo.
The USSR was also the original member and founder. The legal hassle is that Yeltsin in a letter dated 24.12.1991 is simply informed UN Secretary General that the membership of the USSR in the Security Council and all other UN bodies will be continued by the Russian Federation with the support of 11 countries - members of the Commonwealth of Independent States.

[Damir]

Well, still ... ours should not be retreated ... but the Americans are doing fine ... and so there will be no changes ...

[Spartanez300]

Among the permanent members of the UN Security Council, 3-2 is not in Russia's favor, taking into account the fact that China is our ally.

[KaPToC]

Who is Russia Ally? It is unlikely that we will push our army and navy into the Security Council.

[Lord_Bran]

Watching how we push
Gently, slowly, so that the Tolerasts do not tear anything ...

[tanit]

In the Security Council, the army and navy are not needed))) Only 5 countries have the right to veto. And to block only one vote is enough. The PRC, for example, is simply pretending to abstain if the veto from the Russian Federation has already been voiced. That's how it turned out about now. The remaining 10 are selected for a year. They can submit a resolution for consideration. But to vote for her, nope. "Eat something he - eat, but who will give him"

[jovanni]

Quote: KaPToC

Who is Russia Ally? It is unlikely that we will push our army and navy into the Security Council.

All that remains is the centuries-old experience of diplomacy (ours and Byzantine), and the same ancient dexterity can successfully repulse against a wide variety of enemies. Often even from whole gangs of enemies ...

[tanit]

Enough and one Russia. Here is one more thing, for which thanks to Comrade Stalin, one of the founders of the UN in general and the Security Council in particular ...
And you’ll spit on Mr. Gorbachev and Yeltsin too. MSG either didn’t have time to propose such a thing - the USSR collapsed, and the EBN - apparently they didn’t even guess what it was to offer - like, and so everything was on the ointment. Or maybe EBN in a binge and did not understand what they want from him (or maybe he was not in a binge).

[vanavatny]

speak, speak, to whom I speak, speak a talker. The only doubtful value of the United Nations is that there is no other, although only specially trained historians will be able to discern this benefit

[rotmistr60]

against infringement of the right of permanent members of the UN Security Council

No matter how the Americans boast, no matter how confident they are that the UN will adopt a resolution that will be beneficial to them, they will not give up their "veto" right. How else to stop the Russians if the majority is for them.

[Gormenghast]

As required.

When the United States behaves constructively, their opinion coincides with Russian and Chinese as well. And the fight against terrorism will be exactly the same - as soon as the United States recognizes its pocket positioners as terrorists.

But the petty-Europeans at the hands, apparently, were beaten off. So they need to be deprived of the veto right, and absolutely and forever.

[tanit]

Security Council - created from the victorious countries. Now, in principle, it would be necessary to include in the permanent members all the owners of nuclear weapons ... Yes, there is some kind of annoyance in Pakistan and India (these at least admitted that they now have nuclear weapons) - whereas, in fact, there are still countries did not have. And quiet people like South Africa and Israel - are not recognized (officially) until now.

[aszzz888]

It is clear that ALL major issues are decided by Russia and the Merikatos. And the rest of the "members" ... the UN for quantity. It should be so.

[potroshenko]

Quote: aszzz888

It is clear that ALL major issues are decided by Russia and the Merikatos. And the rest of the "members" ... the UN for quantity. It should be so.

Yeah, China is laughing at you.

[tanit]

Unfortunately no. At least 3 more to solve. China, France, Great Britain. If the PRC doesn’t like something, it will also block the Russian proposal. But the remaining 10 - temporary (for a year) extras, without veto.

[Vladimir Matveyev]

What's the problem? If they do not want a veto, let France and England refuse, others will.

[Amurets]

British permanent representative Matthew Rycroft, arguing his position, noted that his country "did not veto any resolution for more than 25 years". "We will take this step only in the most extreme situation."

The British wash themselves once a year, so that the whole world must abide by this tradition?