A show of supremacy: USA moves embassy to Jerusalem

[theprestige]

The Security Council, whose role affects the whole UN more broadly,

More like, the UNSC is the part of the UN that actually has any meaningful effect at all.

is designed on supremacy of the winning powers of WWII. It seemed like a good design back then.

It was a good design then, and it's still a good design today.

Nowadays USA feels frustrated that it is not the sole supreme country, alas, a handful of lesser powers have the same veto rights.

Somehow I doubt that's what's going on here.

 

[BobTheCoward]

More like, the UNSC is the part of the UN that actually has any meaningful effect at all.

It was a good design then, and it's still a good design today.


Somehow I doubt that's what's going on here.

Why is it a good design now?

 

[NoahFence]

When was the last time the UN voted to condemn something the US did?

 

[theprestige]

When was the last time the UN voted to condemn something the US did?

When was the last time the UN voted to do anything meaningful, about any serious issue that hadn't already been decided by the UNSC?

 

[Checkmite]

The UNSC is literally part of the UN.

 

[theprestige]

The UNSC is literally part of the UN.

I guess? Its proceedings are pretty distinct from the General Assembly, which is what I was referring to. UNSC votes are independent of UN GA votes. And unlike GA votes, SC votes actually matter.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I guess? Its proceedings are pretty distinct from the General Assembly, which is what I was referring to. UNSC votes are independent of UN GA votes. And unlike GA votes, SC votes actually matter.

Why would you say their votes matter? They can't compel anything.

 

[NoahFence]

When was the last time the UN voted to do anything meaningful, about any serious issue that hadn't already been decided by the UNSC?

Shockingly, that doesn't appear to answer the question I asked.

 

[theprestige]

Why would you say their votes matter? They can't compel anything.

What benefit to me, from answering this question?

But I was being relaxed in my terminology. Of course GA votes matter a lot to someone--otherwise there wouldn't be so many of them. It would be more accurate to say that SC votes matter a lot more than GA votes.

 

[theprestige]

Shockingly, that doesn't appear to answer the question I asked.

It does kind of put it in perspective, though.

Let me know when you're ready to argue why the data point you're asking about really matters. Bonus points if you actually find that data point first.

 

[NoahFence]

nvm

 

[Oystein]

Interestingly (and I haven't seen this mentioned in the two or three media outlets I skimmed), this GA resolution was not voted on in a regular GA session, but an emergency special session was convened - only for the 11th time in UN history. 7 of the other 10 occasions were about the ME, too (and I presume all involved Israel, though I didn't check in detail).

They have a news report up on this vote:
128 for
9 against
35 abstentions

Actually, 128 for is a pretty low number, and 35 a pretty high number for GE votes on Israel - for example, just yesterday, a vote was taken in the current regular session on a Resolution about "Permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources", and the result was 163-6-11
I haven't found a break-down detailing which countries abstained. I heard on German TV news that Germany and most other EU countries voted "for".

 

[Giz]

I heard on German TV news that Germany and most other EU countries voted "for".

I'd seen a report that Germany had typically abstained on Israel related votes, but this time they'd decided that the fate of Jerusalem must be determined by the final solution.

 

[ddt]

Actually, 128 for is a pretty low number, and 35 a pretty high number for GE votes on Israel - for example, just yesterday, a vote was taken in the current regular session on a Resolution about "Permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources", and the result was 163-6-11
I haven't found a break-down detailing which countries abstained. I heard on German TV news that Germany and most other EU countries voted "for".

According to Nikki Haley's tweet, it were 65 countries who abstained. Quickly scanning I only see Croatia, Czech Republic and Romania as EU members on that list.

I'd seen a report that Germany had typically abstained on Israel related votes, but this time they'd decided that the fate of Jerusalem must be determined by the final solution.

That's an unfortunate slip of the pen.

 

[Childlike Empress]

I haven't found a break-down detailing which countries abstained. I heard on German TV news that Germany and most other EU countries voted "for".

 

[Childlike Empress]

According to Nikki Haley's tweet, it were 65 countries who abstained. Quickly scanning I only see Croatia, Czech Republic and Romania as EU members on that list.

These are the 9 who voted against the resolution (<5% of world population, without the US and Israel safely <1%), plus 35 who actively abstained, plus 21 who didn't show up. Hungary, Latvia, Poland and Bosnia-Herzegovina among the abstaining Europeans in addition to the ones you mentioned. Ukraine and Georgia not showing up.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Why would you say their votes matter? They can't compel anything.

One Mister Saddam Hussein would like to have a quiet word with you, regarding 1990-1991 and your incredibly false statement. So too would a few people in Korea. If you actually read the articles around which the collective security provisions are written, you will find that the UN can in fact compel, and it takes the UNSCR to do it. It's not often done.

 

[Checkmite]

I guess? Its proceedings are pretty distinct from the General Assembly, which is what I was referring to. UNSC votes are independent of UN GA votes. And unlike GA votes, SC votes actually matter.

The UNSC can't actually compel anything any more than GA votes can.

However between the two, GA resolutions are a more accurate description of the opinion of the UN's membership as a whole because GA resolutions cannot be vetoed by anyone.

 

[BobTheCoward]

One Mister Saddam Hussein would like to have a quiet word with you, regarding 1990-1991 and your incredibly false statement. So too would a few people in Korea. If you actually read the articles around which the collective security provisions are written, you will find that the UN can in fact compel, and it takes the UNSCR to do it. It's not often done.

Those did not actually force nations to take an action. They have no power to enforce their own rulings.

 

[ddt]

These are the 9 who voted against the resolution (<5% of world population, without the US and Israel safely <1%), plus 35 who actively abstained, plus 21 who didn't show up. Hungary, Latvia, Poland and Bosnia-Herzegovina among the abstaining Europeans in addition to the ones you mentioned. Ukraine and Georgia not showing up.

Thank you for the correction, I feel stupid for overlooking half of the EU members on that list. I figured it must have been including the no-shows why Haley got such a high number.