Erdoğan calls for abolishing UN Security Council veto power
Turkish president argues permanent members' veto is incompatible with modern global crises and proposes stripping it as core reform.
What to know
- Erdoğan argues the Security Council's structure reflects the post-WWII era and is incompatible with solving modern global crises concentrated in a few capitals.
- He proposes forming a broad coalition to abolish veto power and restore balance between the Security Council and General Assembly.
- Online reaction is divided: supporters see it as reflecting multipolar reality; critics warn removing vetoes would undermine the body's core function of preventing conflict among nuclear powers.
The dispute Whether the veto is an outdated relic of multipolarity or a necessary mechanism to prevent nuclear conflict among great powers. · positions read across 3 posts and comments
Veto abolition reflects multipolar reality and would make the UN more effective and equitable.
-
“That's actually a brilliant suggestion. They've proven they use these powers irresponsibly.”
byteseu@pubeurope.com · Mastodon ↗
The veto exists to prevent nuclear war among great powers and removing it would increase conflict risk.
-
“The UN Security Council's primary reason for existing is to prevent WW3, specifically a nuclear war... that would increase tensions and make a destructive war between those nuclear powers more likely.”
commenter on Mastodon thread · Mastodon ↗
Erdoğan fundamentally misunderstands what the UN is and why the veto structure exists.
-
“I mean this just represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what the UN is, which is unsurprising from Erdogan (and half the comments here).”
commenter on Mastodon thread · Mastodon ↗
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan President of Turkey
How it unfolded 2 developments, newest first · click a bar or a number to jump articlespostscomments
-
2
Online reaction splits on Erdoğan's veto proposal
Comments on the proposal reveal disagreement: some support the idea as recognizing multipolar reality, while others argue removing the veto would undermine the Security Council's core function of preventing nuclear war among great powers.
“That's actually a brilliant suggestion. They've proven they use these powers irresponsibly.”
— byteseu@pubeurope.com, Mastodon commenter · source -
China probably would be happy to abstain to play the role of the rising power that's a good guy. The reality is they've built an incredible amount of soft power politically via economic initiatives, through Africa and Pacific nations primarily. If they really wanted something vetoed, I doubt they necessarily have to use a veto anymore. USA's "war…
2 more of the top 3 · 3 posts in this stretch
-
I think the concept of "major powers" needs a rethinking at this point as things have changed quite a bit in the last 10-15 years. I think the rightward push right now is a dying gasp for a system where individual countries could wield power without pushback from their partners. The world order they are set on undoing is largely one of economic…
-
Not in my language it isn't. I don't tell the Czechs to stop saying Velká Británie instead of Great Britain, or for Japan to knock グレートブリテン島 on the head and learn the English alphabet. I bet the people of Turkey don't say Great Britain either. But you know what, I wouldn't dream of asking them to change it if they didn't, because that isn't right…
-
-
1
Erdoğan proposes stripping UN Security Council veto power
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan called for abolishing the veto power of permanent UN Security Council members as a key objective of the body's reform, arguing the post-World War II structure no longer fits modern realities.
“The tragedies of recent years have demonstrated that entrusting the resolution of global crises to the will of a handful of capitals is no longer compatible with the realities of today's world.”
— Recep Tayyip Erdoğan -
1 outlet first by Türkiye Today, 2d ago · read ↗
-
What people are saying 0 voices from 0 sites · best of 3 · verbatim
- What is Erdoğan's personal motivation for proposing this now?
- Would removing the veto actually make the UN more relevant or would it cause major powers to withdraw?