Não resta mais nada para defesa de direitos humanos no mundo. Nada.
Rebentar com actos e discurso o que resta das organizações de cooperação internacionais do pós WWII é voltar à estaca zero e empurrar o mundo para outra guerra global.
É um retrocesso civilizacional.
É esse objetivo dos EUA em declínio: descredibilizar UN e TPI, semear a discórdia dividindo o mundo para reinar.
Ainda não percebi bem qual é a tua "missão" aqui [
]
Vou deixar-te um pequeno excerto (no total é uma hora) de um podcast disponivel no Spotify de um sujeito que sigo há muito, sobre o que é a UN hoje, mais o seu fantoche Nations Security Council, para perceberes porque não funciona e porque é tão inutil, nomeadamente quando 5 países têm que estar em unanimidade para se fazer algo de que falas, em cima, a bold...
"The main goal of the UN Security Council is simple, keep the world safe and peaceful.
Sure! [
]
(....)
The Security Council has the goal of supporting peace after each conflict.The council is supposed to help rebuild countries after war by supporting new governments, restoring order, and protecting civilians.Of course, all of these goals and tasks are incredibly difficult challenges.
Often they're impossible, and the Security Council can take many different actions to try and achieve these goals.It might pass a resolution that demands countries stop fighting.It could impose sanctions that make it harder for aggressive governments to get money or weapons.
(...) it's very, very rare that the USA, China and Russia agree on the same thing.
(...) There are so many criticisms surrounding the Security Council.It's a very flawed institution and I guess, in my opinion, slightly outdated and unfair.
One major criticism is the veto power.This rule means that if even one permanent member votes no on a major decision, the action cannot go ahead.Countries have used the veto to protect their own interests, even in situations where urgent action was needed.
This can make the Council slow and ineffective during crises, especially if the crisis involves one of the countries on the Security Council.If the UK, France, Russia, China, or the US are involved in a conflict, they're likely going to use their veto to make sure that they protect themselves.
For example, after the Security Council approved actions in Libya, Russia and China felt that they had been misled by the US.In 2011, the Libyan civil war erupted.Instead of vetoing any military intervention, Russia and China decided to not vote.
This meant that the rest of the members of the Security Council voted in favour of military intervention.However, Russia and China felt that the US response in Libya, which involved bombing raids and direct intervention, was far too aggressive.
It was not what they expected.In response, both Russia and China have repeatedly vetoed any military interventions that have come before the Security Council since, For example, multiple resolutions addressing the civil war in Syria have been blocked by vetoes from Russia and China. They were misled over Libya, and they do not want that to happen again.
And when Russia invaded Ukraine, the Security Council, of course, tried to respond, but Russia is a permanent member.Russia's veto prevented any major UN resolutions against its actions.
Another criticism is representation.
The five permanent members were chosen in 1945, after World War 2. At that time, they were among the most powerful countries.And still those five countries are powerful, especially the US and China.
But the world has changed.Powers like India, Brazil, Japan, South Korea, Germany.They play a much bigger role today in the global economy and international politics.But they do not have permanent seats on the Security Council.
Many people say the council no longer reflects modern global politics.The council is also sometimes accused of double standards.Critics say it acts strongly in some situations but ignores others, depending on the political interests of permanent members.
For example, often the permanent members have interests in the Middle East, which is why the Security Council has in the past been very strong in areas like Iraq.
But they often ignore parts of the world where they don't have interests in, for example in parts of Asia or Africa where the Security Council doesn't have as much interest.
For many years, world leaders and experts have been talking about how to reform the UN Security Council.Most people agree that the way it works now has problems.But there is no agreement on how to fix them and to be honest, no prospect of them ever being changed.
One common idea is to add more permanent members.We could add countries like India, Brazil, Germany, Japan, or perhaps representatives from Africa.This could make the council more representative of today's world.
Even more radical would be to remove permanent members entirely, which is unlikely because
the US, Russia, China, UK and France like their power.Another proposal is to l
imit the veto power, especially in situations involving genocide or serious human rights violations.
Supporters say this would stop permanent members from blocking urgent action.So I guess when it's just a military conflict or some disagreement, perhaps the veto power could still be used, but when it is a human rights violation, maybe we should limit that veto power.
Again, this is unlikely to be changed because the countries do not want their powers to be limited.Some suggest changing the way temporary seats are shared between regions so that more voices are heard in discussions.There's over 190 members of the UN, but I think only about 50 or 60 have ever been on the Security Council.
However, reform is extremely difficult. To change the rules, all 5 permanent members must agree, and they are often reluctant to give up any of their power.In fact, I can't see any situation where those countries will give up their power.
So for now, the Security Council will likely continue to work much as it does today."
][
]