All members of the Security Council have it, lets say for example, that Zimbabwe have it, so there is a decision to send peace keeping troops there, because of the huge number of starving, ill, homeless and desperate folk, it is a one party state, with a leader who will spend millions on a birthday party, whilst his people starve.
Peace Keepers are usually on a double mission, providing security for the ordinary and dispossessed, and supporting the safety of the NGO's, like MSF, UNESCO,Oxfam and the Red Cross, they are never there to interfere with the rule of the country, however desperate. They will however protect civilians from the barbarity of soldiers and police, political gangs and groups, but this depends on the rules of engagement, which control when and why lethal force can be used, a breach of which will result in charges being bought, and imprisonment being handed out if proven.
All of the above are the norm in Zimbabwe, once the bread basket of Africa, it is now covered with desolate farms and starving people, all because of the blatantly racist and political favours for friends, policy of Mugabee. IF a man like him had the veto, he would of course use it, so no the Veto should stay as it is, although I personally would like to see it removed and a simple majority vote of the Committee introduced instead. I do not make policy, our role is to advise, and recommend, it is for those above us to decide on any action, be it National or International.
|