UNSC veto power should be abolished

Rebuttal My opponent astutely points out that WW3 hasn’t happened, yet… While I can only agree that preventing the annihilation of the human race in a nuclear war is clearly a benefit he UNSC veto is not directly responsible for this turn of events. Other factors such as major powers having 2nd strike capabilities which acts as effective deterrents against encroachment on their interests. The fact is nobody wants to press the button; indeed we have built emergency communication lines to prevent it. On to my substantive: Point 1: The P5 do not deserve this power Funding contributions to the United Nations should directly relate to the influence that member organizations thereafter have on its actions; with the veto in place, this is no longer the case. The Permanent Five, as the group of nations granted the most constitutional power in the United Nations, should contribute a proportional amount of resources to the institution. Initially, this was the case – however, by 2004, Japan was contributing 19 per cent of the UN budget, second only to that of the United States . In third place, contributing 8 per cent, was Germany, another state lacking a veto power and any ability to overrule the interests of P5 nations, all bar one of whom contributed less to the UN budget. Furthermore, India and Brazil, whilst not contributing financially to the degree of Japan and Germany, have permitted large swathes of their armed forces to join U.N. peacekeeping operations to fulfil the mandates handed down by the Security Council. Despite these financial and military contributions, the states concerned get no greater say in the interests and actions of the organization. A fairer, more equitable model would insist on a greater proportionality between one’s contribution to the United Nations and one’s ability to influence its actions. Point 2: The veto power prevents the SC intervening where the UN should! Members of the SC are allowed to run rampant – declaring illegal wars on smaller countries and can protect themselves from the international community with a Veto (that they don’t deserve). There are many examples of this since the founding of the UN from the French repression of Algerian independence (1954-1962), the repression of the Hungarian independence movement by the USSR (1956),French-American involvement in Vietnam (1946-75), the Soviet war in Afghanistan (1979-88), Anglo-American invasion of Iraq (2003) and the Russian invasion of Georgia (2008). In all of these circumstances the veto was used to prevent the UN intervening rightfully. But I want to focus on just one horrendous abuse of the veto power and that is the Suez crisis of 1956. France and Britain conspired with Israel to cause a conflict in the Sandi desert between Israel and Egypt – then conveniently placed British and French assets in the Mediterranean would intervene to create a buffer. While capturing the Suez Canal for themselves. The French and British decided to take this audacious gamble because they believed that as they held a UN veto they would be able to avoid diplomatic sanctions. So the veto makes war more likely. If we consider a modern example like Georgia 2008 – perhaps Russia would of invaded less readily if they had to risk a UN taskforce opposing them or even sanctions that would cripple the Russian economy.