No country should have a veto on the United Nations Security Council.

My main contentions are: P1: The veto gives too much power to individual countries. P2: The veto causes gridlock in the UN. P3: Abolishing the veto will benefit underrepresented countries. Define: United Nations = As defined straight from website: An international organization composed of most of the countries of the world. It was founded by US, Russia, China, France, & UK to promote peace, security, & economic development, uphold sovereign equality & world peace. The 5 founding powers are permanent members of the Security Council & are the only countries that have power to veto. Framework: We will set the debate to mainly about benefiting the world as a whole, & not just the individual countries that have the most influence in the world. Thus, the debate is limited to discussion about whether taking out the veto will help the majority instead of 1 or another small group. P1: The veto gives too much power to individual countries. The veto violates the consensus system that the UN runs on, since the consensus system is basically taking in a variety of opinions & ideas & a veto gives five countries more power than the other nonpermanent members. Thus equality is gone because by giving only 5 individual countries a veto, we are essentially valuing their opinions & ideas over other countries". The UN was made to uphold sovereign equality & world peace, so the veto basically defeats the purpose of the UN itself. US News: The other countries in the UN besides Russia, US, France, UK, China have no veto power, causing them to have less influence. It simply isn"t fair to the rest of the countries in the UN that these five get to be a dictatorship while others can only make suggestions, & are mostly powerless. The current countries on the Security Council with vetoes should not be valued over others. Inequality like this violates the very foundation of UN ideals. UN: The UN is working to encourage a variety of views from different countries, but this cannot happen because of the veto. However, right now, the UN is actually cutting other countries out by vetoing all their proposals. UN: In the Syria affair, all countries except for 2 voted to strip the Assad regime of their chemical weapons, however, only China & Russia vetoed the plan & as a result, the plan wasn"t enacted. Furthermore, the UN was created to promote world peace. This means that all, or most countries, should be able to do their part. However, in the Security Council, there are 5 dominant powers that basically decide for the whole world. P2: The veto causes gridlock in the UN. In most cases a veto is used while deciding which course of action to take. UN: In the last 46 cases that took place, at least one country vetoed 43 times. So, most of the time they do not agree on things as a direct result of the veto power being abused, much like what is happening in Congress, & this does not benefit anyone. With this evidence it can be concluded that the veto is being used to cause harm & is not the most efficient way. Therefore, it should be abolished. When the UN is at a standstill, we call it gridlock. An easy ex. of when gridlock has been caused is the recent events in Syria. UN: All proposed sanctions & embargoes on the Assad regime was vetoed by Security Council countries China & Russia, bringing the UN to a standstill. The UN was created to benefit the general people. So, if it causes gridlock & stalemates in such an important council, then it follows that we should abolish this. Global Policy: The UN would be able to run much smoother if countries had their veto power taken out of the equation. This only further proves that the UN would be much better off without a veto, & we can conclude that abolishing it would be our best option. P3: Abolishing the veto will benefit underrepresented countries. Many smaller countries have had crucial issues to resolve, many relating to the loss of human life, & what was the UN"s response? Nothing. However, there would"ve been a response if the Permanent 5 didn"t waste so much time bickering & using their veto power to dismiss their opponents" plans & ideas just for their own interests. Global Policy: The Rwandan Genocide took place between April & July, 1994. Almost a million people were massacred because of their ethnicity. However, the rest of the world just watched. The UN even pulled most of their troops out of Rwanda because of the hidden vetoes of France & the USA. Obviously, if the veto didn"t exist, many lives would"ve been saved. Now let"s look at the effects of abolishing the veto on countries that have less influence in the UN. NY Times: Countries not in the Security Council often have their views looked down upon by permanent members of the Security Council. As a result, their proposed resolutions are more likely than not vetoed. It follows that abolishing the veto would allow these countries to voice their proposals. These countries would be able to help even world powers like the US by bringing in new ideas to the UN. However, this cannot be achieved with the veto still being utilized. UN Veto Records: In the past 60 years, there have been over 200 vetoes in the UN. Most of those resolutions already had majority rule & could"ve been passed if the veto didn"t exist. Many resolutions would"ve benefited other countries outside of the Security Council, but as they didn"t directly benefit some of the countries in the Security Council they were all vetoed. This concludes my opening argument. I look forward to my opponent's.