Amnesty International has a good start to the debate about the Security Council Veto.

What is the history of the Security Council veto? That's my first thought. I think knowing the history and original purpose of what most consider a legal instrument is important.

February 25, 2015

Amnesty International (click here) has urged the five permanent members of the UN Security Council to give up their power of veto in cases where atrocities are being committed.

In its annual report, the rights group said the global response to an array of catastrophes in 2014 had been shameful.
Richer countries were guilty of taking an "abhorrent" stance by not sheltering more refugees, Amnesty said.
The outlook for 2015 was bleak, the group added.
Saying that 2014 had been a catastrophic year for victims of conflict and violence, Amnesty said world leaders needed to act immediately to confront the changing nature of armed conflict....

Here we go. I would think, although I haven't read this yet, the veto was manifest to the participation of the UN and it's security council. I think the year 1945 is a bit of a giveaway to why the veto was established with these countries.

On October 24, 1945, (click here) the victors of World War II — China, the U.S.S.R., France, the United Kingdom, and the United States — ratified the UN Charter, creating the Security Council and establishing themselves as its five permanent members with the unique ability to veto resolutions. Originally there were six temporary members, rotating every two years and distributed on an equitable geographic basis. That rule was more explicitly defined in 1965, when the number of temporary members was increased to ten (five from Africa and Asia, one from Eastern Europe, two from Latin America and the Caribbean, and two from Western Europe). The first temporary members were Australia, Brazil, Egypt, Mexico, the Netherlands, and Poland....

Where are we today in relation to WWII? 

I'll be darn we are 70 years out this year. October 24th this year is the 70th year of the establishment of the UN Security Council. That is a marker to review it's purpose and duties. 

In 1945 it is my estimation the world was still raw from the war. It was a horrible war. It started horribly and ended just as horribly. In 1945 the world was still grateful for the power the USA exhibited in it's Pacific theater. So, nuclear power was a miracle to those of 1945. I would think the leaders of these great nations of people were impressed by "The Bomb."  

I am sure the organizers of the UN and the UN Security Council were concerned about their autonomy to defend their countries. These are powerful countries that manage their strategic interest with great cost to their people, they weren't about to be undone by the ruling of a Security Council. So, that status has lasted now 70 years. Who is Amnesty International to challenge that organization or power? Amnesty International isn't even a country and they receive monies from people so they can maintain records and raise concerns, but, they have no sovereign base.

I believe a conversation about this level of power is a challenge. I agree it will take a consensus of people to bring about change, but, it won't happen because Amnesty International wants it. It will happen because the great nations of the UN Security Council sees the benefit of the OPTION to suspend any veto in any vote.

The first challenge is for Amnesty International and it's global wide supports to approach the Ambassadors of the five permanent members to begin a discussion about the brevity of their power. This is a great year to begin the asking.

The UN Ambassador Samantha Powers is knee deep in the understanding of genocide and believes it should be ended before it begins. I suggest Amnesty International begin their conversation with her and with President Obama. I think Amnesty International will find an ally that can bring a judicial document to the UN Security Council to propose a more functional model of that council.