caused failure in the UN to act to stop genocide in Rwanda, and Russia’s veto and alliance with Syria has caused a blocks to serious action towards human rights abuses. 28 Vetoes interfere with good policies and can become dangerous. Sheeran, Scott. “The UN security council veto is literally killing people” Washington Post. 8/11/14. - security-council-veto-is-literally-killing-people/?utm_term=.6a20e8850e1b Recent weeks have seen numerous Palestinian civilians killed in Gaza as a result of disproportionate military action. Israeli civilians also face rockets raining down on them, launched by Hamas – but they are fortunately prcotected by the Iron Dome defense system.The prospect of the U.N. or international law constraining these unacceptable attacks on innocent civilians seem dim, not least because of the U.S. veto constraining the Council’s options. We should also not forget that an estimated 150,000 people have now diedin the protracted and brutal Syrian conflict, for which the international community has largely been a bystander. The Council (or more accurately the U.S. and Russia) agreed a program to destroy Syria’s chemical weapons and, helped by Australia, Jordan and Luxembourg, has also achieved humanitarian aid delivery within certain boundaries agreeable to Assad’s regime. From the low expectations of diplomats born of experience, this is naturally seen as positive.In the context of the UN’s objectives and the Security Council’s stated role it is unequivocally a failure. It is tragic this scale of civilian death could be allowed to happen today, after the mea culpa and “never again” of the genocide in Rwanda. But the Russian veto and alliance with Syria has been the block to serious action. The growing regularity of these high-profile situations in which the U.N. and international law plays little or no role due to the veto is cause for concern.The international community, its decision makers and the public risk becoming normalized to such immense injustice and human suffering.
AT: Developing Nations1.(IF THEY READ NAUAUKLAR) The Nauauklar evidence just says that India is willing to advocate on behalf of poor countries. It doesn’t say that the advocacy produces anything positive. 2.Delink it because if India gets on the council, they will no longer support the interests of the poor. Oliver29in 2010 writes that India profess to defend the disenfranchised. Their effort to become permanent members, however, is likely to turn them into status quo powers, and no longer continue to support the voice of the poor.29 If India gets on the Council they will join the oligarchy and no longer support the interests of the poorOliver Steunkel, 2010, Leading the disenfranchised or joining the establishment? India, Brazil, and the UN Security Council, Oliver Stuenkel is an Assistant Professor of International Relations at the Getulio Vargas Foundation in São Paulo. He holds a Master in Public Policy from the Kennedy School of