Letter: Use of the veto in the UN Security Council
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: It is extraordinary that my friend Conor Cruise O'Brien ('Saving faces, and maybe the world', 30 April) should have made such an obvious mistake in comparing the Hungarian uprising to the Korean war and the veto that can be used by one of the permanent members of the UN Security Council.
He correctly states that in 1956 the US took the invasion of Hungary to the Security Council, where the Soviet Union applied the veto that stopped it from taking any action. He goes on to state that this was merely an excuse, and compares it to the Korean war. In this case, however, the UN intervened perfectly legitimately because for a year the Soviet Union decided to boycott meetings of the Security Council and, therefore, no veto took place.
Yours faithfully,
HUMPHRY BERKELEY
London, W4
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments