What should be done about China in regards to Burma & Darfur

Also, I see no reason why China should have the veto power. In fact, I wish Japan had it instead. After WWII, they gave many of the big allied countries veto powers, which looking back was very arbitrary. China contribution to the war was being invaded and fighting back. It was the US and Canada that went out of the way to help win the war.

Hell India fought in the war for the allies as well. Why shouldn't India have gotten veto power? They became a liberal democracy (the largest one in the world) with many female leaders the moment the British left? And they fought for the allies as well. Even now, though the government is not truly able to wipe out problems like child labor that arise from abject poverty, it's certainly not from lack of trying. They have among the toughest child labor laws of anyone. Why not Japan? Modern day Japan stands as a fantastic peaceful democracy.

In a decade, the major superpowers in the world will be the US, Japan, China, and India, and possibly the UK.

If any of these countries dont have veto power, why should any of them (other than arguably just the US by itself as the worlds most adamant self proclaimed police force)?

I fail to see any remaining purpose that veto power serves that is actually a good thing.

What about you? Would the world be better if no one had veto power? If just the US? If just democratic superpowers?

And is there any thing in the UN charter that would allow for a recall, a revote or a redistribution of the veto power structure.

Veto power was created to keep the world out of war (major ones at least). From that perspective, China has every right to have power of veto, these days certainly more-so than France and England.

You are quite right that sanctions by China would impose greater pressure, but that doesn't mean it would force a change of government, or even a change of policy, just look at Iraq under US sanctions between the two wars.

Both Burma and Darfur's government get a steady revenue from the oil they sell to China.

That same revenue which goes towards buying the weapons needed to commit mass genocides.

One could argue that the reason Iraq turned up nothing, no WMDs, no machine gun stockpiles, hell, no mass killings on the pre-gulf war scare after teh sanctions were imposed, was because the sanctions dried up much of the money that Saddam needed to finance these projects.

It could certainly be argue that way...yet it could also be argued this way : Dictators, even poor ones, have only one interest, and that is keeping themselves in power. So the limited money they get goes to the military. If it's a weak military, then it needs to be all the more brutal.

Saddam is once more a prime example (this time, of funding the military during sanctions) - The UN says that the 10 years or so of US sanctions lead to the death of 500,000 children (and about 1,000,000 Iraqi's if I remember right) which means that the sanction bit deep, yet during that time he still managed to keep an army of 400,000 soldiers.