Carolina Parra
GVPT200
The United Nations; an organization committed to developing
friendly relations among nations, maintaining international peace and security,
and promoting social progress, better living standards and human rights, but
can the rightfulness of the UN be questioned? The Security Council, containing a really powerful body, is one of
the structures part of the UN that I find the most debatable.
There are a total of fifteen members that make up the Security
Council, but out of those fifteen, only ten rotate. What about the other five?
Those remaining five members are permanent and hold veto power, which, in my
opinion, provide them with an unfair advantage in decision-making. The five
permanent members of the Security Council are the United States, England,
France, China and Russia. With the dramatic increase in the Security Council’s
activity, the goals of the permanent members may not completely reflect those
that make up the rest of the council. The five permanent members actually gave
themselves the right of The Veto when the UN was set up in 1945 and have stuck
to it. Such a thing called The Hidden Veto exists which is being constantly
used by the five members as a way, almost a threat, to get their way. So how is
every member being equally represented?
The purpose of the United Nations is to promote, not only
peace, but also equality among nations. The power of the permanent members goes
against this purpose because their own distribution of power is unjust.
Although some may argue that these five nations have
acquired the right to this power because of winning World War II, there has to
be a realization that this was almost 70 years ago and the way things are and
should be handled, have changed. Many nations other than the five permanents
have had successes, so there should be an equality of power instead of putting
five other nations on a pedestal in the Security Council.
I believe that the United Nations Security Council should be
reformed because, in the long run, the influence of the UN can diminish due to contradicting
its own purpose. What nation, not part of the permanent five, would want to devote
time to the UN when their influence can be insignificant.
Good point. Of course the opposite could also be true. Without disproportionate power why would a state like the US, Russia, or China care about the UN? Why not just ignore it as they did the League of Nations?
ReplyDeleteI disagree. I think that the UN Security Council's system is not perfect by any means, but any adjustment will only lead to worse results. In a rather morbid perspective, I think that the Security Council should ride out its usefulness and then worry about reform when they risk losing a powerful state. Because as of now they do not risk losing a powerful state, and because any reform may cause this risk to increase exponentially, I believe now is not a good time for reform
ReplyDeleteI liked your argument. The United Nations sets out to instill peace and equality among nations, yet they don't even instill that upon their own ranks. I would also agree with you when that this could act as a discouragement for other countries to even feel like they will not be wasting their time voicing their views on certain issues.
ReplyDelete