The security council of the United
Nations is probably the most prominent committee in the entire international
system. People occasionally debate whether or not the system should be
reformed. I strongly believe that the United Nations should not reform its
current system. There are three reasons that reforming the current system is a
bad idea. The first is the risk of losing the five states with veto power. The
second is the risk of inexperience of new members. The final reason is that the
possible introduction of states may lead to nothing getting done.
There is inherent risk of losing
countries from the Security Council that once held a veto seat that lose that
seat in reformation. These states are crucial to the effectiveness of the
council. Without prominent states (in large numbers) getting behind the
decisions of the Security Council, their decisions hold significantly less
weight. A country with less resources than a powerful state (let’s say Israel)
may see an ally (the United States) not recognize the legitimacy of a decision
made by the Security Council (maybe some policy towards Israel/Palestine) and
feel as though they do not need to take it seriously. This sets a precedent,
and the legitimacy of the committee crumbles. Granted, this example is not
realistic, as the United States will be a veto-power state regardless of
reformation, but this could easily happen to a different state. The United
States is just a simple example.
The next reason not to reform the
Security Council is the risk of introducing inexperienced members into a very
experienced veto committee. Without an understanding of the reasons why states
choose to veto, countries may not be perfectly capable of making these
decisions. As brought up in discussion, the five veto countries very rarely
exercise their option to veto. This allows for the United Nations Security
Council to run relatively smoothly. Vetoes are predictable. Introducing a new
veto group takes this predictability away. If rulings that get vetoed are
unpredictable, this may discourage actions from being taken. It also may lead
to rulings that need to be vetoed getting overlooked. Inexperience may have
serious ramifications for the Security Council.
Finally, a higher number of total
vetoes could happen for two reasons. The first would be if the reformation
involved adding more veto countries without taking any away. This is feasible,
as taking away the veto power of a state would be a very risky move (as
previously discussed), but new countries also are gaining power in the world
and may deserve to have a vote. The other reason total vetoes may increase is there
may be rival states serving with veto power. In this rivalry, they may
inherently decide to disagree with their rival state. In doing this, veto
numbers would drastically increase and virtually nothing would come out of the
Security Council. This consequence would, in effect, ruin the committee.
Overall, I think reforming the
United Nations Security Council would be a big mistake. In almost no situation
will the council be able to be as effective as it currently is post-reform. For
now, at least the short-term, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
Overall I think you are right about some of the potential problems of changing the permanent members of the security council but I think it could be done effectively. I think the only members that stand any chance of being removed would be France and the UK. As was mentioned in class these two play a minor role and almost always support the US. If they were replaced by Germany and another nation sympathetic to the US (say japan) the council would not loose much but would gain more legitimacy and some new perspectives.
ReplyDeleteWhile I dont think that the system is broken I do think it looses some legitimacy because its membership is a relic of WWII. The UK is the best example of this as a state which has lost much of its military, political and financial power relative to the rest of the world. What right does it have to wield more power over global affairs than a massive economic power like Japan or a massive country like India?
I agree with you about the UK and France not having a righteous claim to more power than Japan/India. The problem is the UN cannot really afford to lose any members. If Japan and India are not threatening to leave, it is not worth potentially upsetting UK and France at the moment. As time goes by, the situation will continue to worsen, but the time for reform is when things get worse.
DeleteI would have to disagree with you. I feel like the legitimacy of the United Nations is questioned simply because of the five permanent states with veto power. These five states awarded themselves veto power for winning World War II, which isn't a reasonable way to distribute this power. Because the permanent five do not want their power to decrease, any expansion of membership of the Council, which could better represent other countries, is opposed. This provides a sense of inequality amongst countries, which deteriorates the beliefs and purpose of the UN. Without reform of the council, Europe will continue to be given an excessive representation on the council.
ReplyDeleteI think that a reform of the Council would build a more democratic and powerful global organization.