UN Security Council and a probable reform
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2020 4:57 pm
First I watched this video and decided to ask several questions. I remember discussing that before so maybe there is an older thread so sorry if this was already discussed.
First, the 7 purposes of UN start with the sovereign equality of all members. This really means that all the organisation of UN is dependant on this rule. However P5 countries have a veto power. At first this looks very unfair but it has a meaningful login actually. Once I took part in an MUN program and they explained this advantage as: P5 countries are the strongest countries (of their time, and most of them still) so if UN takes an action against the interests of these countries, it would have to act against UN and this would cause a bigger destruction than another country with less power. That sounds logical but veto power also caused UN to fail many actions and sometimes the results were inhumane.
The video I shared was saying that African countries have reached an agreement that Africa must be better represented in Security Council, requesting a permanent seat. Also other countries like Brazil had this request, which, I think, is rightful.
But are permanent membership really necessary? The arguement above was quite reasonable because it's obvious that leading the world to a war between the global powers would be destructive for all. However this permanent membership causes UN to stay silent towards the ongoing disputes (like Hong Kong). There may be an amendment that will protect both the peace and the justice.
A proposition says that veto power can be divided. So if one country vetoes, it still passes but more than one country - for example 3 (20% of current council) - vetoes, then it cannot pass.
Another solution is to enlarge the number of permanent seats. In my humble opinion, this is going to make UN even weaker, though.
Permanent members like US and Russia are still the world powers and China has caught up, while UK and France are still important factors in the world. However the passing time brought new powers like India and UN must be rearranged to catch up. Recently we heard about a border disagreement between India and Pakistan, both countries hold nuclear weapons and if UN fails establishing peace again, the world will suffer the results.
Yet, UN is a great place where countries can negotiate and it probably prevented some conflicts (While failing many others). League of Nations failed preventing a new world war and we hope United Nations will not ends up similarly.
First, the 7 purposes of UN start with the sovereign equality of all members. This really means that all the organisation of UN is dependant on this rule. However P5 countries have a veto power. At first this looks very unfair but it has a meaningful login actually. Once I took part in an MUN program and they explained this advantage as: P5 countries are the strongest countries (of their time, and most of them still) so if UN takes an action against the interests of these countries, it would have to act against UN and this would cause a bigger destruction than another country with less power. That sounds logical but veto power also caused UN to fail many actions and sometimes the results were inhumane.
The video I shared was saying that African countries have reached an agreement that Africa must be better represented in Security Council, requesting a permanent seat. Also other countries like Brazil had this request, which, I think, is rightful.
But are permanent membership really necessary? The arguement above was quite reasonable because it's obvious that leading the world to a war between the global powers would be destructive for all. However this permanent membership causes UN to stay silent towards the ongoing disputes (like Hong Kong). There may be an amendment that will protect both the peace and the justice.
A proposition says that veto power can be divided. So if one country vetoes, it still passes but more than one country - for example 3 (20% of current council) - vetoes, then it cannot pass.
Another solution is to enlarge the number of permanent seats. In my humble opinion, this is going to make UN even weaker, though.
Permanent members like US and Russia are still the world powers and China has caught up, while UK and France are still important factors in the world. However the passing time brought new powers like India and UN must be rearranged to catch up. Recently we heard about a border disagreement between India and Pakistan, both countries hold nuclear weapons and if UN fails establishing peace again, the world will suffer the results.
Yet, UN is a great place where countries can negotiate and it probably prevented some conflicts (While failing many others). League of Nations failed preventing a new world war and we hope United Nations will not ends up similarly.