11/11/15
International Relations
Where is the Reform?
In the United Nations, the Security Council is where all of the action takes place. The Security Council is comprised of 15 nations..ten nations that rotate, and five permanent nations. Interestingly, these five nations have not changed since post World War II. The authority, to cast vetoes for example, all comes from these five nations. These five nations completely outweigh the ten rotating nations in terms of the amount of power that they have. This is what I have noticed from l ectures, class discussions, and also this political cartoon. The powers in this position are the United States, Britain, France, Russia, and lastly, China. Many people believe that this makeup of nations is extremely out of date. For example, nations like Germany, Brazil, and Japan have all gained economic strength. Why hasn’t the United Nations changed things around?
One of the most interesting lectures/discussions that we have had in class, in my opinion, was the one on the power of the United Nation’s Security Council. We discussed whether or not the Security Council is legitimate or not. It was interesting to hear everyone’s opinion of whether or not they believed the Security Council needed to be modified. I believe that these five permanent nations just have symbolic power. Other nations have to and have had to, “look up” to these powers for almost 60 years. With that being said, the current five nations do actually have legitimate power. That power can be seen in the political cartoon that I posted above. Despite a majority rule from other members in the Security Council, the five permanent nations are able to veto any vote. Therefore, no one in our class was right or wrong. The Security Council does have both legitimate and symbolic power.
The political cartoon that I have chosen perfectly describes how non-permanent members feel about the five permanent powers. They believe that (and they do) have too much power. Due to this, the non permanent members can not always have their ideas and plans passed. This is why non permanent members are constantly trying to become closer with permanent members or ask for reform. I personally believe that some sort of reform is needed at the U.N. It may be hard to introduce more permanent members to the current system or even replace the current members. Our world has changed...it’s time for the United Nations to do the same.
Alex,
ReplyDeleteNice cartoon. How do you think this can be done? How do you change something with so much embedded power? What might have to be 'given' to these powers?
Hi Professor!
DeleteWithout a structural change in the U.N. this would be very hard to change. There is so much embedded power, and because of this, I don’t see a change happening in the near future.
Hello,
ReplyDeleteI thought this was an interesting blog post. I would have loved for your third paragraph to be expanded upon. How would you go about creating change? What sort of reform do you have in mind? What would those reforms do to change the world?
Hi Alex, I think your post presents a very interesting idea, however, I am interested to hear what you think would be a good course of change? Would you add more vetoes or change the system all together? Just curious to hear your opinion.
ReplyDeleteHi Alex,
ReplyDeleteInteresting post! I think that the system is actually the most just in terms of balance of power. Currently, the most powerful countries in the world have the veto power, which they use to protect their interests. If the veto was taken away, then the powerful countries could choose to abstain from the UN. If every country had the veto, then nothing would get done. The UN walks the fine line between complete inefficiency and an all encompassing global government. Both of those extremes are much worse than what we have now.
Hi Alex,
ReplyDeleteInteresting post! I think that the system is actually the most just in terms of balance of power. Currently, the most powerful countries in the world have the veto power, which they use to protect their interests. If the veto was taken away, then the powerful countries could choose to abstain from the UN. If every country had the veto, then nothing would get done. The UN walks the fine line between complete inefficiency and an all encompassing global government. Both of those extremes are much worse than what we have now.
Hi Alex,
ReplyDeleteI wrote a similar blog about the United Nations. I agree that the Security Council needs to be changed. It is set up in a post war formation that is not as relevant today. The veto power should maybe be changed to a majority veto. One country being able to disagree with something and being able to veto and immediately shut it down seems to be a bit extreme. In another comment, I said that the Security Council should have a more global focus. It cannot only be concerned with the five permanent members agenda.
Hi Caroline,
DeleteI completely agree with you. The fact that the Security Council is only focussed on it’s own (five) agendas, is completely unacceptable. It needs to be changed, based on the fact how out of date it is. How it should be changed though? That is difficult...I like your idea of the possibility of a majority veto. What about the idea of adding more permanent members (while keeping the majority veto system you mentioned), based on current social economic powers? Definitely something to think about!
Hi Alex!
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed your analysis of the issue through the lens of the political cartoon. How would you solve the issue? Is there anyway to get around the symbolic power that the countries hold or is there some legitimacy to their current status?
Hi Alex!
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed your analysis of the issue through the lens of the political cartoon. How would you solve the issue? Is there anyway to get around the symbolic power that the countries hold or is there some legitimacy to their current status?