Caroline
Snyder
International
Relations
Professor
Shirk
11
November 2015
The United Nations
In the article “Legitimacy, Power, and
the Symbolic Life of the UN Security Council”, Hurd talks about how
nonpermanent member countries are constantly trying to become members of the Security
Council. They do everything and anything it takes to become one. In the 1998
election for the new nonpermanent members, many states engaged in lobbying and
gift giving. The need to be part of the Council comes from the “Council
membership confer(ing) status and recognition on a state and (it) allows the
state to appropriate some of the authority derived from the legitimacy of the
Council” (Hurd). This could be seen as normal for a branch of the UN that is
the most powerful. However, the only reason why states work so hard to become
members of the Council is to get closer to the “Permanent Five”. This proves
that the permanent members have to much power. The nonpermanent members want to
make sure that their agenda is carried through and the best way to do that is
to get close with the permanent members.
In class we talked about whether the
Security Council has legitimate or symbolic power. I think that it is a mix of
both with the permanent members having the most. They have symbolic power because
they are looked at as the “popular kids” of the United Nations. The permanent
members are like the big jocks of high school. This is portrayed by the rhino,
bear, dragon, elephant and hippo in the comic. All of these animals could take
on any of the others on the other side of the boat and crush them. No one dare
messes with the “big kids on campus”. The legitimate power of the permanent
members being able to shoot down any idea with a veto even if there is the
majority supports it.
The possible solutions for the unbalanced
power are a mix of restructuring the Council with new permanent members or no
permanent members at all. I believe that the permanent members should at least
be re-evaluated. The five countries in the seats now have been there for
seventy years. A lot has changed since then; the world is no longer in a post
world war situation.
Hi Caroline,
ReplyDeleteI think that the current situation on the UN security council is the most logical. The five nations on the security council are some of the most powerful countries in the world. Therefore, the security council--in a sense--represents global balance of power. If the permanent members lost their seats on the council, they could potentially leave the UN, thus making it less legitimate.
Thanks Ben for your comment. With these five countries being the permanent members since the UN's creation means that all global issues are focused towards the concerns of the U.S., China, Russia, France, and Great Britain. The problems in our world tend not to take place in the most powerful countries. The smaller more unstable countries need a bigger voice and they are not going to get that with the current structure of the Security Council. In my opinion, there needs to be a more global agenda in the Council.
DeleteHi Caroline!
ReplyDeleteGood job on your post. I really like the political cartoon that you used. Although it was different than the one I used, it gets across a similar message. It’s a simple message...there needs to be a change in the Security Council. It is unbalanced and only focusses on the five permanent members. As you mentioned earlier, there could potentially be a majority veto. It definitely seems plausible. Good job!