The United Nations (UN) celebrated its seventieth year last year amid celebrations and much acclaim. Established after the end of World War Two, it was intended to bring world peace and put an end to major wars by creating a forum for nations to work out their differences. The UN has been mostly successful in its mission, with a couple major exceptions. However, there is a lot of talk about reforming the UN to be more representative of the world today. While several proposals have been made over the past years, none have gained enough favor to be accepted by the majority. There are many areas where changes could be made; here are some reforms that I believe are needed.
As mentioned above, the UN was established at the end of World War Two. Its basic charter is to maintain international peace and security, develop friendly relations among nations based on respect, achieve international co-operation in solving international problems, and to be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations to achieve these goals . The main bodies of the UN include the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, the Trusteeship Council, the International Court of Justice, and the Secretariat (United Nations). The General Assembly, which includes all member nations, originally consisted of fifty members, but today includes a total of 193 nations . The Security Council consists of fifteen members, five permanent members (the United States, Great Britain, Russia, France, and China), and ten non-permanent members who are elected for two-year, non-repeating terms by the General Assembly (Ronzitti). The permanent members all have veto power over resolutions. The purpose of the Security Council is to provide prompt and effective action to maintain the international peace and security (United Nations). Resolutions passed by the General Council must also be approved by the Security Council, which gives the Security Council considerable power. This power, especially the veto power of the five permanent members, is why the Security Council is considered as the primary target for reform.
` There are two ways that the Security Council could be reformed to make it more representative of our world today. One aspect of the Security Council that is contentious for most nations of the world is the veto power that is held by the five permanent members. When the UN was created, it was decided that the victors from World War Two would become permanent members of the Security Council . That made sense at the time since they were considered the most powerful nations and would assume responsibility for rebuilding after the war. However, the world has changed considerably since the creation of the UN. Many nations do not believe that nations like Great Britain, France, and Russia, who are not as influential as they were seventy years ago, should yield that much power.
The main issue with the veto power today is that no nation should have the right to dictate policy for the rest of the world. The veto power can be, and has been, abused by the permanent members of the Security Council to prevent sanctions against themselves. Early on, the former Soviet Union was the primary user of the veto as it used its veto power to block admittance to the UN for nations that would be considered friendly to the Western powers. After the fall of the Soviet Union, however, the veto power has been used primarily to block actions against the five permanent members of the Security Council or of their allies. Russia, has used its veto power many times to block sanctions aimed at their activities in central Asia. The United States has used its veto power, usually in conjunction with Great Britain and France to block sanctions against its military actions in Central America and Iraq. It has also used its veto power extensively to block sanctions against its major ally in the Middle East, Israel, going against the wishes of the majority of the nations in the UN .
While many believe that there is no over-riding a Security Council veto, there is, under certain circumstances. Under UN Resolution 377, known as the “Uniting for Peace” Resolution, if the Security Council cannot maintain international peace, the matter can be taken up by the General Assembly . Unfortunately, these decisions are non-binding and the offending nation could just ignore the resolution as the Soviet Union did when the General Assembly voted to demand it withdraw from Afghanistan in 1980.
With all of this in mind, the best reform for the UN would be the elimination of the veto power of the five permanent members of the Security Council. This would make the UN more democratic with one nation, one vote. Every nation would be equal. While this would seem to be the simplest solution, makes sense to the majority of the world, it is also the least likely scenario to happen. This is because the five nations who have the veto power are not inclined to lose that power. Under the charter of the UN, a resolution to end the veto power of these nations would have to be approved by the Security Council, and none of the five permanent powers are likely to approve such a resolution.
The other reform idea that has generated a lot of discussion the past years is to increase the number of nations on the Security Council to better reflect the modern world. The original Security Council had only eleven members, while the General Assembly had the original fifty members of the UN. Security Council membership was increased to fifteen in 1963 to give better representation to the now 115 members (Ronziti). There have been no changes to the Security Council since then, even though membership in the UN is now 193 states. With only fifteen members on the Security Council, parts of the world are seriously under-represented.
The debate around increasing the size of the Security Council centers on how many seats to add, how many, if any, should be permanent, and if any of the new permanent seats should have veto power. Several blocks have proposed different formulas for increasing the size of the Security Council, but none seem to have garnered enough favor to go forward. In considering permanent membership to the Security Council, the General Assembly has to consider things like population, economic strength, military power, region, and financial contributions. India, for instance, is a strong candidate for permanent membership because of its population. Brazil has been discussed as another strong candidate because of population, economic strength, and location (Latin America is under-represented on the Security Council). Also being discussed is the length of non-permanent membership and whether membership can be repeated. The current make-up of the Security Council is based on geographic regions, with the regions divided largely by continent. There is the African region, the Asia and Pacific region, the European region, and the American region. This break-down might leave some areas under-represented. Perhaps it is time to redraw the regions to better represent regional concerns. Maybe there should be a Middle Eastern region, a Latin region, and African region, an Asian region, a Central Asian region, a European region, and a North American region. This would give a better representation of the world today and produce a better balanced Security Council. Each region would then be guaranteed at least one permanent seat on the Security Council, with at least one more non-permanent seat. The total number of Security Council seats would still have to be decided, but care should be given that it not become too big or it will lose its value as a quick acting council for reacting to world crisis.
The opposition to increasing the size of the Security Council comes from various members or blocks who want to see their version of reform adopted. The current five permanent members may not have a problem with increasing the number of permanent seats, but they will, more than likely, veto any additional veto powers. The problem with discussing reform with a General Assembly with 193 members is that getting a consensus on anything can be a major hassle. That is why the Security Council is so important in the first place, because it can, in theory, act faster than the General Assembly in the time of crisis.
There are many different ways the UN could be reformed to make it more responsive to the needs of the world, from economic means, to general focus, to more binding powers. The two reform possibilities I proposed have been discussed by nations and experts for years and seem to be needed to make the UN more responsive. With all of this in mind, the main thing that is missing is respect for the United Nations. Too many nations, especially of late, have shown that they do not respect the power and intent of the UN, and that is having an impact on the current state of the world.
References
Inside Story - UN Security Council: A relic of the past? Al Jazeera English. 2013. Online. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SULrKVZ8xWc>.
Koerner, B. Can You Bypass a U.N. Security Council Veto? 12 March 2003. Online. 2 April 2016. <http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2003/03/can_you_bypass_a_un_security_council_veto.html>.
Ronzitti, N. "The Reform of the UN Security Council." 13 July 2010. Istituto Affari Internazionali. Online. 31 March 2016. <http://pubblicazioni.iai.it/pdf/DocIAI/iai1013.pdf>.
United Nations. Charter of the United Nations. 2016. Online. 31 March 2016. <http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-i/index.html>.
—. Security Council Veto List. 12 January 2016. Online. 2 April 2016. <http://research.un.org/en/docs/sc/quick>.
