Estefania
Velez
November
11, 2013
GVPT200
– FC
In the past decade, there has been
some skepticism about whether or not the United Nations has served to help
protect the world by promoting peace or if it is just a group of the five most
powerful countries making decisions based on their own needs. It is said that
the United Nations was formed to promote peace and collective security throughout
the world. Although this is true, I believe that in this past decade it has
worked more for social and economic expansion than for peace itself because the
five permanent countries on the Security Council have more opportunity than the
non-permanent countries to do as they please. The power that the five permanent
countries in the United Nations hold does not allow the organization to remain
fair for the ten non-permanent countries because as time has passed, the
organization has worked less on promoting peace and more on the interests of
the five permanent countries. When the
United States invaded Iraq in 2003, it did not ask for permission from the
Security Council as to whether or not it could or should invade, it went ahead
and did it anyway. It is certain that if
any other nation tried to invade another country without getting UN approval,
things would go differently for them.
It is evident that the United
Nations has done a lot for the world but as Hurd said in his article
“Legitimacy, Power, and the Symbolic Life of the UN Security
Council”,
it can also be claimed that they succeed because of the powerful symbols they
have. For example, there are peacekeeping symbols that the UN is known for such
as the Agenda, which allows any state to propose their issues to the council.
These states want the five permanent members to care about their issues because
of the immense power that they hold and if their proposals are in fact
considered, they then get to brag that their issue is on the Security Council.
The permanent members of the Security Council are the most powerful nations in
the world today; therefore, other countries pay a grand amount of money to be a
part of this “exclusive” group of nations because it is extremely desirable to
be a part of the ten non-permanent members. In some instances, the small
non-permanent countries are required to give their troops to the United Nations
while countries like the United States do not because they want to be in
control of their troops and not let the UN use them. These are all symbols of
the power that the non-permanent members want to obtain throughout the Security
Council and international relations.
International organizations such as
the United Nations have helped the world grow and become more peaceful but it
seems as though the rules that come with the Security Council’s permanent
members are not fair to the other members who pay loads of money and risk their
troops to get a small amount of power. The fact that the five official members
get to veto any proposal that comes their way while the other ten really have
no say in the matter shows how unjust the organization has become. It is
understandable that the five nations are in charge because they are the countries
with the strongest economies, militaries and because most are the winners of
World War II but I believe that in order for the United Nations to strive as it
did when it was first created the power among the members needs to be balanced
in a more equal way for all of them.
I completely agree that the Security Council is unfair and unequal. The world looks very different today than it did post-WWII and the hierarchic nature of the security council does not reflect changes that have occured in the last 60-70 years. I especially take issue with the five permanent members' veto power; I do not think it is beneficial to the world as a whole and contributes greatly to the UN's inefficiency in tackling international issues.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with this because back in WWII the world powers were different than they are today and the world's problems should be handled differently. Why should 5 countries have most of the power in the Security Council because they came up on top in one war? The system is definitely unfair. However, does the fact that it is unfair make the Un seem less powerful/influential?
DeleteI don't think it makes its seem less powerful, but maybe less influential because it has lost a lot of its credibility and other nations may not want to listen to what the UN says because they believe that it is biased towards the five nations in the security council.
DeleteI also agree that the Security Council's overwhelming power is unfair for the other states who need their interests put forth. But then again, I can see why the idealistic benefits of having the permanent 5 states. For example, if the US wasn't one of the five permanent states, then our government would fear losing it's dominance and power over the world economy and policies. But, realistically speaking these permanent states no doubt abuse their overwhelming influence, like you and Shiran pointed out. A great point you made about this bias is when you said that if any other state had invaded another without UN approval, there would have been some type of repercussion.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that the five permanent countries on the council have too much power and they can take advantage of it. While, these countries may have earned there spot following WWII times have changed since then and the UN needs to adjust accordingly. It allows for these five states to essentially control the power and decisions of the world when there are many other nations out there who deserve to have a say. And you are right about how the five permanent countries feel they don't need permission and do whatever they please because they contain 1/5 of the world's power as it is. However, how do you suggest they alter this because it obviously cannot be put to vote in the UN because it would always end in favor of the five countries?
ReplyDeleteI think that they could perhaps get a member of the general assembly to propose something that doesn't exactly remove the five powerful nations but switches them up every couple of years depending on maybe economy or power just as a way for the countries to prove that they deserve to be on the council. Maybe if they get two thirds of the votes than it will be passed.
DeleteI agree with Shiran that the world is very different today than it was after WWII, however, I believe that the 5 superpowers determined from the war are still the most powerful and influential countries today. I do think that they deserve their veto power because they are such influential countries, but I also think that the UN needs to modify its "permanent members" policy. Should any of the 5 superpowers lose credibility or power than another country on the rise should be allowed to take its place at the head of the Security Council.
ReplyDeleteI am also in agreement with the idea that the UNSC veto power is unfair. However, without the veto power given to the world superpowers, the five permanent members would lack an incentive to stay within the organization- ultimately decreasing the UN's legitimacy. Another point you mention is that the US did not go before the Security Council for the Iraq invasion. However, Colin Powell went before the UN in an effort to prove the need to engage in war with Iraq- although this failed to get approval, the US still went to UN before the invasion to increase the legitimacy of the war itself.
ReplyDeleteThere is no doubt that the Security Council is not fair especially when it comes to the veto power among the 5 current superpowers, especially because those aren't bound to change anytime soon. The only problem is, changing the system seems difficult, as none of these powers are willing to give that up. The power of the UN also seems pretty subjective, but hopefully that will become more concrete with time.
ReplyDelete