Over the
last month or so, I have been writing a number of blog posts on the United
Nations (UN), focusing on the structure of the system and why I think it does
not work. I have outlined some reasons for such, including too much power and
influence in the hands of just 5 permanent member states (P-5). With the
differing national interests and political ideologies, the UN, especially the
UNSC is in need of reform.
For many
decades there have been many discussions and debates on the issue of a
requirement for reform of the UN system, but nothing as progressed beyond mere
talking. There has only been one major change to the structure of the UN, and
that was back in the 1960’s, when the UNSC increased from 11 members to 15, as
to accommodate the increase in new member states during the era of
decolonization. Apart from this increase nothing has changed.
Perhaps one
area that could be reformed is broadening the participation in the UNSC. The
international system has changed since the founding of the UN in 1945, and many
more new nations have gained independence, with some increasing their power and influence over the last 60
years or so. The current UN system has not allowed for this transgression of these
major changes, and this can be argued as leading to the ineffectiveness of the
UN. So perhaps what could be discussed and implemented would be to increase the
number of permanent seats in the UNSC. It would be unlikely that any of the
current P-5 members would give up their prominent place in world affairs, so
they would still need to keep their positions. But giving for instance,
Germany, Japan, Brazil and even India a permanent seat would acknowledge these
changes in the international system and the rise in power and influence that
these states now occupy on the global stage. Although, increasing the number of
permanent seats in the UNSC may not solve the ineffectiveness of the
organisation, and could further complicate its ability to maintain
international peace and security, but it would make it more representative of
the current state of world affairs.
Furthermore,
to prevent national interests of the P-5 from been major considerations in the
decision making process, and causes for stalemate in the UNSC, the power of
veto could be removed from the hands of permanent members. Such a reform could
be difficult to gain agreement from the P-5, as they would likely be reluctant
to give up such power and influence that the veto brings them. But I think if
the global community and more specifically the P-5 want to have an organisation
that can effectively maintain international peace and security, there should be
more equality for all member states, not just the privileged few.
