The
Security Council in the United Nations is one of the most criticized aspects of
the organization, most specifically; the permanent members and their veto power
are often the subject of international scrutiny. I would like to argue that
while the system may not be perfect and can be improved, it is not possible nor
is it beneficial to get rid of these five permanent members and their power. The
five actors on the Security Council are the victors of World War Two, the
United States, Russia, France, England and China, and who are also current
major world powers. As a result of this, I argue that even if they were to be
removed or their roles changed on the council, their influence over other
nation in the world and on the council would still be great enough that
anything they wanted to get done on the council would still be done. If for
some reason this was not the case, it could still be taken care of by some
other means, NATO being the best example of this. Secondly, because the
Security Council frequently deals with issues that will require military
backing or great amounts of funding, taking away these huge actors would make
many of the things they want to get done next to impossible without these
nations to support them. My final argument in favor of the council is the
possibility of abuse from smaller nations who may abuse their power by using
the forces of nations such as the United States or Russia in order to solve
conflicts that the Security Council did not need to be involved in.
Because each of the five powers also
needs to approve of changes to the council, convincing them to give up power
would be very difficult. Instead of abolishing the current system, I think
there is potential for improving it while allowing the five permanent members
to retain their places and their veto power. As it stands now, there are also ten
nonpermanent seats on the council that change every two years that can vote in
council decisions, but these members do not have the veto power. These fifteen
member vote on almost all major decisions made by the UN, most importantly,
peace keeping missions and the acceptance of new members. When voting, the five
major powers must agree for anything to pass because of the veto threat and
they then must gain the support of only three more states. The power disparity
between the big five and the rest of the council is obvious as it stands now
and as a result the best way to improve the legitimacy of the council is to better
balance out the power in the council. I believe the best way to do this would
be to expand the number of nonpermanent members, potentially to twenty. In
doing this, each of the two major issues are improved, first, the major powers
are able to retain their veto power, which will prevent the abuse of their
potential for troops and funding for issues that do not require their
attention. Secondly, it would now require these five powers to gain the support
of eight more members in order to have a majority for any kind of resolution.
By requiring more nonpermanent members to agree to a resolution than permanent
members, while the permanent members would still be protected by the veto, the
majority of the opinion in the resolution would now come from the other members
effectively improving the balance of power amongst the states.
Will,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that the permanent 5 members would likely still have a presence, even after being removed from the council, due to the symbolic power they have procured in the last half century. This is, as you said, due to the fact that these countries have money and strong armies, things that many resolutions passed in the UNSC are contingent upon. However, there are a few arguments that don’t make sense to me. For once thing, you state that another potential problem is “the possibility of abuse from smaller nations who may abuse their power by using the forces of nations such as the United States or Russia in order to solve conflicts that the Security Council did not need to be involved in.” I don’t quite understand what you mean by this, and certainly, the answer to who the Security Council should and shouldn’t be involved with is highly objective, therefore, it cannot be qualified in the terms that you presented it as.
Moreover, I’m in accordance with you for the rest of your points addressed, such as the fact that the prospect of reform is deeply decreased when one considers that any change made must be approved by the already-existing P5. In fact, it is evident that the US and other P5 nations are capable of bribery, where they provide aid to countries who support their UNSC decisions. So, these kind of corrupt dealings much be acknowledged in analyzing that the P5 would need to gain the support of eight more members in order to have a majority for any kind of resolution If we presented the UNSC with transparency laws, I argue that this, combined with your 20 state plan, would lead to effective outcomes.
I think that we are very much on the same page with the need for reformation of the security council, specifically as this relates to the 5 permanent members. To clarify the point that you brought up, I was making another argument against the removal of the permanent members.
DeleteMy point was, in the event that the five current permanent seats were to be removed from their position, they would need to be replaced in some capacity. As a result, the potential for the seats to be given to new nations who could abuse this power as a result of not supplying equivalent resources to the P5. I speculate that this could happen by these nations using the council to sensual have the U.S. or Russia take care of a problem that they should be handling domestically.
Will, I entirely agree with your point regarding how keeping the largest powers on the Security Council is a good idea. Removing global powers who actually have the ability to influence global security would be entirely unproductive. Your possible solutions for how to make it more effective are certainly good as well. I think another possible idea is to make it a two power veto. Where two out of the five have to veto so it cannot be one country preventing action.
ReplyDeleteThank you for bringing up this point Frank, it was not something I ha previously thought about. I do think that a two state veto requirement would greatly help prevent the abuse of power on the council. This and expanded membership would be two excellent ways to improve the legitimacy of the council without decreasing the power of the P5 too much.
DeleteAbolishing the permanent seat increases the legitimacy of UNSC. When the UNSC was created it had at least some legitimacy because of the power vacuum after WW2. Since the creation of UN the world has changed a lot and many countries have earned reputation to be equal members of the Security Council. They have established stable states (ex. Brazil, South Africa, India) and proved themselves as regional leaders. They have joined UNSC peace keeping missions and supported its aid programs. . I agree that the UNSC should be expanded, but I also think the veto power should be done away with completely. Perhaps a system similar to US congress could be effective, where member states have representation based on population. That way, the P5 countries would still retain a bit more sway.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that it is possible to remove the permanent seat aspect of the security council. These nations are the ones most directly supplying funding and resources to the resolutions and as a result, they need to have a voice in voting on the matter. One possible improvement to this position would be to allow countries who are planning on, or already have, provided enough resources to have a vote in the resolutions, or potentially even get a permanent seat for themselves.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIf the veto power of the five permanent members is kept, doesn't that make the new seats ineffective? Unless the permanent members all agree with a proposal, it is bound to be shut down. What is the purpose of a new seat if all it can propose are overwhelmingly agreeable ideas? I agree with your point that the five powers need to retain a degree of power because they all have the ability to circumvent the UN via institutions like NATO. It seems to me, however, that allowing them to keep their veto renders any changes as symbolic.
ReplyDelete