The UN was established in 1945 to prevent a third world war, and in this regard has been successful. In recent years, however, it has been unable to prevent a number of major conflicts and as a result, many casualties. Many of these conflicts have involved members of the UNSC – in the case of Iraq, for example, the US and Britain. The UN could not block that intervention, and it would probably have been bypassed had the UK parliament voted for military intervention in Syria. The fact is, regardless of the nature and scale of conflict, the power structure of the UN prevents joint decisions on the most pressing and immediate issues if the interests of any Big Five (US, Britain, China, France, Russia) clash.
The UN’s inability to reach a solution for peace in Syria and also the entire Middle East peace process serves as a perfect example. Palestine's rise as an “observer state” after getting overwhelming support in the General Assembly of the UN has already shown the existing differences in the institution. Immediately after UNESCO recognized Palestine as its newest member, the US stopped its funding to the organization – but it still only reassessed its aid to Egypt after the military coup there. Any resolutions to bring Israel to the ICC for war crimes committed in Gaza, or to stop it from building more settlements on Palestinian land are blocked by the US on a regular basis. Because the US has veto power within the UNSC, it is rendered ineffective and it is easily bypassed.
I believe that reforms of the UN, especially the UNSC, are necessary and could work towards better international governance and maintenance of peace and security in the world, but they can only work if the top 5 countries (mentioned above) are ready to give up their veto and engage in more democratic power-sharing. Minor reforms, such as including more non-permanent members in the UN for two year periods, are not going to help in the long run: countries elected as non-permanent members to the UNSC can vote on a resolution, but the permanent members can still veto it. The UN needs to be a legitimate international organization that serves the needs of those affected by conflicts directly, and not the interests of the power-hungry nations who run the show. This can only be achieved when there are serious diplomatic efforts to make the UNSC a truly “one member, one vote” system, serving the interests of all nations.
There is a consensus that the Council must be reformed for the U.N. to not lose its legitimacy, but there’s a startling lack of will to get the process of reform into gear. And, ultimately, as long as the veto-wielding powers keep their vetoes, much of the underlying facts on the ground won’t change. Those who defend the veto argue that, without it, international governance would be far more unpredictable and chaotic. But with it, the U.N. is becoming more and more irrelevant.
Kiefer,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that there needs to be UNSC reform involving the permanent 5 members giving up their veto power. It is despicable that the UNSC, due to all the vetoes hindering action, have been hardly effective at helping stop massive humans rights violations and the like. How can a council formed of conflicting ideologies possibly come to a consensus without a veto? Adding the powerful veto that the permanent 5 yield exacerbates the issue and overall causes stalls in the UNSC's response to issues.
It seems to be that the root cause of this is that the workings of the UNSC members, both permanent and nonpermanent, are not aimed with the objective of achieving world peace, but rather, towards each country reaping its own benefit and gaining relative power in the international order. Reform and the removal of the veto is necessary to stop this injustice.
I agree with you as well Kiefer. The United Nations Security Council needs to focus on fixing the Veto power. In my Paper I also discussed that The UNSC's Veto power will cause many conflicts within the SC. I used the example of China and the United States not being able to get anything done because they will be using the veto power to their advantage, which is what Elana is saying when she says that this "idea" means that nothing gets done in the SC. Elana you are right when you say that the removal of the veto power will stop the injustice and ineffectiveness of the Security Council.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the UNSC needs to be reformed in order to make it both more legitimate and more effective. While the possibility of removing the veto power is a real one, I think that in reality, it would do nothing other than getting resolutions passed on paper.
ReplyDeleteAny resolution passed would still require the support of these Big Five in order for it to be effective. This is a direct result of the fact that the funding and resources of these nations is required in order to actually carry out the resolution. In short, the veto power would be gone on paper, but these nations could just as easily mothball a resolution by refusing to provide support.