Looking ahead 200
years, the United Nations would not be an effective world organization if it
still held the original five in the Security Council. Therefore, change must be
considered now, because even 50 years from now there is going to be a need for
it if not sooner. The United Nations will not be able to exist unless
serious transformation occurs. If it remains the same, it has the potential to suffer
the same fate as the League of Nations, only to be replaced with some new
organization that would make the alterations being proposed here. Within the next
20 years there should be this vote for new semi-permanent members, and every 50
years or so afterward there should be a revote by the general assembly for who
remains in the Security Council veto seats. There should still be the other 10
rotating seats with two year terms to ensure that the international voice is
heard.
The Security Council needs restructuring
because if the permanent five get to make crucial decisions, then it should
reflect the desires of those with the most power, much like the House in the
United States Congress. Also following the example set by the House, there
should be a guideline for each of the five “permanent” members to be a
representative from their respective regions. This would be a set rule for the
most part, but would allow for two from one region in an extreme situation.
This is because since the Security Council deals mostly with issues of
security, the best people to understand how to solve those issues are countries
who are a part of that culture. Right now, there is an extreme imbalance with
nearly all of the Security Council being a part of Europe. By allowing for two
from one region, it prevents countries from joining who have no power on the
world stage.
Right now there is
a lot of potential for new world powers to emerge, meaning that within the next
20 years there could be a new world dynamic. Potential Security Council members
could include Brazil, India or Japan, while most likely retaining the US, China
and Russia. Ultimately there is need for a change in the United Nations if it
is to continue to be an effective and respected organization that can make a
real difference. This change may be a few years off, but it needs to be
considered now so that it does not get too complicated, too fast and a rash
decision is made.
Chelsea,
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that the security council is somewhat outdated and change is necessary. I like how you compared the current state to the House of Representatives. Like our current congressional set up, do you think the UN could benefit by having two entities. One that incorporates the rising and current world powers (US, Russia, China, Brazil, Japan, India) and another that has equivalent representation to these powers but includes more countries? This may potentially provide some sort of checks and balances systems that allow major powers to have power, but not have dominant control.
Chelsea,
ReplyDeleteI agree that the security council needs to be reformed to more accurately represent the world today. When you say only 1-2 from each region, do you mean one from Asia, America, Europe, Africa, etc.? Additionally, do you think that a requirement for at least one "poorer" country to be a member would increase the legitimacy of the council or decrease it? Including a poor country could show more balance, but a poor country would also have less to contribute in terms of increasing global security.
Chelsea,
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree that the Security Council could benefit from restructuring. I agree that the permanent members should be reduced to semi-permanent members. I even agree that these members should be subject to a vote. I only wonder how you arrived at the specific numbers you identify in your proposal. For example, why every 20 and every 50 year for voting? Also, why 1-2 representatives for each region. If the goal is to be as representative as possible and regions are diverse, why not more representatives? Or, why not 3? Lastly, what are these regions? Who defines them? Are these regions also subject to voting/ redistricting?
Chelsea-
ReplyDeleteI do see your point that the security council could be considered outdated and could benefit from reform. However, I fail to see how this change could be initiated and carried out. I feel that if the general assembly were to vote for leaders that they would either all vote for themselves, or that there would not be clear frontrunners. Also, if by some chance there were several states who received a larger portion of votes than others, do you not think that the countries who did not vote for them would resent their leadership? Or may even fail to recognize their authority? I see the point you are trying to make, I just do not see a clean way to implement your suggested changes.
Vishal, I like your idea for having two separate entities within the UN and I think it would probably solve a lot of issues with checks and balances. However, I think it may be hard to make sure that they are both equal(ish) or that they would even have enough influence because of their limited topic sphere.
ReplyDeleteEliot, yes thank you for clarifying I do mean from essentially each continent but break the middle east into their own region. I also think that it wouldn't be necessary to add a poorer country into the permanent countries because the rest of the seats will still rotate.
Olivia, my numbers are just rough estimations. since it's been a little more than 50 years since the original ones were chosen it seemed that it may be appropriate to set that as a benchmark. I think it should be allowed to have up to 2 countries from the same region because countries like China and India could be considered the same region but have very different views on the world.
Connor, I completely agree with you on the issue of how it would really be implemented. I attempted to focus solely on what the future of the UN could look like but did not think practically for it. I think you make a good point that there may not even be front runners so maybe it would require multiple rounds of debate to decide.