Elif Okan
Should
UN Security Council permanent members be changed?
I found a short
article about India wanting to be part of the UN Security Council and how while
the United States is on India's side Russia and China are against it. None of
the members or the security council permanent members want to give up their vetoes
so that cannot change if India were to be part of the security council as a
permanent member. India and many other countries believe that the current
permanent members of the security council "does not reflect the ground
realities of the 21st century.
In class, we
talked about the pros and cons of changing the UN security council permanent
members and the UN's system in general, so this article reminded me of that
talk. I agree with the article and India along with the countries supporting
India. Times have changed, and some countries are stronger or weaker than when
the Security Council's permanent members were created. The five permanent
members are the United States, China, England/ the UK, France, and Russia.
Countries like Russia and France are not as strong today as they used to be in
the past but currently are still on the Security Council as permanent members.
The United States and China are still just as strong today so it makes sense
that they would stay on the Un Security Council as permanent members. Countries
like India, Japan, Brazil, and Germany today are getting much stronger and soon
could be on the same level as the UN Security Council Permanent members if they
already are not as strong. The world is changing so the UN Security Council
permanent members should change as well to introduce powerful countries like
India.
Currently the UN
Security Council permanent members have too much power with their veto. I know
that this won't change since none of the UN Security Council permanent members
would give up their vetoes or vote to get rid of their veto system because it
gives them more power and is one of the benefits to be being a permanent member
setting you apart from the other members. If the veto system does not change
then the chance of any country being able to join the UN Security member as a
permanent member is low since at least one of the five will vote against it and
would not give up their seats to another country. China and Russia are already
against having India join as a permanent member so it is impossible for India
to join unless India can change China and Russia's side and get the other three
members on their side and not vote against them.
I do think that
countries who are strong and powerful enough should be able to become a permanent
member, but that may be hard to do with the amount of power and vetoes current
permanent members have. I think it would be unfair to not let a country as
strong and powerful as the five UN Security Council permanent members join and
become one. Maybe the whole system should change at some point if there are too
many permanent members by letting more join. Perhaps we can have the top 5 or 7
strongest and most powerful countries at the time be permanent members having
the members change as countries become less or more powerful instead too.
I mostly agree with this argument. I do not think that there should be always the same permanent members, because they hold the power over smaller and less powerful countries. Through the Security Council, the members make decisions regarding smaller countries who have virtually no say in what happens to them. Also, all it takes is one of the permanent members to decide it is not in its best interest to help that small country and the permanent member can veto it. There is not a lot of checks and balances in the Security Council's veto system, making it virtually impossible for other countries to get stuff done.
ReplyDeleteThat's true. There is not a lot checks and balances in the Security Council's veto system so it is virtually impossible for other countries to get stuff done if one of the permanent members vetos which is why it needs to change. I would say there is pretty much no check and balances when it comes to the permanent members of the Security Council and their powers.
DeleteI agree that other countries should receive the opportunity to become permanent or at least semi-permanent members, providing they qualify with certain perimeters. Perhaps, there could be two or so semi-permanent members for a set amount of years, as long as they meet the requirements, that can re-enroll as the time is ending. As a way to bring in other countries without upsetting the original five members. This could potentially create an opportunity to make the system more balanced and allow smaller countries a chance to make choices, rather than the current five countries primarily running the security council.
ReplyDeleteHaving two semi-permanent members that meet requirements for a set number of years that can re-enroll as the time is ending is a great idea and would balance the system our a little more and make things a little more fair without upsetting the current five permanent members since they would not lose anything by having semi-permanent members be apart of the security council.
DeleteI agree that countries should have the opportunity to join the United Nations Security Council. The countries within the Security Council ultimately have the most power, making it hard for smaller countries to progress at all or even gain power. It is hard to reform this system, considering the countries within the security Council do not want to give up their vetoes and power. I personally feel that the positions for some of the permanent seats should be opened to other countries who meet the qualifications for the permanent seats. These qualifications should be based on economic specifications of a country, as well as population size. There is definitely a way for the United Nations Security Council to be better.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you about the problems with having permanent members in the UN security council and the power they have by having the veto. But I wonder if a possible solution to this imbalance that exists would be to allow countries to get voted to have veto power but not permanent member status. That could keep the permanent members happy, while at the same time there would a significant change to those who can veto in the UN Security Council.
ReplyDelete