Should UN Security Council permanent members be changed?

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.

Link to article: 

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/key-to-india-becoming-security-council-permanent-member-is-not-to-touch-veto-haley/article19880518.ece

Embedden Liberalism

Cam Hainey   

Professor Shirk

International Politics

November 5^th, 2017

Why It’s Hard For Embedded Liberalism Could Occur

            In “The Principles of Embedded Liberalism: Social Legitimacy and Global Capitalism” by Abdelal and Ruggie they argue that new regulatory bodies are needed, there needs to be international agreements and governments need to be more interventionists. I believe that their ideas that globalization has done a lot of good for people but ultimately needs to be regulated is a good idea. I believe that more good could come from that than negatives. However I don’t think that could ever happen and here’s why. First off, there are too many moving parts; such as every country needs to be on board with the regulations that are made and as we have seen it isn’t easy to get every country to agree with every aspect of worldwide regulations.  Abdela and Ruggie’s idea that cooperation will be essential for this new era of globalization is great, and they are right, cooperation will be essential and it’s the only way that something like this will happen. However they say the United States isn’t in a position to force its emergence, I think that this is apart of the problem of too many moving parts. For this idea to work and cooperation to happen, I think that a powerful state like the United States need to force other countries to agree with what they are supporting. You can’t create a new era of globalization regulations without the support and backing of superpower states. These states can help bring states together which helps to reduce the number of “moving parts” which make it easier to get something like this to happen.

Second, this idea of getting every country to agree with the same regulations assumes that every country apart of this committee is a rational thinking, non-corrupt country. If every country is rational thinking and can see the big picture and agrees to these regulations, then Abdela and Ruggie’s idea would be great and could work today. However, there are countries that are corrupt and have outside influences to the decisions that they make. In addition to that, there are countries who are going to be self motivated, they want to do what is best for their state and sometimes seeing the big picture and committing to that is much harder to accomplish because of that.

Third, big business influences governments greatly, in any government, the elected officials need the support from some big businesses to get the financial support to help them get elected. If governments begin to go against what the big business want then they will begin to lose financial support and could have trouble being re-elected, the areas which they represent could lose out if the businesses begin to make layoffs or leave the area. Resulting in the members of these areas to be against the government or that particular individual. Or big business could begin to support someone new who supports them and will do what they want when it comes to helping them continue to make money.  

Ultimately I think that creating new regulations and creating a new era of globalization would be a great idea, the benefits would be worldwide and could help millions and could solve many problems. However ultimately like I have said, I just have a hard time believing that something like this could happen because big business has too much power and control in state governments.

More Efficient Security Council

The United Nations was created in 1945 following World War II, in an attempt to replace the League of Nations, which had failed in preventing said war, after it was created to preserve and enforce peace treaties after World War I. The prominent difference between the League of Nations and the United Nations is the inclusion of the United States in the latter. As the US was not part of the League, which contributed to the downfall of the organization and its inability to stop the Second World War.

Additionally, the UN is comprised of the General Assembly, Secretariat, International Court of Justice, Security Council, Economic and Social Council, Trusteeship Council, and other affiliated organizations. The Security Council in particular functions through collective security among the countries, and acts to address issues of security. A fundamental part of this council is the fact that the five permanent and founding countries have veto power, which is supposed to give these countries an incentive in participating in making effective and substantial decisions. There is discussion as to whether this veto is fair to the other 10 rotating countries and how the Council should or could be restructured.

Changing the veto system to limit how many each of the permanent countries can use within a four year period, as this would be two cycles of the 10 rotating countries, would be effective in the decision making process. This would hopefully allow decisions to be made quicker and have more UN action in different international incidents. As critics of the veto state, this is the primary reason for the UN's inaction on war crimes and crimes against humanity.

If these counties are limited in their vetoes then hopefully they would feel more restraint in using them. Such as in potentially selfish manners, where a proposal doesn't quite benefit a permanent member thus they would normally veto this, however, the limit would act to prevent this behavior. This is, in turn, would create a more effective and speedier decision-making process.

Changing the veto system of the Security Council would also encourage smaller rotating countries to speak up and voice their opinions and proposals, as they would feel as though is a lesser chance of their proposals being diminished and vetoed. These proposals potentially being acknowledged could help the smaller countries in terms of security, diplomacy, and economics. Moreover, the rotating countries would be encouraged to add to the conversation, without fear of a permanent country holding a grudge against them in a later round and using the veto against them, again in a selfish and inappropriate manner.

In conclusion, revamping the veto system of the UN Security Council would be beneficial to all countries that partake in the UN. By altering the system, smaller countries would have a greater voice, compared to what they already have. A new and improved system of limiting the number of vetoes permanent countries have in a specific time period would allow for a quicker and more efficient decision-making process.

Rocket Man Speech at the U.N. General Assembly

The United Nations is an institution, set of rules known and shared by a community that structures political interactions, that promotes peace by getting countries to agree on commitments. It was formed in 1945, after the Second World War. It was meant to replace the League of Nations, which failed badly due to the fact it did not include the United States and did not stop the Second World War.

There are six parts to the structure of the United Nations: General Assembly, Secretariat, International Court of Justice, Security Council, Economic and Social Council, and Trusteeship Council. For this post, the focus will be the General Assembly and the speech Donald Trump gave at this year’s General Assembly. Every year, the United Nations holds a General Assembly. The General Assembly meets once a year for two weeks to resolve matters of importance. There, the members can make decisions on matters, such as maintaining peace and security, as well as the addition of new members. Each member gets one vote. For matters of importance, two third of the votes are needed. On the other hand, for all other matters, the majority wins.

In the last general assembly, President Trump addressed the assembly for the very first time. In his speech, he spoke about the deals that the United States of America had been making, where they got nothing, and he expanded on the impact of these deals. Furthermore, he stated that, if North Korea became a bigger threat to the U.S. or its allies, the U.S. will be forced to “totally destroy” North Korea. Trump proceeded to call North Korean leader, Kim Jong-Un, “rocket man” to further insult his intellect and regime. The President also addressed the Iran deal, claiming it was one of the worst deals into which the U.S. ever entered, slave trade being a close second. The president pleaded the Iranian government to end its “pursuit of death.” President Trump also touched upon the Venezuelan socioeconomic crisis. Its causes are economic policy, crime, corruption, shortages, and political conflict, which all began since Hugo Chavez’ tenure. Trump called the U.N. to take action to save those who are starving and to save Venezuela’s dying institutions. In conclusion, Trump called these nations “rogue nations,” calling them embarrassments. President Trump’s speech was seen as outrageous because questions arose whether his speech was a breach of U.N. Charter, which, according to the New York Times, states that countries should “refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force” against another country. Fortunately, it was not, as he clarified that he would only “totally destroy” North Korea if it was forced to defend itself or its allies.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/19/world/americas/united-nations-general-assembly.html