Whitney
Lazo
November
7, 13
Problems With the United Nations
The veto power of the Security
Council of the United Nations is too strong and should not be permanent. The
great powers that won World War II are definitely worthy and respectable.
However, this does not mean that they should hold this position forever. China,
France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States may be trustworthy
due to their successful states, but they may also hold values that are not
beneficial to the purpose of the United Nations. In addition, one or more of
these states may in the future adopt corrupt ideals and they will still hold
the permanent veto power. I propose a rotation for the five permanent members
of the Security Council every ten years to be chosen by the top twenty most
respectable states in the world. This way the five elected states will still be
among the most successful and no state will have veto power if they do not
deserve it.
The veto power has a huge impact on
the operation of the UN Security Council and for one of these nations to have
the ability to shut down a proposal of establishment of peace or military force
in order to maintain security could be detrimental to the world. It is not safe to give five states this power
because these states may be biased and not do the right thing for others in
need around the world. I do believe there needs to be some sort of leadership
in the Security Council, which is why I propose having five members with veto
power for a decade at a time. It is important to change the Security Council to
give other leading nations a chance to direct their voting power towards the
good of the world and help nations that the previous five members turned down.
This rotation will help change where the UN directs their help and assistance so that nations that are not getting the help they need may have an opportunity. It will get rid of permanent biases and still maintain organizations and checks on the Council. Supporters of the UN Security Council veto power may say that this program needs leadership and that these five nations are the best nations to promote the goals of the Security Council. However, there are other nations suitable for the job and it is important to give them a chance. The UN promotes equality and fairness and this certainly does not represent those values.
This rotation will help change where the UN directs their help and assistance so that nations that are not getting the help they need may have an opportunity. It will get rid of permanent biases and still maintain organizations and checks on the Council. Supporters of the UN Security Council veto power may say that this program needs leadership and that these five nations are the best nations to promote the goals of the Security Council. However, there are other nations suitable for the job and it is important to give them a chance. The UN promotes equality and fairness and this certainly does not represent those values.
I think you do a very good job of explaining why the same 5 states having veto power is a bad thing. You proposed that the top 20 respectable states will choose every 10 years who will have veto power, but you didn't explain how this process will work or how you will decide what 20 states will be able to decide the veto power.
ReplyDeleteVery well written paper. I like how proposed your own idea of the 20 states voting every decade for the 5 most powerful countries. Though i think this a good idea because I see how the veto power is a bit strong, don't you think that the countries voted for would be similar to ones in leadership now. They are the most powerful countries and therefore would probably still be the ones chosen.
ReplyDeleteI thought you did a good job proving your points. I disagree with some though. First of all I do not think the states in the security council currently will develop corrupt ideas as that would be irrational. Also, if there was a choosing of the security council by the 20 most respectable states I believe it would generally be the same states that are in control now. either that or every state would vote for themselves and get the UN no where. This is why I believe the current UN security council is fine.
ReplyDelete