Many
people have lots of criticisms of the United Nations with some questioning
their relevance to the world. I believe that the United Nations is still
relevant but they need to fix some issues.
First of all, I think it would be a
bad idea for the United Nations to add more permanent members to the Security
Council. If too many countries are added to the original five permanent
members, then it gives more countries the power to veto. Too many countries
with the power to veto could lead to the United Nations getting absolutely
nothing done and becoming irrelevant to the world. For example, if four more
permanent members were added to the Security Council, it would become hard to
get everyone to agree to intervene in a crisis. It can already be hard enough
for the United Nations to intervene in some situations with just five members;
more than that would only make matters worse.
Secondly, I think the United Nations
president should be able to get more of a say than he already does. Maybe if
the President could be more a part of the decision to intervene in a situation,
then the United Nations would get more involved on certain issues. Even if the
President could override a veto whatever decision the Security Council made or
if he had more power, then people may be less critical of the United Nations
with them being able to be active on more pressing issues.
One thing the United Nations needs
to do is to avoid ending up like the League of Nations. The League of Nations
had too many people with veto power and many countries decided to leave before
it was dissolved in 1946. Similar to the United Nations, the winners of World
War One were the founders of the League of Nations. In addition, too many
members of the League of Nations had veto power which ended up causing some
problems for the organization. Woodrow Wilson, United States President, may have
been the creator of the League of Nations, but the United States wanted nothing
to do with it and that was another problem for the organization. Without
American help, it was destined to fail. If the United States were to leave the
United Nations, other countries could follow which would lead to the fall and
irrelevance of the United Nations. Right now the United States is committed to
the UnitedNations and is the major source of funds. The main goal of the League
of Nations was to prevent another world war, but unfortunately, it was unable
to do so. Even with the criticisms of the United Nations, at least the organization
has been able to prevent another world war so far.
In one situation, for example,
Kosovo, the United Nations should have been stricter with their ceasefire demands,
but the United States and North Atlantic Treaty Organization stepped in without
United Nation approval and resolved the crisis.
The United Nations can become better
if the President is given more power; then they might be taken more seriously
by some critics. They are still relevant to the world, and it will be around
for a long time.
The current main functions of the United Nations isn't to always intervene in every military conflict that arises. Although that is precisely what the UN Security Council was meant for. The other two functions of the UN besides maintaining international peace and prosperity is to solve social, economic, and political problems through international cooperation and to promote human rights.
ReplyDeleteI disagree that the United Nations should not add more permanent members to the Security Council. Though this may not be the appropriate course of action at the moment, I do think that the UN Security Council gives too much power to a small portion of countries in the world. The way the UN Security Council makes decisions with this small percentage of countries makes the UN Security Council appear unfair and biased. I also think that if a permanent seat were to be added to the UN Security Council, Africa should be given a seat.
ReplyDeleteSomething that hasn't been mentioned which I think should be is that the United Nations may only have 5 permanent members with veto power, but 10 other members are active at any given time and are given a voice in the discussions. It is not as if all other United Nations members are completely excluded from the discussions. Also I think a problem that could arise from having a UN President with more power is the same problem that is present right now with having so few permanent Security Council members. It would be a very few voices, or in this case one voice, speaking on a variety of issues that impact many member nations. The idea as a proposal to balance the power of the Security Council however is very justified and well thought out.
ReplyDelete