According to the charter of the United Nations, one of the
central purposes of this organization is “to maintain international peace and
security.” This is where the UN Security Council holds importance. It meets
whenever peace is threatened; with all members of the UN in agreement to follow
the decisions made by the Council. However, with an imbalanced distribution of
power in the Security Council it raises the question of whether or not this is
a fair or effective means of maintaining peace.
Consisting
of 15 members, the UN Security Council’s main purpose is to maintain peaceful
relations between states. This is achieved by mitigating disputes so that
states may reach an agreement and settle the dispute peacefully. In the event
that a dispute leads to hostilities the Security Council aims to bring an end
to them as quickly as possible. This is all well and good in concept. However,
the power is notably unequal in the context of these 15 members. Of these 15, 5
members are permanently appointed to the council, those being: China, France,
Russia, the UK, and the United States. The remaining 10 members are
non-permanent members that are elected to the Council by the General Assembly
for a two tear term period. The current non-permanent members consist of Chad,
Rwanda, and Jordan, among others.
Despite the
fact that each member is allotted one vote, we still see an imbalance in two
glaring aspects of the Council. For one thing, the 5 permanent states have the
power of veto. This power, however, is reserved solely for these 5 members, not
the other 10. Aside from this there are over 60 member states of the United
Nations that have never been elected to the Security Council. In other words,
there are over 60 states that have not been able to vote on matters of
international conflict resolution. While states like China and the US have had
permanent status on the Council, states like Haiti and Estonia have yet to have
their turns. That is not to say that these states have no influence, however. States
that are not members of the Council may still participate in discussions if
their interests are affected, they just cannot vote. This participation in
discussion could serve as some consolation for not having the privilege to
vote.
This imbalance
of power reflects a view expressed by realist theory. That being, that international
organizations like the UN are nothing more than a manifestation of powerful states.
This concept explains the 5 permanent members on the Council. Why do the United
States and Russia have permanent seats on the council while Rwanda’s term ends
this year? The answer is obvious. The United States and Russia are significantly
more powerful than Rwanda; therefore they are allotted more influence. They are
allowed the power to veto decisions as well as to retain membership on the
Council indefinitely because they are so powerful. Although this system may emphasize
the interests of the permanent members over the nonpermanent/non-Council members,
one cannot lose sight of the big picture. Uzbekistan has never been appointed
to be a Council member. However, should Uzbekistan have the same influence as a
much larger, much more powerful state like China? Doesn’t China deserve to have
a permanent seat on the Council with more influence than other, less powerful
states?
At the end
of the day it is difficult to say one way or the other if the Security Council
operates fairly and effectively. Less powerful states have much less influence
while powerful countries like the US have plenty. Despite the fact that the
power distribution of the Council is clearly imbalanced, it is unclear if
creating a more equal distribution would be beneficial to all members involved.
Sources:
"Current Members." UN News Center. UN,
n.d. Web. 8 Nov. 2014. <http://www.un.org/en/sc/members/>.
"What Is the Security Council?" UN News
Center. UN, n.d. Web. 8 Nov. 2014. <http://www.un.org/en/sc/about/>.
The structure of the security council is the perfect critique of the UN and you presented it very well. And you touch on the fact that the UN is a manifestation of states' power, which is really important to understand when evaluating these global organizations and their intentions. And obviously the US and Russia hold more power than Rwanda, which would be an issue even if you distributed power more evenly within the council. The US and Russia have the money and resources to carry out these humanitarian efforts. Because the UN is a manifestation of their power, they still, even if you change the power structure of the council, have a say in whether or not they want to invest in these efforts. It's kind of a tough thing to solve, at least the way I look at it because their is no high authority that could unilaterally decide how the security council functions.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it is definitely a tricky situation with no clear solution as to how the Council should function. Perhaps the power should be distributed by a population basis in which case even smaller, less powerful states like Rwanda would still have a voice.
ReplyDeleteNicely written Thomas! Nice connection to realist theory. I completely agree that there is a clear imbalance of power in the UN security council. However, the system has been working thus far hasn't it? Why should we change it?
ReplyDeleteThis is a very well-written argument, and I agree with a lot of your points! I think you did a good job explaining how the structure of the UN Security Council is reflective of realist theory. Although I believe that the current structure of the Security Council is unfair for many countries, I also agree with your point that it is important to look at the bigger picture. It makes sense that countries with more global influence should have more power in the Security Council.
ReplyDeleteWell thought out arguments Thomas. I completely agree with how disproportional the balance of power is within the UN. But I think it is important to keep in mind that, like you said those permanent pisitions are for great powers. Therefore, why should small states like Rwanda have a veto power, that weights as much as the US..? However, I do see how the smaller states don't get their voice heard and how it affects their own agenda. Nice job on the blog/
ReplyDelete