The United Nations
(UN) was formed in 1945 in order to help facilitate international cooperation and
promote peace following WWII. Over time, the goals of the UN have evolved in
order to respond to the changing needs of the world population. The UN has many
strengths and has certainly facilitated many successful projects, particularly
the Millennium Development Goals. However, the structure of the UN itself is
inherently flawed, as the uneven distribution of power within the UN Security
Council does not allow it to function in the most productive or effective
manner.
The UN Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs) were created in 2000 with the support of all UN members
at the time, as well as many international organizations. The MDGs are composed
of eight individual goals that target some of the most pressing issues facing
the world today. Such issues include world hunger and poverty, gender
inequality, high child mortality rates, and environmental degradation. In order
to ensure improvement in each area, the UN set specific and detailed objectives
for each goal, with a target completion date in 2015. The UN met several of the goals ahead of
schedule, and made significant progress towards the completion of nearly all of
the MDGs.
For example, the
proportion of people living in extreme poverty was reduced from 46.7% in 1990
to 22% in 2010. In addition, the child mortality and maternal mortality rates
were significantly reduced, and the amount of people without access to safe
drinking water was cut in half. Although some critique the MDGs for not placing
enough focus on areas such as sustainable development, it is important to
acknowledge the substantial reforms that occurred as a result of the MDGs.
There is certainly more work that must be done, but it is difficult to deny
that the MDGs responded to a great deal of contemporary social issues in a
highly effective manner.
However, despite
the strength of the UN in regard to the MDGs, there are other aspects of the UN
that remain extremely flawed and severely detract from its value in the
international political sphere. In particular, the structure of the UN Security
Council greatly limits the degree to which the greater international community
can be involved in international affairs. The UN Security Council consists of 15
members who work together to address issues of peace and security on an
international level. However, only five of those members are permanent members with
veto power. The remaining ten are non-permanent members elected by the UN
General Assembly for two-year terms.
This uneven
distribution of power greatly favors the five permanent members – the United States , Russia ,
China , France, and England – and weakens
the voice of all non-permanent member states, thereby ensuring that the
interests of the five permanent members will always remain a priority during
the decision-making process. The rapid rotation of non-permanent members further
weakens their power, and creates a sense of instability within the Security
Council. In addition, the five permanent members represent wealthy, developed
countries. Therefore, the degree of power that they hold in the Security
Council serves to marginalize developing countries, and seems to imply that
greater wealth warrants greater power.
The UN is a very
complex international organization, with considerable strengths and weaknesses.
The success of the Millennium Development Goals highlights the power of the UN
to implement truly transformative global reforms. However, the structure of the
UN Security Council creates a disproportionate balance of power that weakens
the voice of many states, particularly developing countries. Therefore, the UN
must make substantial structural modifications in order to ensure that the
decisions made by the Security Council are truly representative of all actors
in the international community.
Sources:
"History of the United
Nations." UN News Center
"United Nations
Millennium Development Goals." UN
News Center
Harris, Rich, and Claire
Provost. "Millennium Development Goals: Big Ideas, Broken Promises?" The
Guardian, 24 Sept. 2013. Web.
<http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fglobal-development%2Finteractive%2F2013%2Fsep%2F24%2Fmillennium-development-goals-data-interactive>.
I thought your blog post was really interesting and informative. I, admittedly, was not familiar with the MDGs but from what I can tell in your post and your sources, they seem relatively successful and I like that the UN banded with other organizations to meet these goals. It sounds really progressive and it's a good example of the positive, meaningful task that has been effectively carried out by the UN. As for the power imbalance with the security council, I 100% agree. And you're right about the subtle implication that more money equates and justifies more power. I wonder what it would take for that change or be amended because the top five powers have no incentive to change the system and they hold the final say whether or not it's changed.
ReplyDeleteI think you make some great points about the structure of the UN. It clearly has some areas in which it does improve the overall global community and others where it should improve itself. I agree that there is definitely a glaring imbalance of power in the Security Council. However, shouldn't a permanent member like China whose population is over one billion people have more of a voice than a much smaller, less powerful, less populated state? Are there any other aspects of the UN that you would think require major reforms?
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree that countries with larger populations should have a stronger voice in the UN Security Council since more people will be affected by the decisions that are made. However, I think it can be very dangerous to give such a disproportionate amount of power to countries like China at the expense of smaller, poorer countries whose needs will most likely be overshadowed. I don't think that power in the Security Council needs to be completely evenly distributed among the members, but I do think that it should be more balanced than it currently is.
ReplyDeleteI think that the UN General Assembly could also undergo reforms in order to have a more effective impact on international issues. For example, the members of the GA only meet once a year, but they would be able to make decisions about a much broader range of issues if they met more frequently throughout the year.
Nicely written blog post Elishiva! I agree that the UN does strive in certain aspects, such as implementing particular programs, and I do agree that there is an unequal distribution of power. However, as unfair as this set-up is to developing nations, the system has been working, and I don't see any need to amend it. There will always be a more powerful state(s) that reigns superior authority, but this doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing. Developing countries could see this unequal distribution of power as their chance to step up their game. And yes, this is already a very difficult task given that their state is already struggling, however, all I'm saying is that this unequal distribution of power serves as motivation for lesser countries to try harder.
ReplyDeleteYou made very strong points on your blog, I was not aware of the weight that relies on those 5 permanent states on the Security Council. And how it has an effect on silencing the other members that rotate, within the coulcil.
ReplyDeleteSo far, I think the system that they have set up is working so far. Although, I do agree that they should be able to meet more than once for the General Assembly. I don't think meeting once a year, for a period of 2 weeks, will give that much time to address all important issues at hand.