When the United Nations Security Council
was created post-WWII, it allowed the 5 winners of the war to have permanent
seats and veto power. World War II ended
over 70 years ago, and these 5 countries are still the only ones with permanent
seats because along with being the winners of the war, they are also perceived as
the 5 most legitimate military powers in the world. The world has changed significantly since
World War II with the rapid increase of economic globalization and stabilization. The dominating economies and militaries in
the world today exceed the original 5, but there have been no changes to the permanent
security council seats. I believe that in order for the UN security council to
be more legitimate, the permanent members must be able to change to reflect the
world powers of the current time.
Globalization
has changed how countries interact with one another. The relationships between states now has a
direct correlation with trade agreements, industry, and outsourcing, among
others. The top 10 economies in the
world today do not even include all 5 of the permanent members of the Security
Council, and GDP per capita of other developed countries, like Germany and Japan,
far exceed that of Russia. To say that a
country like Japan is not on the same level, if not higher, economically and stably
than Russia would be incorrect.
Therefore, why cannot Japan (or another country per say) have a
permanent seat on the council? This is the long-standing debate.
With
a world more focused on global expansion and country economies than ever in the
past, I believe that in order for a country to have a permanent seat on the UN
Security Council, there must be two essential factors: (1) they must be one of
the top GDP per capita economies in the world and (2) their standard of
living/human rights should be very high.
The ideology pre-World War II was very militaristic centralized. Having the most powerful military was what constituted
a country to be the most powerful in the world.
This has shifted over the last 70 years toward economic power. The most powerful economies in the world are
now perceived as the most powerful countries in the world. Therefore, the Security Council must reflect
the shift in norms just as this ideology has.
The most stable countries are the ones with the most developed economies,
and these are the states that should have the most power in foreign security
debates.
The
biggest takeaway is this: the world and ideologies change over time, and institutions
like the UN Security Council must change along with them or else become illegitimate
in the eyes of the world. In order for
the UN Security Council to be the most effective it can be, it must have the
influence and backing of the most powerful countries in the world at the time. If this means changing, removing, or adding
permanent council members, the council must consider it and change the original
reasoning behind the 5 permanent members in order to gain legitimacy.
Another reason why the security council should change is that many of the other regions of the world are underrepresented. There is not one African, South American, or Middle Eastern country that has a permanent seat on the U.N. security council. It is difficult to Justify how the U.K. or France still has a permanent seat on the U.N. security council when countries like Germany and Japan have much bigger economies and a much greater influence in the world today. The five winners of World War II are no longer the most powerful in the world today. it would be a more legitimate council if each region of the world was better represented. Globalization has shifted the balance of power in the world, and the council has not updated its security council to reflect that. The U.N. was meant to represent the people of the world and to help the global crises of world hunger, disease, war, and many other things. It would be much more effective if each region was represented equally. The U.N., like other institutions of the world, must adapt or die if it is to survive an always changing world. If the U.N. refuses to adapt to the changes that are ongoing around it, it will die.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with this; every continent should have a permanent council member. The only foreseeable future problem I can see with this is how these permanent nations would have the ability to change. It is easy to add members but much more difficult to remove them or change them every few years if need be. No country is ever willing to give up significant power if they can help it.
DeleteAny removal of a country from the Security Council would immediately lead to a international crisis and could lead to the de-legitimization of the United Nations. The United Kingdom is often seen as a example of a country that has no business being on the SC. While the United Kingdom is not the same power it was during WW2 it still holds great international prestige. It is the head of the Commonwealth one of the largest international organizations in the world. It has a top ten economy and is a cultural juggernaut. I do agree that nations from each region of the world should be represented. A system where Africa has a pernmament seat that is occupied by a country with a 10 year term that was nominated by the majority of nations could work. This being process being applied to each region could be enough to make the security council more representative of the times.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this. I think that just because a country doesn't have a representative currently, doesn't mean they shouldn't. The UN stands for United Nations therefore, all of the nations should have an equal say because they are part of the world too and whatever happens in the rest of the world economy, also happens to them. Evolving over time is a natural human process and by keeping nations underrepresented, a disservice is being done to those who are represented and limiting the great potential power of this institution.
DeleteI agree with you that changing any permanent member on the SC would cause great upheaval, therefore there is no perfect way in which this could work. However, it is essential that in the future something is done to allow better worldwide representation on the council that way every region or continent feels represented and therefore keeping the SC legitimate.
Delete