The United Nations
offers a platform for international discussion and cooperation. But its
effectiveness is often highly debated. No matter how effective one believes
this institution to be there is always room for improvement. The United Nations
will only be as effective and powerful as the states involved perceive it to
be. What we should take away from this is the fact that we as actors in a state
have the power to give this institution as much or as little legitimacy as we
see fit. This means that regardless of ones belief as to whether it serves as
an effective forum for change, it can always be changed to reflect the
consensus of the given population of people at the time. This means that this
institution has the ability to adapt to the needs of the international
community. The soft power that open discussion generates is the most powerful
tool that the United Nations offers the global community. In this way the
sharing of ideas and information allows rational decisions to be made about
when to deploy hard power. In order to access the United Nation’s full
potential it would be logical to include as many different voices/ viewpoints
as possible. This is where I see the most impactful change could be made.
The way in which
the United Nation’s permanent members only consist of the United States,
Russia, China, France, and England is what I see to be the biggest component of
the institution that could be changed. With the council needing no vetoes to
pass anything, the conflicting views of these contrasting states often end in
no action being taken. To amend this stagnating system of the UN, either
more semi permanent members should be added, or a logical system for choosing
more permanent members should be enacted. The voting structure is a bit less
clear on how one should go about adjusting it. Saying that one country could
veto a proposal, and it could still pass could lead to all the other countries
in the UN ganging up against one country. Although for this to happen I imagine
the country vetoing the action would be either in very clear violation of some
fundamental rights issue, or protecting an ally that was. This is not to
dismiss the power of discussion, but history tends to remember action better
than words.
There are so many more
valuable countries, cultures, and people who aren’t being included in this
institution’s practices. In the ever more integrated and globalized world
community it is essential that we continue to discuss important matters with
the majority of the world in order to continue to strive towards peace and
cooperation. The most powerful tool that the United Nations uses is the
legitimacy it brings to the issues that countries bring forth. Their soft power
can often prevent the need for hard power. By diversifying this institution we
could grow the potential for soft power to dominate world conflict resolution
and help the global community effectively communicate.
Amanda, very well done post! You clearly present the issues you deem problematic with the power structure of the UN and you offer possible ways in which the UN can resolve these problems. I agree with you that I think there needs to be some kind of shift in the power structure on the other hand, I’m unsure how one would be able to instill these changes. The big 5 countries that have the veto power in the UN are currently (arguably) the strongest/most dominant of the world powers therefore wouldn’t it make sense that they have more say in the UN’s decisions? I’m not saying that I agree with these 5 countries basically controlling the UN, however I also don’t believe that a very small country with little to bring to the UN’s table should have just as much power as say, China. I think the only way to fix these issues is by restructuring the UN and instilling new provisions on how much power each country has in the UN's decision making process.
ReplyDeleteAmanda,
ReplyDeleteThis is a nice post. You do a really good job of establishing your point, which is that the permanent five members in the UN do not represent all of the views of other countries in the world. While this viewpoint is strong, I feel that the permanent five listens to non-permanent members. Non-permanent members, even smaller countries, have at least some voice. This voice may not have a significant impact, but there is potential for the permanent five to seriously consider these voices. To go along with this, smaller nations may not have the ability to carry out any proposals; they may not have enough resources to take action. In that sense, I agree with what Emily is saying.Great powers represent the views of the international community - or do they? I think this a key question that needs to be addressed in the world today. The permanent five has no representative from the Southern Hemisphere, and this could lead to potential bias. This whole issue is complicated and needs to be discussed in the world today. All countries have the potential to make a difference in the international community. I think that if we are to keep the permanent five, we have to make sure all voices in the world are heard. I think there are pros and cons to each argument. Do you think "diversifying this institution", as you write, will lead to more organization, or less? This has the potential to complicate things in the UN, and I am curious to see what you think about that. It is possible that smaller nations could grow competitive with one another, and this could create chaos where everyone wants to have veto power and be a permanent member
Hi Amanda,
ReplyDeleteWonderful post! It is very well articulated and thought out. One of the things that most stood out to me was a single sentence early on in your post: we as actors in a state have the power to give this institution as much or as little legitimacy as we see fit. This made me wonder about how those in power in the U.N. will certainly want to make it as legitimate as possible but how those marginalized in the institution will either want it to be legitimate so as to benefit from its protection, or want it to be illegitimate so as to create space for reform that will give more power to those without it now. I suppose this all revolves around how realist your views are, but I was curious, do you think the less powerful members of institutions would desire legitimacy for it or not?
Amanda,
ReplyDeleteI think this was a well thought out blog. I would like to point out your suggestion of changing how much power the five major countries in the UN have. I agree with this statement the most because the power that they hold in the UN sets up those countries to make decisions that are best for them and therefore the most impact in the UN is for those countries. I think more of a distribution of power will cause benefits for the entire world rather than more specifically for those five countries.