Should the UN have the "big five"?

DeletedUser5819

Guest
The UN exists as a useful way for the big guys to get around a table and talk to each other without declaring war on each other or popping polonium in each other's drinks.

It is only going to work if they want to be there and the benefits for them outweigh the downsides. Taking away the veto would take this away too, and one or more of the important players would cease to be part of it.

So yeah, in a perfect world there would be no veto. In a perfect world there would be no need for anything like UN is or should be, so its moot.

The UN gives the world some benefits by its existence and is therefore worth preserving. We all also get the upside of being able to criticise and point fun at it in return. Its not like they are kidding anyone, after all.
 

DeletedUser50332

Guest
The nature and composition of the UN stems back to the end of the Second World War, and the subsequent Cold War as we know. However, the world has evolved and developed since then, and the once twin Superpowers - or even lone Superpower - have seen their power wane. In its place, power has become more diffuse, and as already noted other countries could be strong contenders for their involvement in the security Council; such as, India, Brazil, Germany, Japan, etc. But then why stop there? Why replace one artificial construct with another? Hence, my support of the original proposition in this thread.

However, the problem (and debate) should not be limited to the Security Council. There is a wider problem - not only in relation to the previous posts around Rwanda and Srebrenica - but to the legitimacy of the whole UN project in its current form. In part, this is a natural phenomenon that occurs between hierarchical bureaucracies and the people it is meant to serve; that there is a degree of opaqueness, rather than openness. The European Union is another good example. For both institutions, a much wider ranging debate is required.

The chances of such a wider debate with organisations that are far more representative is, sadly, unlikely. As we will see in the up-and-coming debate in Britain around the European Union, government sets out the context within which the debate will take place. We will then witness media organisations, as they articulate the views of their parent company or owner, engaging in a well-worn frenzy of hyperbole upon their usual subjects of disgruntlement. Whilst media outlets will be following their own agenda's, this will be presented to the public as what the public think: it will be packaged as 'common sense'.

Both institutions are in need of open re-appraisal. However, as we will see with the British debate on Europe, it will foreclose any real or meaningful debate. What we would be left with is to be told what our opinions are, and any opportunity for wider input into the nature and purpose of any such institution would be lost.
 
Top