Hi, can someone please proof read and give feedback thanks.
THE UN REFORMATION
In relevance to the Daley and Lionel article, this essay will argue that the United Nations Security Council needs to be scrutinized in order to play a more effective and representative role of 21st Century geopolitical. Firstly, this essay will discuss the problems associated with the power to veto. Secondly, this essay will discuss the need to increase the size of the Security Council to represent a geographical balance between in the member states. Finally, it will explain the need to construct the Security Council more transparent and effective. The UN should not be dismantled or diminished, but improved through the expansion of its powers.
Firstly, the most cited problem of the Security Council is the veto power. The Security Council veto is a power enjoyed by the five permanent members (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States), which enables the states to void any Council substantive resolution regardless of the level of general support. as the five members are able to prevent many issues from reaching the Council's agenda, the veto power is a problem as it constructs makes the council undemocratic and ineffective (Global Policy Forum 2005). By exercising the veto power, any permanent members can prevent the passage of a resolution not, and the simple threat of a veto may lead to changes in the text of a resolution. In addition, an actual or threatened veto often prevents the council from acting swiftly to address great international issues (Kennedy, Russett 1995:58). In order to make the Council a more effective and efficient mechanism, the power to veto must be restricted and eventually eliminated. Though, the Global Policy Forum argues that it cannot be done in the near future, given that abolishing the veto would be very unlikely to win the approval by the permanent five (Global Policy Forum 2005).
However, states must mobilize pressure and persuade the permanent members to limit the use of the veto power, especially when the threatened or hidden veto casts a constant shadow over the Council's proceedings, restricting its effectiveness. As a result, if member states want to see changes and have the UN playing a bigger role in the international realm, it is necessary to make some adjustments to the greatest states power.
Secondly, if the United Nations desires to have a more effective and responsible position, it needs to enhance its' geographically representation in the Council. The Council still reflects the global power structure of 1945, when most of today's nations were still under colonial rule (Mikhailitchenkom 2004:4). The five WWII allies were given such privileges at the time, as it was assumed that the big five were to be responsible for maintaining the peace and defeating aggressors, and therefore should control the use of UN forces (Morris 2005:8). However, times have changed and the members that were seen powerful in 1945 do not have a wider influence in the international realm as it used to.
Member states such as Brazil, India, Japan and Germany want a permanent seat in the Council, as its state geopolitical weight is more significant than the medium rank powers that hold vetoes in Council (Morris 2005:8). These states argue that it wants to increase its region representation to assure that matters on their part of the world are taken into consideration (Daley, Lionel 2006:35). Furthermore, many members recognize that the current UN structure gives too much power to rich nations, ignoring middle power and developing states and those who were not seen as powerful prior to the WWII (Mikhailitchenkom 2004:4). Disagreement on whether these states should be permanent or have veto power has become an obstacle to Council reform (Global Policy Forum 2005). Nevertheless, members oppose the creation of new permanent seats insisting that the Council should only be enlarged with new elected members. While others claim, that the enlargement would make the Council unwieldy and ineffective (Morris 2005:8). Nevertheless, despite having ten other elected members, the Security Council remains geographically unbalanced and seriously unrepresentative. The overall consensus in that the Security Council needs to be enlarged for it to be more representatives (Mikhailitchenkom 2004:5).
Finally, in recent years the Security Council has taken a number of steps to increase its efficiency and transparency. These reforms did not stir the amount of controversy as the debate on expansion of the Council has (Global Policy Forum 2005). Today's Council holds more effective public meetings and frequently consults with external non-council actors, including NGO. Furthermore, it publishes its program of work. It has also given other UN members the opportunity to speak before the Council and has made a special effort to enhance relations with troop contributing countries, meeting on a regular basis. In addition, the Council goes on missions to specific areas that are on its agenda. In order to increase the effectiveness of sanctions, Council members have set up a sanctions monitoring mechanism. At the administrative level, the Secretariat has launched a website, which provides easy access to the Council's discussions and decisions (Global Policy Forum 2005).
However, it is argued that much remains in progress. For the Council to become a preventive rather than a reactive UN body, it needs to gather information from external actors and other UN mechanisms far more efficiently and further increase transparency of its proceedings. So the argument goes that the Council must not only abolish its temporary rules of procedure but also adopt standing rule. Also, it must hold more open meetings. It is also claimed, that it must consider ways to draw support from the Secretariat and to have a more institutionalized presidency. Indeed, it is eminent that the Council increases its transparencies but with the veto power held by the permanent members makes it very difficult for any rapid, radical changes.
In conclusion, as the permanent five members hold the power to veto, it prevents a numerous issues from reaching the Council's agenda. This arrangement makes the Council not only undemocratic but also ineffective. The balance of the UN has become unbalanced as medium rank powers hold Council vetoes while other members possess a more significant geopolitical weight have no voice. This highlights that the Security Council still remains geographically unbalanced and seriously unrepresentative. Over the recent years, the UN has made some effort in trying to improve its efficiency and transparency but it is evident that still it is not good enough, as much more can be done with the permanent five ever decides to cooperate to reform the UN for the better future and serve as a greater tool in the international arena.
THE UN REFORMATION
In relevance to the Daley and Lionel article, this essay will argue that the United Nations Security Council needs to be scrutinized in order to play a more effective and representative role of 21st Century geopolitical. Firstly, this essay will discuss the problems associated with the power to veto. Secondly, this essay will discuss the need to increase the size of the Security Council to represent a geographical balance between in the member states. Finally, it will explain the need to construct the Security Council more transparent and effective. The UN should not be dismantled or diminished, but improved through the expansion of its powers.
Firstly, the most cited problem of the Security Council is the veto power. The Security Council veto is a power enjoyed by the five permanent members (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States), which enables the states to void any Council substantive resolution regardless of the level of general support. as the five members are able to prevent many issues from reaching the Council's agenda, the veto power is a problem as it constructs makes the council undemocratic and ineffective (Global Policy Forum 2005). By exercising the veto power, any permanent members can prevent the passage of a resolution not, and the simple threat of a veto may lead to changes in the text of a resolution. In addition, an actual or threatened veto often prevents the council from acting swiftly to address great international issues (Kennedy, Russett 1995:58). In order to make the Council a more effective and efficient mechanism, the power to veto must be restricted and eventually eliminated. Though, the Global Policy Forum argues that it cannot be done in the near future, given that abolishing the veto would be very unlikely to win the approval by the permanent five (Global Policy Forum 2005).
However, states must mobilize pressure and persuade the permanent members to limit the use of the veto power, especially when the threatened or hidden veto casts a constant shadow over the Council's proceedings, restricting its effectiveness. As a result, if member states want to see changes and have the UN playing a bigger role in the international realm, it is necessary to make some adjustments to the greatest states power.
Secondly, if the United Nations desires to have a more effective and responsible position, it needs to enhance its' geographically representation in the Council. The Council still reflects the global power structure of 1945, when most of today's nations were still under colonial rule (Mikhailitchenkom 2004:4). The five WWII allies were given such privileges at the time, as it was assumed that the big five were to be responsible for maintaining the peace and defeating aggressors, and therefore should control the use of UN forces (Morris 2005:8). However, times have changed and the members that were seen powerful in 1945 do not have a wider influence in the international realm as it used to.
Member states such as Brazil, India, Japan and Germany want a permanent seat in the Council, as its state geopolitical weight is more significant than the medium rank powers that hold vetoes in Council (Morris 2005:8). These states argue that it wants to increase its region representation to assure that matters on their part of the world are taken into consideration (Daley, Lionel 2006:35). Furthermore, many members recognize that the current UN structure gives too much power to rich nations, ignoring middle power and developing states and those who were not seen as powerful prior to the WWII (Mikhailitchenkom 2004:4). Disagreement on whether these states should be permanent or have veto power has become an obstacle to Council reform (Global Policy Forum 2005). Nevertheless, members oppose the creation of new permanent seats insisting that the Council should only be enlarged with new elected members. While others claim, that the enlargement would make the Council unwieldy and ineffective (Morris 2005:8). Nevertheless, despite having ten other elected members, the Security Council remains geographically unbalanced and seriously unrepresentative. The overall consensus in that the Security Council needs to be enlarged for it to be more representatives (Mikhailitchenkom 2004:5).
Finally, in recent years the Security Council has taken a number of steps to increase its efficiency and transparency. These reforms did not stir the amount of controversy as the debate on expansion of the Council has (Global Policy Forum 2005). Today's Council holds more effective public meetings and frequently consults with external non-council actors, including NGO. Furthermore, it publishes its program of work. It has also given other UN members the opportunity to speak before the Council and has made a special effort to enhance relations with troop contributing countries, meeting on a regular basis. In addition, the Council goes on missions to specific areas that are on its agenda. In order to increase the effectiveness of sanctions, Council members have set up a sanctions monitoring mechanism. At the administrative level, the Secretariat has launched a website, which provides easy access to the Council's discussions and decisions (Global Policy Forum 2005).
However, it is argued that much remains in progress. For the Council to become a preventive rather than a reactive UN body, it needs to gather information from external actors and other UN mechanisms far more efficiently and further increase transparency of its proceedings. So the argument goes that the Council must not only abolish its temporary rules of procedure but also adopt standing rule. Also, it must hold more open meetings. It is also claimed, that it must consider ways to draw support from the Secretariat and to have a more institutionalized presidency. Indeed, it is eminent that the Council increases its transparencies but with the veto power held by the permanent members makes it very difficult for any rapid, radical changes.
In conclusion, as the permanent five members hold the power to veto, it prevents a numerous issues from reaching the Council's agenda. This arrangement makes the Council not only undemocratic but also ineffective. The balance of the UN has become unbalanced as medium rank powers hold Council vetoes while other members possess a more significant geopolitical weight have no voice. This highlights that the Security Council still remains geographically unbalanced and seriously unrepresentative. Over the recent years, the UN has made some effort in trying to improve its efficiency and transparency but it is evident that still it is not good enough, as much more can be done with the permanent five ever decides to cooperate to reform the UN for the better future and serve as a greater tool in the international arena.
