Reforming the UN

Tim3003

The Ukraine crisis has highlighted the impotence of the UN. Despite Russia violating it's core principle by invading another member state it effectively cannot be sanctioned. Given the fact that the Russian people are kept in the dark by Putin's regime, the one event that could get the reality of the war through to them is the expulsion of Russia from the UN. Putin could not just put this down to Nato aggression since dozens of other countries would presumably have voted for it too. Currently expulsion is impossible as Russia is a permanent member of the Security Council. The question then is how can the UN be reformed, and into what new form, so that it becomes fit for purpose?

The Security Council's list of permanent members - China, France, Russia, the UK and the US dates from 1945, and by now surely needs reconsidering at least. Shouldn't permanent membership and those members' vetos be abolished? (I understand from France 24 - April 26th that there has now been a full membership vote, and the permanent members will have to explain and justify any use of the veto henceforth. But this is non-binding, so will it make a difference?)

If not how can any radical change be effected when a member affected can veto it? Maintenance of the status quo and this absurd Catch-22 surely pushes the UN towards insignificance other than in peace-keeping roles, and that would benefit only the Putins and Assads of the world.

SpaceDweller

I think problem is that reforming the UN such that certain countries can be cast out, would mean "not a UN" any more but rather a group of countries governed by influence of those who are able to change rules as they wish.

I like sushi

↪Tim3003

It is a decent idea that does some good. At least nations can attempt to talk within the idea of a unified front.

It is not a complete failure or it would no longer exist. I just think too many people look in from outside expecting it to be something it is not.

I like sushi

how can any radical change be effected when a member affected can veto it? — Tim3003

Who wants radical change? To benefit whom? It serves as a means of bridging gaps and has helped some situations. It is not a government nor an independent body with its own needs and wants.

ssu

Shouldn't permanent membership and those members' vetos be abolished? — Tim3003

First answer this: which organization has been more effective: the UN or the League of Nations before it?

The veto power of the major countries in the UN was directly made because of what had been learnt from the league of nations. I think there was a reason why they did that: in order for powerful countries to play ball, for starters.

Manuel

Yes. I think the Security Council ought to be dismantled, it's essentially a way for powerful nations to ignore whatever international laws they do not like, especially during war time.

There's no need to pretend this council does good at all.

The General Assembly should be given more legal authority, as it is more democratic and hence more representative of world opinion.

Tim3003

how can any radical change be effected when a member affected can veto it? — Tim3003

Who wants radical change? To benefit whom? It serves as a means of bridging gaps and has helped some situations. It is not a government nor an independent body with its own needs and wants. — I like sushi

Globalisation has changed the world totally from 1945. If problems like global warming are to be tackled, it has to be by all in-sync, not on a country by country basis; or autocratic leaders like Putin, Bolsonaro and Trump - if he wins, will just do all they can to delay progress for their own gain. A UN with power and support from its smaller members would be able properly to lead the world, and hold rogue nations to account - if only in the court of public opinion. As I said re Putin, it would be hard for him to explain away to his people a strong sanction, voted on by the world, against the Ukraine invasion. The same would be true for countries clearly back-sliding on their COP-26 pledges.

I think the future is in a greater concentration of power in a global government, like that evolving within the EU. The EU has kept the peace in Europe since WW2 - excepting Russian incursions.

I like sushi

↪Tim3003

How would it be hard for Putin to explain away anything? That makes no sense whatsoever.

When it comes to direct conflict the UN acts as a mediator as best it can. Putting troop son the ground but not to fight in the Ukraine would solve what issues? Centralising power on a global scale would help how? If it would help in some ways (I am sure there are plenty of possible positives) then at what cost? Would the negatives outweigh the positives?

As for global warming the issue is not really in the hands of the government at all. Corporations and public interest rule while governments are generally there to ‘serve the people’. Expecting countries like India to step up on the climate change proposals is ridiculous because it would mean greater poverty in a country where abject poverty is a serious issue already.

The UN is not a nation, the idea of ‘nation’ is silly imo. Either way, I have no idea how you the UN can implement a ‘radical change’ or what that change would look like.

The UN tries to raise standards of living around the globe (has succeeded in many cases) and one important role they play is in educating young women (that will have a tremendous knock-on effect for climate change, the world economy and peace in general.

To radicalise the UN into a military force (which seems to be what is being hinted at here?) is utterly stupid and dangerous.

ssu

Yes. I think the Security Council ought to be dismantled, it's essentially a way for powerful nations to ignore whatever international laws they do not like, especially during war time.

There's no need to pretend this council does good at all.

The General Assembly should be given more legal authority, as it is more democratic and hence more representative of world opinion. — Manuel

Then there's the pitfall where the League of Nations fell into. Or in what the ICC has fallen into. Meaning that the Great Powers can be happy to use these organizations to their favour, but won't tolerate them to be judged by them. The US is and it's relationship with the ICC is a great example.

If (or when) Great Powers like the US, China or Russia simply boycott the organization then, there organization falls into even worse situation. It should be noted that just to keep countries like Russia, China or the US in the UN is very important.

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSmHKKqgc6u0gG09OozwX6rtppKNxU1-yyobg&usqp=CAU

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSmHKKqgc6u0gG09OozwX6rtppKNxU1-yyobg&usqp=CAU

And then there's the question of who pays for the organizations expenses:

Kevin Tan

↪Tim3003

I'd say we have to increase the size of the Security Council. To represent the entire Earth as much as possible. My suggestion: Brazil, South-Africa, Saudi Arabia, Australia, and India.

Tzeentch

The fact that Russia (or indeed any country with a veto) is able to block security resolutions that it feels undermine its strategic interest is a sign that the United Nations is functioning exactly as it should, in that it seeks to avoid powerful nations being backed into a corner where their only way out is more violence; something that would be an inevitable result of excluding certain nations from the UN and counter to its founding principles.

Whether we like certain countries' policies and actions or not, their strategic interests are extremely revelant for world peace and that understanding seems to be completely lacking in this thread.

Tim3003

Whether we like certain countries' policies and actions or not, their strategic interests are extremely revelant for world peace and that understanding seems to be completely lacking in this thread. — Tzeentch

In what way is Russia's invasion of Ukraine relevant to World peace - other than negatively?! The veto allows Russia to put its 'strategic interest' (ie Putin's vanity and megalomania) first and world peace second. It allows any dictator to act unchallenged by the UN, which seems to me to undermine its whole purpose.

Tzeentch

↪Tim3003

If we choose to ignore powerful countries' strategic interests, such as has happened in Ukraine with Russia, we invite war. To me that's not a matter of right and wrong, but of cause and effect.

If we want a peaceful world, powerful nations will need to have their strategic interests secure and not threatened.

Using a veto in the UN is a way for a powerful nation to say "This threatens my strategic interests", and thus is a proponent to a more peaceful world.

Of course, if we ignore these things and simply continue to threaten strategic interests anyway, we invite war. If we then take away all avenues of conflict resolution besides violence, we invite more war, etc.

Tim3003

↪Tzeentch

Your promotion of the term 'strategic interests' ignores the reasonableness or not of those interests. If Putin's idea of Russia's strategic interest is total world subjugation to his rule, does that mean the UN should allow him his veto? Your vision will surely promote regional conflict as large powers vie to enlarge their empires, secure in the knowledge that they can't be threatened. And what happens when those expanding empires run up against eachothers' borders? We end up with the world of Orwell's 1984, with 4 or 5 continental super-states, and war always on the horizon. I thought the UN was a tool for peace..

Tzeentch

Your promotion of the term 'strategic interests' ignores the reasonableness or not of those interests. — Tim3003

The reasonableness doesn't need to be taken into account at all. Whatever judgement we pass on the reasonableness of a nation's strategic interest, the fact of the matter is that they will pursue those interests regardless of our judgement.

All we can do is take note and act accordingly.

Ignoring them invites war.

I thought the UN was a tool for peace. — Tim3003

The United Nations are a means of communication between nations. Communication facilitates peace, but it cannot cause it unless the nations of the world want peace.

That's why kicking nations out of the UN is a terrible idea. It cuts off diplomatic routes, leaving violence as the only option.

And the reason certain countries, including Russia, have a veto in the UNSC, is because the founders of the UN realized the danger of backing nuclear-armed state actors into a corner.

Your vision will surely promote regional conflict ... — Tim3003

I've not proposed a vision. I've explained to you why the United Nations work the way they do.

Maybe the way the UN operates does in some way turn a blind eye on regional conflicts (mostly it just lacks the power to avoid it), but I'm not convinced there's a suitable alternative. Kicking nations out of the UN is certainly not it.

Manuel

↪ssu

Yeah sure, any reform is going to have problems and issues. But the current UN could be improved by making it more democratic, in some manner.

ssu

↪Manuel

I think then one possibility is to enlargen the security council.

Reforming the UN

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories