My writing is making progress now; UN dysfunction, and a plan of mine to alleviate it

Like the title says, my writing is making progress. Work and school are easing up a bit, and the finals for my classes shouldn't be too difficult.

In any case, my World Politics class is what leads me to the meat of this post.

Why is the UN dysfunctional, and what can be done to fix it?

The United Nations was formed on October 24, 1945 as a sort of global forum to aid international cooperation and promote peace. It started with 51 member states, and now there are 193 member states. Resolutions passed by the General Assembly are entirely nonbinding with regards to UN member states, as are most of the organization's resolutions. Still, its role as a global forum is beyond invaluable to all member states, benefiting everyone from superpowers like the United States of America to underdeveloped nations like Angola.

Now, the UN has six main sections. One of them is obsolete and thus inactive, so I won't bother with it. Of those remaining five, I'm only focusing on the United Nations General Assembly and United Nations Security Council. Most of the focus is on the UN Security Council.

- UN General Assembly: The main deliberative assembly. This is the part of the UN you see the most in popular culture and the media. Resolutions passed by it are non-binding, but generally represent the will of those for them. The most recent major item to pass through here was a resolution recommending an International Criminal Court investigation and prosecution of Eternal President Kim Il-Sung Dear Leader Kim Jong-Il Honorable Boy (?) Kim Jong-Un over human rights abuses in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea; it passed 111-for to 19-against, with 55 abstentions. This puts the ball in the UNSC's court, as they have the final say on recommending a case to the ICC. While Russia and China could be expected to veto the resolution because of their close proximity to the unstable nuclear-armed hermit nation, the high level of support for the resolution puts pressure on them. North Korea's recent charm offensive may also play into this.

- UN Security Council: The branch for deciding certain resolutions for peace and security, it is most known for its role in economic sanctions regarding Iran and North Korea. As mentioned above, they have the final say in referring individuals to the International Criminal Court, making them the only method of trying an individual unless they appear motu proprio.

The UNSC authorized intervention in the Korean Peninsula when North Korea invaded South Korea in 1950; Russia would've vetoed the resolution, had they not been boycotting the UN at the time to protest the Republic of China (AKA Taiwan) holding one of the permanent council seats over their then-ally the People's Republic of China. When the RoC was replaced on the Security Council by the PRC, the RoC was flat-out kicked out of the United Nations and replaced with the PRC

Since the UN was founded, there have always been fifteen members of the Security Council.

There are five permanent members, all of them members of the Allies in World War 2, and each with the ability to veto any resolution that passes through:*
Countries in red have been replaced since the UN's inception
- United States of America
- United Kingdom
- France
- Soviet Union (1945-1991)
- Russian Federation (1991-present)
- Republic of China (1945-1971)
- People's Republic of China (1971-present)

Additionally, there are ten non-permanent members who lack veto ability and each serve two-year terms on the Security Council, with five replaced each year. Here is the current list, and the year their term ends:

Argentina (2014)
Australia (2014)
Luxembourg (2014)
Republic of Korea (2014)
Rwanda (2014)
Chad (2015)
Chile (2015)
Jordan (2015)
Lithuania (2015)
Nigeria (2015)

The balance of power on the Security Council favors the West 3-to-2, but the East frequently vetoes or abstains from what they don't like, and so does the West. Thusly, it often becomes First World vs Second World.

The terms "First World", "Second World" and "Third World" originated during the Cold War. First World referred to NATO/Western-aligned countries, Second World to Warsaw Pact/Eastern-aligned countries, and Third World to countries aligned with neither.

What's more, once of the permanent members, France, is now somewhat ill-equipped to be a UNSC member. Yeah, they're a nuclear power, have lots of diplomatic ability, and they've been more assertive militarily than they were before, which is a good thing in my book. But their economy is in rough shape, there's a lot of political infighting and backbiting even compared to the US, and their military is lackluster.

If the paradigm of fifteen members, five permanent and ten temporary were to be kept (1/2 perm/temp ratio), I'd replace France with another NATO member. But removing a major NATO member from the Security Council just ain't politically viable for a number of reasons. And simply adding one more Western member instead as a permanent member - giving an advantage to the West - wouldn't fly with Russia and China.

So the best solution seems to be keeping the current Big Five and adding two more countries to the Security Council. That's where my plan starts.

Germany:
+ Stable government
+ Strongest economy in the EU
+ Well-maintained military, generally good equipment, great special forces
+++ Arguably the friendliest NATO country towards Russia; allows them to act as a dealmaker or intermediary between the West and Russia
+/- NATO bias

India:
+ Strong economy
+ Strong military
+ Democratic
+ Russia has stated publicly it supports India to becoming a permanent Security Council member
+ Strong trade relations with China
+ China opposing India's membership would hurt their economy more than it could help them on the world stage, helping their chances
+++ Relatively neutral with regards to East-West enmity; allows them to act as dealmakers or intermediaries
+/- Major consumer of Russian military technology
+/- Mixed geopolitical relationship with China; border disputes

These two being added would make the Security Council much less polarized with regards to the permanent members. Additionally, the existing permanent member countries could take most of the credit, helping improve relations between them and the new guys.

Of course, this would also mean that there would have to be four more non-permanent members. Add two of the non-permanent member seats each year, and one new permanent member each year. This way, it piggybacks off of existing UN protocols rather than resulting in four countries immediately getting one-year terms before being kicked off and feeling like they got screwed.

I'd also make a deal with Russia and China to help lobby for a few nations friendly to them (but not unfriendly to the West) as some of the non-permanent members to the Security Council in order to sweeten the deal.

Brazil is one, as they've been a non-permanent member very frequently this century, have a strong economy, and are quite friendly with Russia, China and the US.

The United Arab Emirates are also friendly towards China and the US, have a strong economy, a strategic location, and are an important ally in the fight against terrorism.

Of course, this is all just theory. I guess I'm just bouncing it off of you guys to get some feedback.

EDIT: According to a recent poll whose results were just relayed to me via limerick, Germany is the most popular country in the world.

Comments

[olivetho]

2609046

- taking it seriously could make Israel open fire

HEY THAT'S OFFENSIVE YOU KNOW! >:( you're hurting my feelings...