Thank you, Kush, for taking this debate.
1. The first issue are the five permanent members (US, China, Russia, UK, and France) that have no basis being the permanent five. It isn't chosen economically or Japan, Germany, and India would be on it.1 It isn't militarily or North Korea and India would be on it.2 It isn't by population or India, Indonesia, and Pakistan would be on it.3 If it isn't based on a statistic, what is it based on? Colonial views of WWII victors. All of the nations were the winning powers of WWII. This is why Germany and Japan, two prosperous nations, are not permanent members. Even so, there isn't representation globally, ignoring South America and Africa. What about prosperous nations from these areas? Nations such as India and Brazil are not represented because they were colonies of global powers at the time or were seen as lesser nations. The Security Council also has no way to adapt to the geopolitics of today. There are more important nations today that aren't being represented. This can't be solved with reform any attempts to accurately choose UN permanent members will either have to be based on a single statistic that would be arbitrary alone or so politicized by colonial powers that we would end up with a new colonial crew of permanent nations, not solving anything.
2. Veto powers by the permanent members of the Security Council is undemocratic and grants to much power to colonial/global powers, allowing them to override the voices of other nations. Russia has used 13 vetoes since 2011 in response to Syria, stopping the end of indiscriminate bombing, investigations into chemical weapon use, banning military flights in certain areas, sending crimes to the International Criminal Court, and implementing sanctions.5 I am in no way blaming Russia as a nation because all permanent members have used their veto power, but I'm blaming the fact that we give any nation the power to veto what the rest of the international community wants. This power is simply undemocratic and allows nations to do what's best for their nation without a care for the rest of the global community. I've shown actual abuses of that power, and it will only be continuously abused.
3. The general job of the Security Council is abusive. The General Assembly must comply with the Council's decisions. There is no reason that an electorate of all nations should be subject to 15. They take the lead in determining threats, creating adjustments in stalled settlements, implement sanctions, and can even use aggression.6 These powers are held by 5 colonial oppressors and 10 nations elected globally. By swinging three nations (through promises or threats), the 5 colonial powers can take any action they choose. This can't be rectified by reform. If you change their job, then we're no longer debating about the Security Council. If you change how many members their are, you might solve the colonial oppressor part, but you don't get anywhere near solving the issue of a small number of nations being able to determine actions without consent from the global community.
Between the permanent members, veto powers, and job of the Security Council, there is no option except to scrap the Security Council for the international community.
Return To Top | Posted:
2020-07-25 17:23:33| Speak Round
Return To Top | Posted:
2020-07-27 17:24:01| Speak Round