The world is
a messy place. Ethnic conflicts, border
disputes, civil wars, religious fanaticism and other issues cover the planet. Decisions that are made regarding these
issues affect the entire international community – democratic logic leads us to
the conclusion that such a decision should be made by the entire international community. This, however, is a faulty logic. When it comes to large-scale international
decisions, bodies like the UN Security Council are prime examples of why
effectiveness should be prioritized over fairness.
In his article entitled Legitimacy, Power, and the Symbolic Life of
the UN Security Council, author Ian Hurd says that while the Security
Council does have an enormous amount of formal power, it does not control the
means by which that power is carried out – the Security Council relies upon the
cooperation of member states. The
Security Council does not have absolute, authoritative power. However, Hurd also states that within the
Security Council, the “Permanent Five” essentially hold a monopoly on power. This may seem like a contradiction, however
it simply means that while any member of the Permanent Five can block any
resolution that it so chooses, resolutions passed by the Security Council are
only as powerful as the member states who follow through enforcing it. Any decision made by the Council must pass
unanimous approval, or neutrality at minimum, before becoming a formal
resolution. A non-permanent member can
make as much fuss as they want, but it will have little effect on the final
status of a resolution. Hurd notes as
well that the Permanent Five almost always meet before formal meetings to hash
out what will be said/agreed upon, further removing other members from the
decision-making process.
That being said, some may perceive
this as an unfair way to make decisions. However, a fair approach simply is not
feasible with all of the issues facing the world today. The nations that
comprise the Security Council are collectively the most influential nations on
Earth. Not to be melodramatic, but their
economies, militaries, culture, etc. are driving forces behind the entirety of
human existence today. The Security
Council, and United Nations as a whole, would not exist were it not for these
powerful countries giving it legitimacy via membership. The Permanent Five give the UN most, if not
all, of its legitimacy. Much like cable
and internet providers, those who contribute more to the company, i.e. the UN,
receive faster internet, more TV channels, etc, i.e. more power. Furthermore, this method of governing is more
effective than
Since the Permanent Five contribute
the most to the United Nations, they deserve to have more power than other
nations. Additionally, this method is
effective due to the small number of actors making decisions, allowing for
faster decision-making. To favor
fairness over effectiveness is simply an ideological folly, because the need
for global security outweighs the desire for fairness in the decision-making
process.
I agree that the presence of the Permanent Five is a driving factor in the effectiveness of the UN. However, I believe that classifying these as "the most powerful states in the world" is a bit generous. The reason these five nations were picked as the permanent 5 is because they were the winners of WW II. This does not take into account some of the other powerful nations in the world, including Germany, Brazil, and India. I believe that the UN Security Council should maintain their current ideals of a more permanent group and a rotating group, but tweak it a bit. One way this could be done by splitting permanent and non-permantent members 8-7. The 8 "permanent" nations would be the nations with highest world influence (Don't know how this would be measured, but GDP could be one), and the other 7 would be rotating. Also, the permanent members would be adjusted every 10 years and the rotating nations would stay on the same 2 year schedule. I believe this would increase the effectiveness and the scope of the Security Council, while increasing fairness as well.
ReplyDeletePerhaps not entirely feasible, but were the small states to bandwagon against this unfairness, would they have a real case? Why would there be a benefit to having at least one small (even token) member on the security council, as they currently do? Why can't the bigger states rotate or face election (which they would most likely win anyway)?
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your argument that the Permanent Five increases the effectiveness of the Council. However, it think it can be dually argued that the current balance of power also decreases the legitimacy of the institution for certain countries and groups. Smaller states may view the UN as a body that attempts to control their foreign affairs in order to ensure the best outcome for the larger states. By preventing these nations from having a voice, it may make it more difficult for them to accept the decisions and outcomes of the security council.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that when it comes to global security, the need for effectiveness overpowers the desire for fairness. But do you think it is impossible for the Security Council to be both effective and fair? Fair doesn't necessarily have to mean equal, in my opinion. How would you feel about a vote on Permanent Five member status. Maybe "terms" could last up to 20 years to promote stability, but also allow for adjustment. The non-permanent seats could continue to rotate as they currently do.
ReplyDeleteIt is agreeable that the Permanent Five help prove the effectiveness of the UN and global security outweighs fairness in decision making. However, with great power comes great responsibility (possible counter argument) how can we be sure that these permanent five nations won’t make decisions that prove to be effective at keeping them at the top at the cost of not acknowledging other “smaller nations” If they have such great influence, military and economic power and are essentially the back bone of the UN how can they be checked in the decisions they make. For example, occupying or spying on other nations that aren’t strong enough to respond.
ReplyDelete