These are just some of the issues that the Security Council has control over and ones that they meddle with. The Security Council also lends voice to countries such as “… United Kingdom and France as well as Russia [who] are no longer considered major powers, [but] their permanent status with vetoes give them a substantial voice in international politics. ” Similarly, advancements of political and economic interests become evident as well. For U. S. , who clearly dominates the Security Council, the veto power enables them to counteract “anything contrary to U. S. interests.
” Likewise, the other four permanent members in the Security Council are probably doing the same exact thing when the right opportunity presents itself. Thus, “[t]he Security Council and the United Nations have become the tools for the intervention of imperialist powers in the affairs of other countries under the pretext of undertaking humanitarian missions, protecting human rights and effecting democratic regime change…[This becomes possible because] [t]he resolutions of the Security Council are not subject to review by the World Court and are beyond check and balance.
” Besides, the Security Council’s inefficiency is also due to the fact that their business takes place behind closed doors… away from scrutiny and accountability and lacking any record (such as minutes) that could be referenced by future members. The Council passes many resolutions but only haphazardly enforces them…the Council remains inflexible, oligarchic and out of touch with the world… Such powers sit in the Council and cannot be expected to solve problems that they themselves have created
Also, the Security Council is aware that unless “changes in working methods [are applied], they would still dominate an expanded Council. ” Finally, countries representing a particular region “does not make [the Security] Council… representative of its neighbors or others in its region. ” In the same way, the Security Council cannot be considered credible if its non-permanent members, which changes every two years , represent countries that deliberately commit gross violation against human rights.
This goes against the very tenet that the organization was built on. Therefore, the UN Security Council should make it a priority to not just “sanction [countries but exclude countries] the right to sit [in the Council], and a council that could promote democracy and promote greater adherence to human rights around the world. ” Limiting the use of the permanent five’s veto vote does not provide reassurance that the few instances that they will use it will not be vital in protecting their country’s interest.
Real progress in the UN can be achieved if “regional states give up their hopes for permanent seats. When these states realize that progress depends on common action with their neighbors, they can promote common interests and not theirs alone. ” Aside from that, the permanent five should not be able to use veto power on issues that concern them but a larger body should be set up instead to decide these matters. By doing so, the process and result will be fair and democratic to everyone involved.
Also, member states should feel that their opinion matters in the UN. This is not going to happen if every proposal has the potential to be turned down by the Security Council. Member states should have the right to vote on any matter and this privilege should not be reserved only for the Security Council. Conclusion Overall, bureaucracy in any large organization is prevalent and unavoidable. To bypass this, the UN should set up a central authority or agency that can expedite the process of sending relief operations to a country that experiences a crisis.
As for the political division amongst UN agencies, the UN should be clear on each agency’s core mission and purpose. Even if division is happening among various agencies in the organization, they can still remain effective because they have their own distinct mission and purpose. While political divisions between member states will always exist. Thus, the only way to lessen its impact on the whole organization is if issues are decided by the majority vote of each member states.
In addition, coordination and constant communication with several NGO’s is necessary at all times for peace keeping missions to be effective. UN should also set aside and increase the amount in their emergency crisis fund. To do this, they should find a way to cut down on current expenditures without having an affect on the kind of service that they provide. Also, instead of the Security Council or one nation of the Security Council giving the go signal for peace keeping missions, the UN should direct a specific UN agency to handle this.
Lastly, UN should have a better way to implement and monitor projects and activities around the world to prevent scandals. Moreover, the seats in the Security Council should represent one or two countries from each continent. They should also have a set guideline to follow which they ca use to base their decisions on. This will prohibit them from furthering their country’s own political and economic interests.
Also, the veto power of the permanent five member states should be disbanded so that every country that is apart of the UN will have the right to vote and affect some needed change.
Allen-Mills, Tony. “Rot at heart of UN revealed as Annan hosts talks on reform. ” The Sunday Times 28 August 2005 Website on-line. Available from http://www. timesonline. co. uk/tol/news/world/article559849. ece Gantz, Peter. “The Hyde UN Reform Bill: Good Intentions, Poor Proposal. ” Website online. Available from http://www. refugeesinternational. org/content/article/detail/6026