Security Council in its advantage

Some European countries relied heavily that US’ expansion of power could be checked through supranationalism embodied by the UN or any of its power structures. In Iraq’s case, it didn’t work, which showed France’s, being a loud opposition on this issue, and equally the UN’s inability to promote multilateralism. A power-balanced system simply wouldn’t work among nations in international level because this kind of system would require a nation to act against its own interests thus, giving advantage to its own opponents.The article asserted that this holds true however we change the hierarchy of power that US, France, Russia or China have. Power imbalance, cultural divisions and differences in beliefs on when to use force disable the Security Council to uphold its duty to maintain international peace and security. Nations would naturally resist rules if they are no longer relevant. This requires the UN to first, make bold reforms that would adapt to geopolitical realities. Second, to adapt the rules based on how nations behave as opposed to imposing rules on how they should behave.Third, the notion that every nation should be equal with each other should be eliminated because again, reality does not permit sovereign equality. Though there are a number of issues that has proven the Security Council’s viability, with the council’s sullied reputation to resolve the Iraq crisis, there is little confidence if the same power structure has the ability to resolve other related issues. We cannot expect corrective actions within an organization if the problems are inherent in that same organization’s structure.Glennon’s conclusion was anchored on the outcome of the Iraq crisis. Whatever the result of the crisis may be, if it turned out well or not, doubts cast on the Security Council are too great for it to be trusted again. The US will still assert the use of force and that the further chaos this may cause puts greater task on the superpower to repair damages or at least lessen the impact of damages. On the other hand, it would be of the US’ best advantage if there were a world body that can truly work in geopolitical reality thus, a need to create one.If it so happened, US hegemony is something that countries would still have to live by. However, there are still legalists who strive to come up with a new power structure in place of the problematic Security Council. But unless they first recognize the reality that sovereign states will continue to accumulate power regardless of the price it takes, humanity would not be able to have a universal set of rules of law. While Glennon pointed that the US proved the UN to be ineffective, Tharoor’s article counter-pointed that the superpower still has great need for the international institution.With the US battling to maintain its superiority, it strives to put the world into order by organizing sets of rules of which all nations would abide and live by. It strives for a unipolar world. However, there are issues that need to be addressed by cooperation of countries and cannot be resolved by a unipolar system. This is exactly why the UN is in existence for—to establish universal laws, which all member nations are expected to abide. The international institution promotes a multipolar system in which other countries, sick of US hegemony, would like to work with.Hence, the US has gained a lot of benefits in taking advantage of the UN’s ideals to advance its own interests in the guise of acting in accordance to international law. First, US actions were legitimized if they were done within the world body’s framework. Second, US were able to attract political allies to pursue its own interests. In the case of Iraq crisis, Bush trying to get the support of the UN in passing resolutions showed that the world body is still sound and viable and more importantly, has no replacement.It is so because UN-sanctioned operations are always effective as opposed to operations performed by a “coalition of the willing”. In addressing the limitations in the UN’s power structure, the article admitted that reforms are needed but also asserted that to date, the UN is the only international institution recognized by many to have the right to intervene or mediate in various world affairs. And the US has gained a lot from this. First, instead of the US shouldering all the responsibility in maintaining international peace and security, UN peacekeeping permits other countries to take some of the responsibility.Second, UN peacekeeping forces deliver results (as with the case of bringing peace to Namibia, Cambodia, El Salvador, Mozambique and East Timor). Third, it is less expensive—a lot less inexpensive compared to waging war. It is true that the international institution failed at numerous times on account of various clashes in beliefs and a number of disagreements. But it would be rudely unfair to judge the institution’s relevance because of its failures; for the UN also has a list of successes.Sometimes we fail to think that the UN is a collective of member nations. Thus, when these member nations are not in agreement with each other over an issue, the world body’s failure to act wouldn’t be its sole accountability. It may have not prevented the Rwanda genocide but it has worked on achieving peace in Congo and other more. No country has tackled issues that the UN vowed to resolve. The world body has carried out significant improvements when it comes to health/medical and relief needs of peoples across the globe.There have also been accomplishments on issues of literacy and education, global trade relations, economic reforms and the list could go on. Issues today cross borders. There are a lot of human concerns that can not be alleviated by one country alone; hence, only strengthening the need for the UN’s existence. There is a need for the world to have mutually shared principles and objectives; and the UN is the only venue where nations could achieve those principles and objectives. This would also mean that member nations need to submit themselves to universally accepted laws and ideals.As for the US, its domination may not be phased-out yet and the superpower could very well maintain its superiority because the UN provides a structure that prevents other powerful nations from building other coalitions. On the part of the UN, it recognizes the fact that the US is the leading nation across the globe and it is also the organization’s most powerful member. However, as applied to other member nations, the US should also recognize that there is a need to work within the world body’s framework.It is a fact that all countries pursue power but if all countries, including the US, subject themselves to universal and acceptable rule of law, humanity and not one nation would have a lot to gain.

References

United Nations. (n. d. ). Charter of the United Nations. Retrieved April 24, 2007, from http://www. un. org/aboutun/charter/ United Nations. (1996). Major Achievements of the United Nations. Retrieved April 24, 2007. from http://www. un. org/Overview/achieve. html