United Nations Security Council is a global body, which the world recognizes it for primary responsibilities of maintaining international peace and security. At the moment, this council is made up of five permanent member states as well as ten non-permanent member states. Member states elect these both groups of members of the council. The current structure of this council must undergo many restructuring so that it gives non-permanent members equal powers to pass even sensitive decisions. Veto rights that exclusive to the five permanent members have often been misused in one way or another. Many permanent members use this veto as a power and an economic display tools in political arena.
Veto powers indeed do not assist much in shaping the world peace and security. Many analysts consider veto as one of the reasons for massive failures of this Security Council. Disasters such as Rwanda genocide of 1994 and Darfur unrest of 2004 would be prevented if veto were being used for the right purpose. One of the biggest issues lately is to expand the permanent members. This Security Council will work well if the existing fifteen seats will be distributed equally to all the regions of the world. High economic and political powers must not affect the permanent members. Rotating member seats are not enough for all countries to participate in serious issues, which affect the global community. The member states should not fight for membership status as is the case now. Several concerns must revolve around improving the potentiality of the Security Council to serve the world. Global security problems have always been placed at the forefront but there are many other concerns that other developing members states can qualify to deal with in the global community.
-
0
Preparing Orders
-
0
Active Writers
-
0%
Positive Feedback
-
0
Support Agents
Permanent members in the United States Security Council will always pre-determine what goes on within the global community. There should no permanent members in the council: this move will have several advantages to the global security body. Abolishing these five permanent seats enhances the authenticity of the council. Lately, developing countries have negative view of this Security Council because it they it as a permanent club of powerful nations there to exercise their own national interests. Even though the westerners view this council as an element of peace developing countries perceive it as a major tool for western dominance. The permanent members no longer assist the world because from within themselves they have diverse ways of doing things. For example, whereas the US, UK and France talk about equality and human rights, the other two members Russia and China abuse them in their countries. Abolishing this 5Ps will assist in making the council to be more effective and efficient. Permanent members will always drive the rotating members of out of the discussions by dominating in various meetings
The Security Council will have more accountability if the member states are overhauled after some period. Without the permanent members, there will be fair regional representation and be more to improve its flexibility. On the other hand, permanent members should be around the world because of several factors. Many argue that permanent members are affiliated to several developing countries and therefore they will serve their interest in the best manner. The sanctions from the Security Council will become useless without powerful permanent members in the world. A powerless permanent membership is not a wise choice for management of the global community. Other scholars argue that permanent members are ideal for ensuring continuity of resolutions on issues touching on international peace and security. I strongly recommend a careful analysis on ways of doing away with veto misuse and permanent members.