Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the current structure of the United

Nations. How would you reform it for the better?

The United Nations came into being in 1949, following on the heels of one of the most defining periods of the twentieth century – World War Two. The purpose of the UN was, and still is, clearly defined. That is to provide a structure for dispute settlement amongst states, to promote and recognise equality, sovereignty and independence, and also to develop the Less Developed Countries (LDC’s). At the outset, 54 states were members; this has since spread out to a membership of 200 countries; making the UN a truly international organisation.

All organisations must have some kind of intrinsic structure or order. The body that is the UN is made up of three principal constituents. The Secretariat is the administrative branch of the organisation – the bureaucratic arm. A General Assembly also exists consisting of each and every member state. Thus is, literally, a large forum where views and opinions are exchanged. One can draw parallels between this and the various parliamentary houses of domestic level politics in a country like the United Kingdom. I

The Security Council conveys the image of being a ‘closed shop’. After all, only five permanent members exist; they are un-elected and not accountable. These two features create, it can be argued, a ‘them and us’ situation, where there is an ‘upper class’ of the few, above a powerless ‘lower class’ of the many. For an organisation that is built on internationalism and universality, such a division is unhealthy and clearly not ‘international’ in every sense. It is a somewhat contrast to the idealist belief that the nature of the international system is communal (Baylis and Smith).

The structure of the UN is one that, it can be argued, proved to be successful. Logically, one can say that the structure is efficient; every member is represented and has the opportunity to air its views and grievances via the General Assembly, and for the purpose of the vital issue of maintaining global security, a Council of powerful and generally cooperative states exist.

However, any grievances towards the Security Council lie not just in its constituents advanced status, but also in the constituents themselves. Based on power relations of 1949, the Security Council includes Britain, France, China, Russia and Russia, the so-called ‘Big 5’. However, these five countries are no longer universally acclaimed to be the most powerful five countries in the world – they are, to many, the great powers of yesteryear. Britain and France have long been diminishing forces, catalysed especially by the fall of their empires in Africa, the Caribbean and India, and the rise of other powers. Although power is an extremely difficult intangible to measure, GDP is widely considered to be the most accurate yardstick, and in that respect, both Britain and France have fallen behind Germany (with a GDP of $1.5trillion) and Japan ($3 trillion). Both these two countries are amongst the most critical of the UN structure, and putting the most pressure on Security Council reform.

Japan and Germany are both large economic powers, which would benefit the UN when and if military action is ever required. They also both have strong stakes in global security, owing to the sheer volume of international trade both engage in. A stable global climate is crucial for global trade and a healthy world economy; evidence of this can be seen with the contribution the outbreak of Israeli-Palestinian violence in 2000 made to the massive oil and petroleum increases in the West. Additionally, both are huge contributors of funds to the UN, with Japan paying 12.24% and Germany 8.3% of the UN annual budget respectively. Not only that, but Japan has also shown its economic value to the UN by offsetting to a considerable extent the cost of British involvement in the Gulf War. With this in mind, it is inconceivable for such countries to have only the same powers and status of, say, Senegal or Moldova.

Some topics in this essay:
Security Council, Japan Germany, League Taking, Countries LDC’s, Latin America, Council Iraq, Boutros Ghali’s, Monetary Committee, Arab League, Furthermore India, security council, ‘big 5’, current structure, britain france, united nations, league nations, structure un, military action, reformed security council, growing regional, japan germany, exists security council, fall league nations, security council rationale,