UN Reform: Fruitful or Futile?

Over the sixty years of the UN’s existence, critics have consistently questioned its utility in world affairs. But, in the light of its recent failures, even the supporters of the UN acknowledge its inefficacy. These failures include the ongoing war in Iraq, unchecked genocide in Darfur, nuclear development in North Korea and the now apparent corruption in the Oil-for-Food program. Lack of action, which derives from voting structure, is the most encompassing criticism of the UN. For those who don’t know: The UN consists of 191 member countries all of which have a voice and a vote. There are six main divisions: the General Assembly, Security Council, Economic and Social Council, Trusteeship Council, Secretariat, and International Court of Justice. In the General Assembly every member nation has a vote, but in the Security Council the voting structure is more complicated and less representative. There are currently 15 council members. Five of those members- China, France, Russian Federation, United Kingdom and United States- are permanent members with veto power. The remaining ten are elected by the General Assembly for two year terms. Council decisions require nine yes votes, and are subject to veto by any of the five permanent council members. Since matters of international peace and security have extremely high external costs, the 3/5 required approval is economically sound. The inefficiency lies in the 5 veto powers. Vetoes eliminate the decisiveness of the majority vote and the incentive to reach a resolution. Moreover, placing that veto power in the hands of 5 different countries with polarized interests is begging for constant stalemate. Today the Security Council has the same structure as it did at its origin in 1945, which most agree is not representative of the current world. In response to widespread dissapproval, a blue-ribbon panel commissioned by Secretary General , Kofi Annan, has proposed two Security Council reform alternatives (deatiled here). While both of these reform alternatives address the council’s representation flaw, neither one proposes a change in the climate of inaction. National sovereignty is way too highly valued for any of the five permanent member countries to relinquish their veto power. That said, will any amount of restructuring beneath that tier improve this organization’s capacity to effect peace in international relations?