Rather than changing the number of members, how would you reform United Nations Security Council?
a reform to improve it´s situation and equity
- Anonymous1 decade agoFavorite Answer
I say abolish the UN. Its as useless as the league of nations was. All they do is sit and talk about helping out, but all they do is beat the U.S.A. over the head about every little thing. Ungrateful punks.
- poornakumar bLv 71 decade ago
What do you aim when you intend reforming UNSC? The (your) aims have to be met. It is as simple as that in formulation. Next stage is implementation. Standing on high moral ground, any remedy or recipe suggested towards that end will fall flat, if it ignores the veritable mine- field of ground realities.
Certain answers here beg a few questions. Veto power when it is overridden is no veto power!
League of Nations was neither abolished nor destroyed. It has moulted into UN and there lies its success. Organisations and institutions having this quality (of transforming themselves) will serve their aims well, if only you ignore the name or nomenclature by which it is known. In that sense UNSC with the veto powers is a 20th century anachronism. The only right thing that UN (or UNSC) did in this direction is transferring the membership status from Taiwan to (mainland) China, when China was not even a member. Afterwards this sagacity was conspicuous by its absence.
Nobody in UN need be 'GRATEFUL' to nobody else. This thinking smacks of underhand dealings, bribery and a satanic mindset that is not at all holy. UN & things like that can not and should not be run on these lines. A good augary is when many Americans slammed their country when their administration criticised Russia for its 'attack' on Georgia, being herself fighting an unholy war in Iraq (& Afghanistan). Such a country will reign eternal. Insofar as gratitude is concerned
'No man can be grateful at the cost of his dignity
No woman can be grateful at the cost of her chasity and
No country can be grateful at the cost of her honour'
in the words of Dr. B.R.Ambedkar (14. 4. 1891 - 6. 12. 1956), architect of Indian Constitution.
- 1 decade ago
A simple but politically non-viable proposal would be to create a rule whereby any member of the UNSC, whether permanent or not, is impeded from voting in issues in which it is directly involved. That way, for instance, Russia would not be allowed to decide upon issues involving the situation in Georgia...
You see, a provision to that extent exists in the Charter, but its applicability is confined to issues that do not envolve use of force, that is, to the peaceful settlement of disputes (Chapter VI of the UN Charter).
The political inviability would come from the fact that the veto power was instituted to compensate for the failures of the League of Nations. What happens when you don't have the "veto" is that the unsatisfied "major powers" will eventually leave the organization when a resolution is passed against their will on a matter that they consider to be vital. No wonder Germany, the USSR and Japan left the League of Nations prior to the war.
But still, since your question is merely theoretical, the proposal is sustained...
- Oswald WLv 61 decade ago
Full Membership should only be possible to a Nation that is a Fully paid up member.Only a few Members actually play the game by paying their dues. Yet they want to deny the Paid up membership a leading role .As it stands the Nations pay according to their size and means and if they welsh on that commitment too, then The UNO is not a competent body.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- 1 decade ago
Permanent security council members should either not have veto power or have overridable veto power.
Create a separate seat for the middle east (Japan should not have to run against Iran for the single Asian seat)
That's all I can think of right now.
- QuoiLv 71 decade ago
Destroy the veto system. It's so annoying. Maybe, give it more power and actually make it useful.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Simple... just leave the nitwits to wallow in their own mess.
- 1 decade ago
the veto system should b abolished as UN is becoming quite partial in it's decision making .................
- 1 decade ago