To what extent is the composition of the United Nations Security Council anachronistic?
- peeveeLv 68 years agoFavorite Answer
The Security Council is the executive wing of the UN. It was formed along with the UN in 1945 when conditions wee different. The Allies, who had a greater say, got for themselves a permanent place in the Security Council and secured for themselves some extra privileges like the 'veto' power. There has been change in the size of the General Assembly and and it has become more representative of the world. There were slight changes in the membership pattern of the Security Council but these changes did not fully cater to the needs of the times. The one-time victor nations have become less important but they refuse to part with privileges they carved out for themselves. Permanent membership to the 'five' alone and the extra privilege of 'veto' power are things that are anachronistic in the Security Council set-up.
- ?Lv 78 years ago
Some of the countries which were once world powers have diminished in relevance, while certain rising nations are not included as permanent members of the Security Council.
Take Russia, for example. Their economy collapsed, and their military has been crippled by cutbacks and obsolescence. Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union their political influence has waned, as well. They're an important player, but they're not as important as a country like India, which has more economic clout, a larger population, and more influence in its region.
- 8 years ago
France and the UK are faded powers with little or no world influence anymore. The only country in Europe with standing is Germany. Some consideration should be given to both Japan and India too. This is if you think the UN itself is really relevant based on a one superpower world.
- TeeknoLv 78 years ago
The permanent members were the most powerful countries in the world in 1945 (who weren't recently on the losing end of a World War).