The United Nations Is Just a Debating Society

The United Nations Is Just a Debating Society: It Needs Urgent Reform Mediator Lakhdar Brahimi has apologized to the Syrian people after peace talks in Geneva ended without any progress. Our world has dramatically been changing economically, geopolitically and socially and has shifted the of balance of power from the West to the East. The United Nations Security Council and its working systems have never changed since its establishment in 1945, after the World War II superpowers designed a system in their interests and awarded permanent veto-wielding power to them. The old world system is no longer compatible with the new changing world; consequently, the new world is searching for fresh leadership that will take strong action to solve some of the problems. The old system no longer functions and cannot adequately answer some of today’s global issues. A good example would be the civil war on Syria and the famine in Africa. The world community cannot stop the bloodshed in Syria that has been going on for more than two years with thousands of people having been killed and millions of others forced to flee from their homes. Still the UN has not been able to do anything in Syria. Everyday people die in that war-torn country. The only action the UN is taking is passing resolution after resolution and holding debate after debate so that the UN has become more of a debating society than a serious international organization designed to confront world threats and problems, such as not only keeping brutal dictators from killing the innocent in Syria, Iran, North Korea, Africa, and the Middle East, but also ameliorating the nuclear weapons issue with Iran and North Korea; vaccinating the children; preventing famine in Africa or rebuilding disaster stricken countries like Haiti and the Philippines. The inability of the U.N. to deal with the Syrian President is a great example of a broader failure to address the rising global threat posed by rogue states. The United Nations has lost its credibility for its failure to pass a unanimous resolution to stop Assad from killing his people. Instead of acting as an effective body for advancing world security, the United Nations, and especially the Security Council, has become a block to progress and has been used as a tool by China and Russia to try to limit the ability of the United States to act as the leader of the world. We have seen the United Nations fail to stop genocide in Rwanda, Somalia, Syria, and Bosnia and thus have witnessed one of its most shameful chapters. If the United Nations does not undertake any reforms, it will be diminished like its predecessor, the League of Nations. After the Second World War, the international community started to unite to establish an organization that would secure the peace, prevent poverty, and promote human rights and prosperity worldwide. Under the Obama administration the United States lost its credibility and no longer acts independently or has the ability to do anything meaningful. Since there are only five permanent members of the UN Security Council, it has become gridlocked; therefore, the UN Security Council should be reconstructed so that it will be able to function well. President Obama said in 2009, ”The United Nations can either be a place where we bicker about outdated grievances, or forge common ground; a place where we focus on what drives us apart, or what brings us together; a place where we indulge in tyranny, or a source of moral authority. In short, the Untied Nations can be an institution that is disconnected from what matters in the lives of our citizens, or it can be an indispensable factor in advancing the interests of people we serve.” Many Americans do not want their tax money to be wasted for a big bureaucratic and non-functioning organization. Under President Obama’s administration, the United States has cut 5% in the size of the 2012-2013 UN regular budgets. Since the creation of the UN, the United States has been its biggest contributor. The U.S. contributes 22 % of the United Nations’ regular budget, while France contributes 6.4%, the United Kingdom 5.54%, China 1.53%, and Russia, 1.2%. Three countries, Japan, the United States and Germany, contributed a large amount of money to the United Nations’ regular budget. I think that it is time for other permanent members of the UN Security Council and members of the General Assembly to contribute more, because this will give more power to countries in the administration of the U.N. According to Ambassador Kishore Mahbubani, the former Singapore permanent representative to the Untied Nations, reforming the United Nations should be based on world population figures. Ambasador Mahbubani makes a case for why India should join the United Nations’ Security Council. Like China, India represents almost a fifth of humanity. Its GDP is number three in the world in terms of purchasing power parity, and also it has nuclear power. According to Ambasador Mahbubani, both Latin America and Africa should not be excluded from permanent membership on the United Nations Security Council. There are 193 U.N. member states, and each of members of the United Nations General Assembly has one vote, so that the combined votes of Latin America’s 33 and Africa ‘s 54 could block reform if they are not included in any reform formula. Brazil, Germany and Japan campaigned for a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council without veto power for at least fifteen years, but it failed. According to Ambassador Mahubani, the reason these three countries failed to get permanent seats on the UNSC is because the proposal did not include Africa. Because of troubled relations between Japan and China, China does not want Japan to have a seat on the Security Council, so China mounted a campaign against Japan’s bid to have one, but the U.S is supporting Japan for a position. Europe is already overrepresented in the UNSC, because the UK and France are members, and now Germany is trying to have seats as well. The United States is open to the UNSC reform and expansion. The US Bureau of Public Affairs issued a statement in 2005 that the US wanted to have criteria for the potential members to have seats on the UBSC such as economic size, population, military capacity, commitment to democratic rule of law, contributions to the UN, human rights, non-proliferation and counter terrorism. The US wanted to look overall at a geographic balance of the council and effectiveness. If the United Nations does not make radical reform, it will slowly decline like same way the League of Nations did. Reform of the UNSC will be very important for the credibility of the organization. The U.N. failed to deal with Syrian president Assad and stop the bloodshed, and its influence is likely to diminish more in the future unless it demonstrates great cooperation and political will to address the world biggest issues of terrorism, rogue regimes, development of weapons of mass destruction, famine, natural disaster, and sectarian war. Consequently, it is in the interest of the free nations to engage the U.N and help to make the organization the most effective and just way to operate. Dr. Aland Mizell is President of the MCI and a regular contributor to The Kurdistan Tribune, Kurdishaspect.com, Mindanao Times and Kurdish Media.You may email the author at:aland_mizell2@hotmail.com