The problems of the United Nations

The Problems of the United Nations

Author: Khizer Amin



In 1945, immediately following World War II, the United Nations (UN) came into existence after a meeting between 26 victorious countries of the worldwide war. The UN was created with the aim to promote peace, heighten the standards of living, establish human rights, and settle disputes between countries without major conflicts. Its main goal was to eradicate war completely from the world. The United Nations looked like a good successor after the League of Nations, which was terminated when it failed to prevent the Second World War.

The UN started off on the right foot with success in quite a few places, including Korea and Congo. These achievements boosted the UN's respect and people started to recognize it as an organization that would really benefit human society. The UN began progressing towards gaining cooperation throughout all the countries of the world. However, there came a time when the UN started showing its drawbacks. It was not able to prevent the Cold War as both countries involved, the United States of America (U.S.A) and Russia, were permanent members of the UN. As well, the UN was not able to prevent the U.S.A. from entering Vietnam. This entrance started a huge battle known as the Vietnam War.

By the late 1970's, the United Nations had lost most of its power and appeal. “In recent years there have been many calls for reform of the United Nations. But there is little clarity, let alone consensus, about how to reform it. Some want the UN to play a greater or more effective role in world affairs, others want its role reduced to humanitarian work.” (Wikipedia, 2006) The thought was simple. People wanted the UN to change. Now, the UN just does not have what it needs to run properly and effectively. It has too many conflicts of its own to be worrying about the problems of troubled countries.

To start off with, the United Nations does not have enough of a say into today's society. They have lost too much respect from past events, and now nobody listens to them. For example, the U.S.A and Russia, which are both superpower countries, refuse to follow the UN’s foreign policies. The U.S.A defied the UN just recently, when they entered Iraq despite the United Nations plea not to. Obviously, when countries with such power ignore the UN, its status will decline rapidly, and few will think the UN is worthy of any respect.

This problem of respect stems into another more straightforward problem. If nobody supports the United Nations, there will be no funding. The UN is not a business organization; they do not make money by maintaining world peace. Rather, the UN relies on countries associated with it to help pay for the budget.

For a while now, the U.S.A has been the major provider of the UN’s budget. They have accounted for almost 25% of what the UN gets. Of course, they do not give all this money away for free. In return, the U.S.A expects a major say in the course that the UN takes. This springs corruption, because if the United Nations does not let the U.S.A make their way, they refuse to follow the United Nation’s guidelines.

To country's right now that don't want to follow the UN's policies, the organization seems more like an obstacle than a barrier. If the UN actually wants to do something, they somehow have to acquire the power to make laws that all countries must follow. Just like there is a police for people, there should be one for countries, namely the country's government. If the UN could make laws, they would be able to take much better care of the world. Of course, agreements from countries would be required to make sure what the UN sets out as rules is moderated (or the UN might try to take over the world), and so that a sort of collaborative government could be formed. Right now, the United Nations cannot make laws and, as a result, they are at a major disadvantage.

Obviously, the power to make laws and, more importantly, follow through with them cannot just come from anywhere. The power needs to be applied. Yet again, this is another place where the UN falters. They need to have some sort of army or military of their own that can enforce actions. They cannot rely on the militaries of other countries. Many experts have concluded that the major reason the League of Nations fell was because they did not have a military. Even if the United Nations just sends peacekeeping missions, they still need something to enforce what they do and make sure that when they talk, people listen.

Finally, another major drawback of the United Nations is how mixed up its Council is. The Council consists of a General Assembly, in which every country joined with the United Nations, regardless of wealth or rank, has one vote. Specialist agencies also have one vote. But, "The problem is with the fifteen member Security Council" (Runnel, 2003). Most work is done by this Council, which consists of 15 nations, five of which are permanent members. The permanent members of the Security Council are Great Britain, France, Russia, the U.S.A., and China. The other ten countries are selected and are on the council for a period of two years. In a routine matter, a minimum of nine approvals is required for the matter to be passed. In a more important matter, however, all five permanent members must approve for the matter to be passed. Therefore, one of the major countries can veto anything they think doesn't benefit them.

Basically, that means that all countries, save the major five, have no say on important matters. This needs to be changed but that is difficult with the five permanent countries around. They believe that, as they provide the most money for the UN, they should get the most say out of all the countries.

This matter can be highly controversial, because the whole point of the UN is to help countries with troubles. Of course, third-world countries would not be able to pay anywhere near to the sum that say, France or Britain pays. However, the permanent five expect the UN to benefit them although they are already well off, so how can any good be done? “If it (the UN) divides into rich and poor nations, where does this leave the whole concept of all nations working for one common goal?” (History Learning Site, 2002) Anyway it is seen, the United Nations have dug themselves into a hole.

It is quite obvious that if the United Nations wants to continue as a world-aid organization, things must change, and not just in a minor way. Extensive remediation is needed for the United Nations to get up to par. The organization needs to regain worldwide respect, acquire the power to actually do something, and sort out their Council’s conflicts. Right now the United Nations is just not doing what it was meant to do. Hopefully, better times lie ahead for the United Nations.