What's wrong with the United Nations, and how to fix it - Knowledge is Power
Spoiler: 1 simple General Assembly resolution to comply with the Charter will fix it for now, 1 minor amendment to future-proof it. To end dominance by aggressive nuke powers and embed democracy. Stub
What is wrong?
The United Nations has failed to carry out it’s core duty, the suppression of acts of aggression and peaceful settlement of international disputes, in every single case in memory. Voices, including the corrupt Secretary-General, claim that it is incapable of performing its role and that it must be reformed.
This is Russia’s greatest dream: to discredit and disempower the UN, and cover up it’s own fraud - that it is participating when it has never been a member.
Actually the UN is a very soundly designed and functional organisation. It just needs a couple of tweaks.
Concomitantly, and there is a constant clamour from other power-seeking states demanding to be made permanent members of the Security Council, with power to veto actions by the United Nations.
Mutually inconsistent propositions.
The veto was designed as a protection of the 5 big powers’ interests, but it also operates as a safety mechanism to prevent rogue actions by a stacked Security Council. It relates only to the Security Council’s function of actions for maintenance of international peace and security - in other words, intervention in violence.
The effect of adding more vetos will be more inaction, bringing the UN to a complete standstill.
The core problem is that, despite the law in Article 24 of the UN Charter that the Security Council must act in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter, it is constantly violated due to bad faith actors. The main one is Russia which is engaged in extreme aggression and has used the veto to do so with impunity, and protect other corrupt states doing so. The other members have done so less often.
Most of the work of the UN - humanitarian, development, etc is nothing to so with the Security Council. There are no vetos there, decisions are made by consensus or majority.
1. Comply with the UN Charter.
Acknowledge the fact that Russia is not a member1, and expel it’s unlawfully present representatives.
This is done by a simple majority vote of the UN General Assembly members present and voting.2 Abstentions are not counted3 - for example if all except 20 members were to abstain or absent, 11 votes would pass the resolution. This resolution does not require any votes of the Security Council permanent members,4 and cannot be vetoed.5
This will remove control by a malevolent actor which has an interest in disabling the UN and destroying the UN before it is evicted.
Russia can apply to join at any time, by satisfying the UN that it is peaceloving and able and willing to comply with the UN Charter.6
The remaining permanent members, unlike Russia, are sensitive to trade pressures and unlikely to abuse their powers if the rest of the world stands up to them.
2. Future-proof amendment
The removal of Russia as a malevolent actor will to a large extent restore the balance in the current state of globalism where the permanent members are vulnerable to trade pressures - unlike Russia where Putin simply doesn’t care and is prepared to run his country into the ground.
However there is a simple way to remove this threat of a permanent member ever going rogue or abusing the veto in the future: an amendment to Article 27 of the UN charter to remove the power to vote where a state is interested, and/or to enable vetos to be overridden by a super-majority of the General Assembly.
3. Optional extra: Vetos for small island states and poor non-nuclear states on the Security Council.
Vetos with an over-ride provision as suggested above, work as a handbrake, protection against rogue Councils being elected. If any further vetos are to be considered, to ensure the interests of all members are represented and protected, 1 or 2 veto seats could be created for island states and poor non-nuclear states. Certainly no more rich or nuclear states need vetos. Any more than 6 vetos in total would not be workable, the Security Council would be brought to a standstill. Any vetos would be workable only with the proviso in 2. above, so vetos cannot be abused.
These amendments will require the votes and ratification of all 4 existing permanent members of the Security Council. The only way to get them to vote is to threaten their economic power if they don’t, by way of a boycott. It is hoped that faced with the possibility of that arising, they would vote responsibly.
For details, see
Article 18 of the UN Charter: it is not a decision on admission, suspension or expulsion of a member, since Russia is not a member nor is it applying to be admitted. It is ‘other questions’, under Article 8(3):
.
Rule 126, Rules of the General Assembly.
The Security Council has limited authority, delegated from the General Assembly. It is limited to specified issues of peacekeeping actions, and admissions, suspensions and expulsions of member states. Since Russia is not a member and the decision is not on the admission of a member, The Security Council has no jurisdiction.
The vetos of the Permenent Members of the Security Council (Article 27) relate only to resolutions of the Security Council. They cannot veto General Assembly decision
s
Article 4 of the UN Charter:
