UNSC and UNGA Criticisms Flashcards
what are the UNSC and UNGA?
the UN Security Council is the most powerful body in the UN, responsible for maintaining international peace and security
while the UN General Assembly is the main representative and policymaking body of the UN in which all 193 members can have their say
main controversies/criticisms of the UNSC and UNGA
UNSC: membership
UNSC: ineffective
UNGA: ineffective
UNGA: gives all states an equal say
membership of the UNSC
one of the biggest controversies surrounding the UN Security Council is its membership, specifically the existence of the permanent 5 (P5)
critics argue that the P5 is ultimately historically outdated and no longer represents the realities of the world order, it merely reflects the post-war balance of power, when states like the UK and France were considered ‘great powers’
arguably, France and the UK are no longer deserving of their permanent membership as they can no longer be considered the world’s most powerful states and there have been calls to replace them with significantly more influential states such as Germany and Japan
it is understandable why Germany and Japan did not have permanent membership following WW2, as they were both defeated, but since then they have grown into extremely efficient economies with significant military power
additionally, there is a clear regional imbalance, with no permanent representation from either Africa or South America, despite some of the world’s leading and emerging powers, such as Brazil and South Africa, coming from these regions
Kofi Annan, former UN Secretary General, argued that “It is indefensible today that Latin America does not have a single seat on the UN Security Council. India, with a fifth of the world’s population, doesn’t have a seat. Africa, with 54 countries, doesn’t have a single seat. Even Japan, the second largest contributor does not have a permanent seat”
there are also questions as to why Western Europe should have two permanent members, especially since Europe is moving towards a more common foreign and security policy, when there are considerably more diverse continents without a single member
ineffectiveness of the UNGA
the UN General Assembly also faces much criticism and has numerous controversies surrounding it
for example, it can be argued that the UNGA is obsolete and ineffective, with many labelling it as a mere ‘talking shop’ that fails to take assertive action and achieve anything significant
Michael W Doyle, an international affairs expert at Colombia University, reinforces this viewpoint and says that the UNGA is “an important institution that has never quite sorted out its role” in terms of being a truly functional body and has “insufficient deliberation and not enough genuine discussion”
this supposed ineffectiveness is made worse by two main factors
firstly, unlike the UNSC which makes decisions that are binding on its members, the UNGA has no real enforcement power which only acts to strengthen the claim that it is ultimately ineffective as it cannot compel its members to act or cooperate in any way
secondly, with 193 members, all of which have varying national interests and significant cultural differences, cooperation can be very hard to achieve which means that deliberations and discussions are often slow and full of tension and disagreement rather than actual plans for action
ineffectiveness of the UNSC
another controversy relating to the UNSC is that it, like the UNGA, is often ineffective
the existence of the power of veto for the P5 has often resulted in a gridlock, with members striking down action and rendering the UNSC powerless to take action
during the Cold War, the UNSC was effectively neutered due to the vast amount of vetoes deployed by its permanent members – 193 vetoes were used in this period by the USA and the USSR
in instances like this, the body is unable to act, which can often lead to huge losses of life and humanitarian catastrophes
a notable example of this can be seen in 1994 with the Rwandan genocide
the P5 put their own strategic interests first and failed to agree on appropriate action to take until it was far too late
the UN peacekeepers stationed in Rwanda had to stand by while over 1 million people were slaughtered within just 100 days because they had not been given permission to intervene with force
more recently, the inability of the UNSC to take action in the Syrian Civil War has been due to the existence of the veto
while the UK, USA and France back the Syrian rebel forces, China and Russia are firm supporters of the Assad regime and have used their vetoes to prevent intervention in the country
this has meant that the UNSC, the body supposed to maintain international peace and security, has lacked a presence in one of the most horrendous and bloodiest conflicts of the 21st century
the UNGA gives an equal say to all states
finally, another controversy relating to the UNGA is that it gives an equal say to every single country
this has been controversial for two main reasons
firstly, it can be argued that it is completely illogical to give every state an equal platform when there are such huge differences between them
every state within the body has one vote, but this does not take into account their varying sizes, wealth and level of influence on the global stage
some critics believe that it is absurd to give a country like the USA, with huge stakes in the international system, the same say as a country like Tuvalu, a tiny island in the South Pacific with a population of only just over 11,000
moreover, a problem with such equality is that as the UN is the only intergovernmental organisation that allows every state to be a member regardless of regime time or government, the UNGA therefore puts dictatorships, oppressive and tyrannical regimes and democracies on the same platform and gives them an equal say
perhaps sending a dangerous message to such dictatorships and authoritarian regimes that they will continue to be allowed influence in such IGOs and will not receive repercussions for the oppression of their own people
