MwanaFalsafa1
JF-Expert Member
- Feb 26, 2008
- 5,565
- 836
The League of Nations had failed because it failed to address the issues facing the world then. It's failure subsequently led to the onset (or at least failed to stop) World War 2. The structure of the organization was no set in such a way that would allow it to deal with any conflict that may occur.
After World War 2, the United Nations replaced the League of Nations. At it's core is five permanent members with veto powers. These members are the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China. These five nations have the power to essentially override any decision taken by other nations and exert they influence in all matters.
The United Nations has a lot of structural problems mainly that we are lead to believe that all countries in the organization have equal say when really the UN is an organization ran by wealthy countries. The problem is that power in the UN is not representative and it does not reflect the balance of power in the international system. This misrepresentation and unbalance of power is what I will concentrate on.
Let's look at the permanent members themselves. We have a third rate power like France sitting as a permanent member while Japan which is the second largest economy is left out. This gives France a sense of power it does not in fact hold. Given that France is still an influential nation it does not hold the same kind of power it once had and it is hard to see France with any more power than a country like Italy or the Netherlands if it wasn't a permanent member of the UN.
Germany which is the largest economy in Europe is also left out (we all know the history of that).
The permanent members are also not representative of the world. No African or Latin American country is represented. Given that no country from these two continents is a world power, them having no representation at all makes them feel left out and it destroys the notion of the UN of being a truly global organization.
Peace in the world is maintained when they is a true balance of power. Large scale war usually breaks out when one power feel it does not hold the prestige and influence it feels it deserves in the international community. Look at both world wars and their root causes.
My fear is that if the UN does not represent the change in balance of power one day we might see ourselves heading towards another all out war with each other. The UN should strive to be more balanced and representative and be more flexible to the changing climate of international politics. There are many different ways in which the body could be more representative and balanced if only the "powers" are ready to consent to it(which i doubt they would). But it is in their best interest to do so because once their powers decline enough they will be challenged and if necessary changes are made now they could be helping themselves out in the future.
After World War 2, the United Nations replaced the League of Nations. At it's core is five permanent members with veto powers. These members are the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China. These five nations have the power to essentially override any decision taken by other nations and exert they influence in all matters.
The United Nations has a lot of structural problems mainly that we are lead to believe that all countries in the organization have equal say when really the UN is an organization ran by wealthy countries. The problem is that power in the UN is not representative and it does not reflect the balance of power in the international system. This misrepresentation and unbalance of power is what I will concentrate on.
Let's look at the permanent members themselves. We have a third rate power like France sitting as a permanent member while Japan which is the second largest economy is left out. This gives France a sense of power it does not in fact hold. Given that France is still an influential nation it does not hold the same kind of power it once had and it is hard to see France with any more power than a country like Italy or the Netherlands if it wasn't a permanent member of the UN.
Germany which is the largest economy in Europe is also left out (we all know the history of that).
The permanent members are also not representative of the world. No African or Latin American country is represented. Given that no country from these two continents is a world power, them having no representation at all makes them feel left out and it destroys the notion of the UN of being a truly global organization.
Peace in the world is maintained when they is a true balance of power. Large scale war usually breaks out when one power feel it does not hold the prestige and influence it feels it deserves in the international community. Look at both world wars and their root causes.
My fear is that if the UN does not represent the change in balance of power one day we might see ourselves heading towards another all out war with each other. The UN should strive to be more balanced and representative and be more flexible to the changing climate of international politics. There are many different ways in which the body could be more representative and balanced if only the "powers" are ready to consent to it(which i doubt they would). But it is in their best interest to do so because once their powers decline enough they will be challenged and if necessary changes are made now they could be helping themselves out in the future.
