UN Security Council: a relic of the past

The funny thing about history is how often it hinges on decisive moments. Looking back, there exist turning points and decisions that define our present; things in the past that dictate our future. And as these moments pass, and their legacies are carried forward, they become normalized and internalized. We take for granted what the world is because to us it has always been that way.Thus, the victors of wars have decided the shape of this anarchical sphere we call the global system. As the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and the Soviet Union emerged victorious from the horrors of the Second World War, they went to work shaping the world that we live in today. Like their forefathers nearly three decades earlier, the victors opted for a global institution of states, and named it the United Nations. This time however, the powers clearly imposed themselves atop the international system, while also granting themselves permanent seats on the premier decision-making body, the Security Council. This included the power to veto any real results.

Now forgive me for that brief recap of 20th century post-war integration, but understand that the status of the veto states is crucial to our recognition of just what undermines the UN today. In 1945, the only way to truly provide any legitimacy to the UN was to have the five most powerful countries in the world join as members. Yet, in a world where states seem to act in a purely self-interested manner, and the eternal struggle between state sovereignty and supra-state authority reigns supreme, the only way to incentivize membership was to give these states extraordinary power.

And it worked. Out of this new spirit of interconnectedness and cooperation emerged the Marshall Plan and OECD, the IMF and the World Bank. While our world has never truly been stable - and the UN certainly has its shortcomings - we have established norms against genocide and an avowal to fundamentally protect human rights.

But the world we live in today is very different than that of 1945. Today's global system is dominated by superpowers, emerging powers, regional powers, and powers that have yet to be categorized. The foci of world politics are diffusing to Beijing, Brasilia, New Delhi, and Jakarta. New players want a piece of the pie, and with declining birth rates in the West and rapidly growing economies in the East, why wouldn't they? If our current economic crisis has shown us anything, it is that the "international community" is now the realm of the G20, not the G8. Like it or not, something's got to give.

We have become so accustomed to a Western-dominated globe that we have neglected to recognize how fundamentally the world has changed. As polarity multiplies and divides itself among these new powers, we realize that our most important institutions, with the UN as a prime example, must adapt.

If we hope to accomplish anything, we must come to include emerging world players. A complete abolishment of veto status is unlikely. However, a modest reform is a more likely alternative. Allow the five permanent members to hold a quasi-veto status where two veto votes are required to shoot down proposals and resolutions. Expand the Security Council to include more regional powers and create the power to override vetoes, so long as the opposition to the veto exceeds a certain proportion of votes that indicates overwhelming consensus (which I will not attempt to guess at, but would likely need to be at least two thirds majority).

This proposal is by no means a perfect fix, but it addresses the key issue: an institution that purports to represent the external world must internally reflect its constituency. No longer will the world sit idly by and allow five states to hold the rest ransom, not when there are players on the sideline ready for a shot at a leading role.