Question

Suppose you were asked to recommend changes in the structure of the UN Security Council (especially in permanent membership and the veto). What changes would you recommend, if any? Based on what logic?

Answer 1

The veto, in the Security Council has the policy that, even if one person votes against an action, that action is cancelled. I'd like to change that policy, the reason being, it leads to decisions based on personal benefit, instead of thinking of the greater good of the world as a whole, there have been instances, take for example the killing of Rohingya muslims in Myanmar, which could have been stopped, if not for this veto power. The permanent members use it as per their personal relations and conflicts, and base their decision entirely on it.

Second problem is, the UN security council preamble starts with "we the people", but as a matter of fact, 5 countries do not form the "people" of the world. From the members of UN Security Council, it can be clearly seen that it has no permanent member from Africa, Latin America and most parts of Asia. So it needs to expand and add members from these places, the possible countries that needs to be included are Japan, India, Brazil and Germany.

Hence, i would recommend, first of all, rightful use of veto, maybe a motion which has a majority on its side wins, instead of veto. Veto should be abolished, or else there should be two levels of majority, one among the permanent 5 members and if the motion wins over there, then the votes will be cast by the 10 other temporary members. Secondly, the permanent members should include more countries, if they really want to be the voice of the world, just 5 super powers cannot decide the fate of the world based on their personal agendas.

Please do vote the answer up, if you find it logical, thank you.