How to make the UN effective — a modest proposal
Let us be honest: The UN is incredibly ineffective in archieving its goals.
Most issues of real relevance cannot be solved by the UN, since the only committee which is actually able to do something is the Security Council in which the P5 countries can veto any policy they disagree with.
Considering this, the UN needs to be modernized in a future-safe and constructive way to prevent another practical dead-lock, like we have seen after the annexation of Crimea by Russia. Obvisouly this cannot be archived overnight — there have been plans for reforming the UN Security Council since the early 1990s — but it seems like it’s about time. If the world’s countries want to prevent another ever-lasting conflict of certain nations like during the cold war, we (meaning every single citizen of this world) need an effective institution which is able to nip any such struggles in the bud and this institution should be the United Nations Security Council!
So how would this new Security Council have to look like?
Well, first of all it need’s to be democratic. There is no way that an insitution which is concerned about democracy as much as the United Nations has such an undemocratic institution as its decision-body.
Moreover, it should be not possible that any government can veto decisions concerning its own actions or veto interventions against itself.
To limit the veto rights even more: A veto should be able to be overruled by a great majority of countries, and no country should own the veto right for several years at a time.
Furthermore, the 3 richest and 3 poorest countries should have a say in this committee: Both of them are facing issues which might greatly differ from the issues other countries are having and therefore they deserve a seat in this institution.
Finally, the voting procedure used to elect the countries taking up seats in the Security Council should take into account that the amount of people living in one country greatly differs and — considering it’s about the people — their importance greatly differs as well.
The reformed Security Council should have 36 seats divided into 3 categories:
- 12 elected veto seats
- 18 elected regular seats
- 6 economic seats
The elected veto seats consist of two seats for every continent (that is Europe, Asia, Africa, North- and Middle-America, South-America and Australia together with the Pacific Region). Every country is elected for a period of 8 years in a 4 year rota (meaning that one country per continent is elected every four years).
The Veto-Right would rotate annually: In even years seats numbered “1" have a veto right, while seats numbered “2" have a veto right in odd years.
The granted veto right would concern any decisions which are not concerning actions by or interventions against this very country.
The veto can further be overruled by a majority of 31 or more seats of the Security Council.
The 18 elected seats consist of 3 seats per continent. One of them is being selected every year for a time of 3 years. They have a simple voting right on any issue.
The remaining 6 economic seats change yearly and are reserved for the three richest and three poorest countries (measured by their GDP). They are having the same voting right like the elected seats.
The voting procedure used to elect the countries taking up seats in the Council would change in the following way:
Any country with less then 10 million citizens has 1 vote;
any country with more than 10 million citizens has 2 votes;
any country with more than 50 million citizens has 3 votes;
any country with more than 100 million citizens has 4 votes;
any country with more than 500 million citizens has 5 votes.
So why should any government be in favour of this?
While any government is obviously concerned about it’s own national interests, governments should care about mankind as well.
What’s the sense of having the power when the human race is being wiped out?
History has shown that there is not a single empire lasting for ever. With that being the case, any country currently owning a permanent seat in the Security Councils should be very worried about the future: What, if an extremist party takes over their country and therefore inherits the veto right? They would be able to murder, they would be able to destroy, they would be able to ruin the world — with the UN being completely unable to do anything about it. This would not only threaten every single one of the persons currently at power and their diplomats, this would threaten any of their citizens and this would threaten mankind. One could obviously argue that countries will then begin to fight this regime by their own, but this would never be as effective as having the United Nations fighting this issue altogether and — as the name already sais — united.
This alone should be reason enough for any nation not only concerned about national interests, but human rights and mankind altogether (as many nations claim), to support and fight for a democratic reform of the UN Security Council like the one proposed above.