Since the Soviet Union has collapsed and the structure of
Cold War has vanished, the World has been entering a turning
point. That is to say, we need to reform our minds to get along
with new movements of the world. Of course, the United Nations is
not an exception. The UN has observed the world security and has
been a deterrent which prevents trouble between nations for 50
years, but this present system can't lead the world's nations in
such a very quick transformation. So the UN needs to reform in
particular. According to the article "Making the UN Dream
Happen," the author says that the chance to change itself will
not last for a long time, so the UN must begin to move forward to
change now, while the countries that have nuclear powers can
abolish their arsenals and consider changing the silly plan of
military and nuclear policies. In this way, the UN can acquire "a
monopoly" over the control of security ("Making the UN Dream
happen" 20). In such a mobile society, world security especially
needs collective regulation. It's a function of the UN and a
thing that we want. It matters what the UN does. If the UN can
take away some problems, for example, the veto power and its
distrust that the members of the UN have, it can get a position
that takes upon itself collective security in the world again. So
I agree that the UN needs to reform its policy.
To reform many things, including nuclear weapons, we need an
earnest debate, and must take into consideration the nature of
the UN in total. In the article "Shallow Arguments of Revision,"
the writer says that the UN, which celebrated its 50th
anniversary, is going into the next half century with a gap
remaining between its ideals and facts. In this year's general
assembly, the heads of governments appealed for the necessity of
revision about the extension of the Security Council members and
a financial crisis which is caused by unpaid money some countries
should offer, but they didn't present their opinions which
appealed to the action and determination for the future of the UN
It is said that the backbone of the UN charter has three
operations: peaceful settlement of troubles, peaceful recovery by
using military force, and agreements with regional organizations
for security, but the UN doesn't have measures which can
implement these things. Though the world's leaders expressed
their intention to fulfill the obligation based on the charter of
the UN, it is evident that a wide divergence exists between the
charter and the real state of affairs. A person concerned with
the UN says that this assembly should step into the essential
nature of what the UN does (Aizawa 8).
The UN has two problems that must be argued just now. First,
in the article "Making the UN Dream Happen", the author explains
that the UN could be optimistic about its future: the UN has
caused people to have "profound expectations" since the end of
the Cold war era, and it has a heavy burden in that international
society doubts whether it can bring sense to "a chaotic and
power-driven world". The UN is now faced with three issues again,
like the late 1940s and early 1950s when the Soviet Union also
succeeded in developing atomic bombs and the UN might have
transformed its great mission for nuclear policies. They are "the
control of weapons of mass destruction, the maintenance of
Security Council unanimity, and the defeat of aggression under
the UN flag" ("Making the UN Dream Happen" 20). I agree that the
UN can't be optimistic about its future and that international
society has a distrust of the UN, because the UN recently hasn't
succeeded in peacekeeping and peace-enforcement. For example, in
Somalia, Rwanda, and Bosnia, the UN couldn't appropriately deal
with the crisis. These activities have been carried out by
developed countries. That is, such countries must pay the
expenses. If these costs are not high, developed countries can
participate in these actions more positively and constructively.
But, in fact, it isn't so. Demands for peacekeeping and
peace-enforcement are increasing. In Bosnia, even if peace
agreements are concluded among the factions concerned, the UN
forces will have to stay there to see whether the treaty is
observed. In short, the financial load on developed countries
also will increase. It is a problem for not only developed
countries but also poorer countries, because poorer countries
regard such an increased demand as a threat to the developmental
assistance they depend on (Kennedy 19).
There is another factor of a distrust inside the UN Members of
the UN also are criticizing it for its "ineffectiveness,
bureaucratic top-heaviness and poor personnel" (Kennedy 19). The
largest country in the world now and has paid 25 percent of the
UN budget. The influence of arrears is very enormous. Because of
this, Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the UN's secretary-general,
warned that the UN was faced with impending bankruptcy. This may
also mean that international society has not considered the
administration of the UN to be the most important matter yet. If
the present circumstances continue without improvement,
international opinion will fall further and the future of the UN
can never become bright.
The author also points out that the veto power which "the five
permanent Security Council members" have should be repealed so
that the UN can seize a good opportunity to abandon nuclear
weapons, because permanent members, of the 15 countries of the
Security Council, consist of only five countries, all of which
have nuclear weapons. In Bosnia, cooperation between Russia and
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization crumbled. After all, it
came to show "the fragile nature of Security Council solidarity"
("Making the UN Dream Happen" 20). Moreover, France and China
disregarded public opinion and have enforced nuclear tests. Such
activities caused anxiety about "how seriously the five permanent
Security Council members take their responsibilities" ("Making
the UN Dream Happen" 20).
I agree that the veto power should be repealed and Security
Council should be improved to make "greater security," because
the veto power which the permanent Security Council members have,
limits implementing collective security and hinders the UN from
applying sanctions to the five largest countries and other
countries which they support. At first, the system of the UN
security was based on one idea that the five countries would keep
their superiority after World War II.
That is, the veto power was guaranteed them, and it was never
supposed that enforcement actions would be carried out against
these countries (Kouzai 23). Naturally it is unfair for the other
countries. The world society doesn't need such a system. Many
countries point out that the present permanent members don't
reflect geopolitical situations, and some countries insist on
expanding the Security Council members ("Midlife Crisis" 15).
Though it is good to review this constitution, it is not enough
for its settlement to expand the members. What we want is
peacekeeping and collective security. These were also purposes of
foundation of the UN One government can't prevent terrorism,
racial trouble and nuclear proliferation. Even the U.S. is so. In
this borderless society, however, these problems must increase
more and more. The UN, including the Security Council, must deal
with them. If the UN can not get international cooperation, there
is no necessity for the UN to exist in the world. It is a
disadvantage for us. To resolve international affairs
effectively, the UN should make a greater security that the world
countries can join. The UN must confirm its part in the world
right now. That is, all members countries must argue more
actively about many things inside the UN. The veto power has
interfered with them. So the veto power should be abandoned.
Now, the tendency of wanting to reform the UN is rising. It is
the best time to consider the UN's role under collective
security, because some countries that have nuclear weapons are
beginning to abandon the idea that a nuclear deterrent is needed
for their security. Now this consensus about the need for
collective security, including nuclear weapons, is enhanced by
1990s turmoil and strife. World public opinion is moving in the
direction that nuclear weapons must be taken away from the earth.
The author finally says, "the UN must realize the hopes that
peace-loving peoples everywhere have long invested in it"
("Making the UN dream"20). The UN must seize this "unrivaled"
chance. Not all the measures the UN adopts to realize world peace
are almighty, and each of them has a limit. It matters how
effectively the UN uses them and how the countries' concerned put
them to practical use. But, there are still impediments that
prevent the reality from being recognized. Therefore, the
countries have felt a doubt about the UN function. If the
regulations, including veto power, are taken away from the UN,
all countries will be able to discuss more actively. There is a
small chance that the UN might have to take back its authority in
the world. How should the UN overcome this obstacle? Now what the
UN can do is take rapid action not to lose this chance.
by Yasuhiro Hagiwara
Works Cited
Aizawa, Tadahiro. "Uwasuberi no Kaikaku Rongi." (Shallow
Arguments of Revision). Nihon Keizai Shimbun. October
24, 1995: 8.
Kennedy, Paul. "Time to Correct the UN's Weaknesses."
Financial Times. October 23, 1995: 19.
Kouzai, Shigeru. "The United Nations and Peacekeeping of the
World." International Affairs. November, 1995: 23.
"Making the UN Dream Happen." Editorial. Japan Times.
October 24, 1995:20.
"Midlife Crisis." Newsweek Japan. November 1, 1995:
15.
