Super Powers, yes or no?

[David]

There are 5 super powers/veto nations of the United Nations Security Council, namely United States of America (USA), People's Republic of China (PRC)(China), Russian Federation (Russia), French Republic (France) and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK). They were made through the League of Nations' failure, and subsequently were the "winning" countries of WW2. These 5 countries do have substantial power in vetoing "make or break" motions, whether in the General Assembly or the Security Council. These 5 countries aim for world peace through the United Nations, correct? If so, I find it ironic that these 5 nations aim for peace, yet came to become through (world) war and conflict (WW2), and continue to cause conflict through history, and up to today.

To clarify (post WW2): USA, France and UK tested nuclear weapons in the Pacific (French Polynesia, Micronesia, Australia, and within USA); China/PRC came to UN power through civil war between the Nationalists and Communists, China vs. Tibet, Dalai Lama's exile; Russia played a big role in the Cuban Missile Crisis. (some examples)

(Pre WW2): WW1; USA's treatment towards American Indians; France's treatment towards 'Black people in France' and 1789 Revolution (notable beginning of modern history); Russian Revolution, The Bolsheviks rise to power through murder; Imperialism overturn in China; UK's colonisation and then decolonisation in many countries (African nations, India, Australia, Canada). (some examples)

Anyway, noting that the Security Council aims for peace, these countries seem to cause quite a worldwide stir over the course of modern history. There are many countries that want to get on that Council, but why not remove it, and let the General Assembly decide? How about proposals to let other countries in? Is there a need for Super Powers, or is it just a way to gain worldwide power over all other countries? Why should we let conflict driven countries making worldwide decisions? Have you been affected as a direct result of the decisions made by the Security Council? Or is it fine how it is?

Note, the debate isn't directly about my examples given. Sure there are great things achieved by the named countries, but you can never just outbalance the bad with good; the bad has happened, and it will never go away.

 

[Mike]

Nice Thread David, and you've given some great examples there.

My personal belief is that a different kind of assembly is needed, One that is kind of a mix between both councils, Superpowers and developed countries may be in it, but not developing countries.

At the moment two-thirds of the UNGA are developing countries, Which is why I personally believe the superpowers are needed.

 

[Cosmic]

I think the UN should be dissolved. It's a terrible organization that has succeeded in next to nothing. Just look at the fact that they put Iran on the women's rights commission.

 

[katy perry is hot]

It's not like they have any worldwide power over the other countries... look at North Korea, do you think they give a flying fuck about whatever security counsel resolutions are passed on them?

It has succeeded in some things Cosmic. Just the fact that there is international territory where countries can peacefully speak with one another is enough.

 

[Gimgak]

Oh man and here I thought I'd be able to express my desire for x ray vision 🙁

But yeah UN hasn't done much, it needs a real overhaul.