An argument can be made for adding India, Germany, and Japan as permanent UNSC members that have a vote but no veto. However complicated bloc voting, supermajority, rules for different types of resolutions will never work. Even worse is the proposal to remove the veto power of the US, Russia, and China. The possibility the UNSC could pass a resolution opposed by one of those major powers could prompt any or all of them to quit the UN. The General Assembly was set up to give all countries the opportunity to be heard and to pass unforceable resolutions. Only the Security Council was invested with real power, power restrained by rules ensuring it could not be used against the wishes of very powerful nations. In the current era, multi-national organizations are coming under greater scrutiny and nationalist movements are growing stronger. The real question is whether the UN could or should survive at all in an era where multinational institutions are declining. Realistically the UN has some modest utility as a debating society or a convenient forum where agreements already made between big powers can be given a pro-forma stamp of international approval. Trying to push against the tide of history will only succeed in destroying the UN more quickly.

Mathematician, Statistician, Businessman, and Academic. Student of history, poli sci , and the Bible.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store