Foreseeable problems with the United Nations...?

Lets face facts, the UN has structural problems. It has WWII written all over it, especially in terms of the Security Council, which makes all the important decisions. The permanent seats on the Security Council are the USA, China, Russia, the UK, and France. Obama put his support behind India getting a permanent seat on the Security Council, however I highly doubt the other members will be so easily swayed, especially since some of them are no longer superpowers and may look to hold down other rising powers.

Can you see any changes to the United Nations that meet with the current order in the World, or will it take a whole new institution to replace the UN to meet the current standards (like the UN did to the League of Nations)?


Thomas Jefferson - When did I say anything about the US and military power?

5 Answers

  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    The united nations is ineffective, and it's only going to lose power. At this time, the ONLY decisions made by the UN that are LEGALLY BINDING are decisions made by the security council. All other decisions by different sections and departments of the UN are just PERSUASIVE.

    So, not only is the UN very weak in legal terms, the security council needs to come to a complete conformity in any of its decisions. This means the five permanent members and the ten rotary members all need to agree on the decision. This means that the security council, although very democratic, is slow to react to situations and some would say, ineffective. Especially as China and Russia are permanent members, and they are very reluctant to impose sanctions on Iran.

    There are organisations/unions that are far more efficient than the UN. Since, you are from Canada, you might not know much about the EU...but it has a MASSIVE influence in Europe and outside Europe. All of the decisions made by the European commision are LEGALLY BINDING, and EU law takes precedence over national law.

    In the future, I don't think the UN has much of a part to play. The EU and possibly the NAU, AU, ASEAN and MERCOSUR are far more effective and eventually their will be no need for the UN except, maybe, for summits between the unions/nations.

    Source(s): Research the EU if you're interested in the UN, and you'll find out that European nations are just about clinging on to their sovereignty.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    You are wrong on so many levels its ridiculous. First off, America is the world's one and only military superpower. And China, Russia, the UK, and France are all top military powers just behind America. The Security Council has no power in stopping nations like India who legitimately rise to power. Obama is supporting India simply to improve our ties with them. It doesnt matter if India gets on the security council or not. The fact that we support them puts us in a good relationship with them.

    If you have a better model to support global diplomacy and peace then please, lets hear them. The UN isnt perfect, but its the best thing we have.

  • tvl
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    The developing economy has one great advantage! The consumer purchase power! Nobody would like to be left out of that race! France, Germany, Japan and others vied with each other to make their presence in India when the car market was opened. Even those who did not have the confidence to invest are assembling their cars in make shift trollies and hired out garages.

    As long as India can wield this advantage carefully every one will fall into position!

    Where else can you sell ground water saturated with some odd ball chemical and dissolved animal fart and sell as Life style drinks by the billion a day!

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Just recently the IMF/world world bank have made the Brits and the Frogs move to the back of the line replaced by Japan and China. America is still the top dog there I foresee a time when the U N well also take that action

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Daniel
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    the problem with uniting nations is no leader wants to actually unite any country as they lose or share power so they are friendly but keep each other at arms length

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.