ISSN 2330-717X

Case For Abolishing UN Security Council – OpEd


The UN Security Council has 15 members, of which the USA, UK, France, China and Russia are five permanent member states and 10 other member states are elected periodically for specific period as members of the Security Council.

In the last several decades after formation of the UN Security Council, five permanent members have not  shown any  better quality of wisdom or better commitment for world peace,  that  distinguish them from other countries and justify their permanent membership. Compared to other over 190 member states of UNO, permanent members of UN Security Council  have not exhibited any superior and pro active  approach to the world issues.

Many people have started thinking that UN Security Council is not serving useful purpose for the cause of peace. On the other hand,  in the last several decades it has created hindrance for the  efforts  to promote peace and harmony in the world.

By and large, UN Security Council has not been really useful, since any one of the permanent members have VETO power to prevent unanimous decision on any issue, if it would not meet the demand and need of any permanent member.

Certainly, providing VETO power to the permanent members is one of the worse forms of anachronism in the organizational  structure and decision taking process of Security Council and this is an extremely severe flaw  made at the time of formation of UNO.

VETO power given to  permanent members of Security Council have been exercised several times in the past by one permanent member or the other for self centred purpose,creating a road block for peace process.

Obviously, permanent members of the Security council  have not been able to take holistic view on most matters with global interests  in view and have shown self centered attitude to protect their interest and that of the allies. Their strategies have often been guided by their narrow political and sectarian approach with least concern for world peace and welfare of the global community.

Often proceedings of the Security Council are marked by acrimonious debates and counter productive arguments with hate speech and mutual accusations not being uncommon . In such situation,  with self interests  of individual permanent member receiving the highest attention  and priority, Security Council has not been able to emerge as productive wing of UNO to promote peace in the world.

Original  decision, when UNO was conceived, to give special VETO power to five permanent members in Security Council was an attempt by the five permanent member states to  enhance their importance and  exercise control over UNO and the world events.

Today, countries like Japan, Germany, South Korea, India are all advanced technologically to a high level and they conduct themselves with dignity.

Japan and Germany have technological capability even better than  a few permanent member states.

With the world situation changing  dramatically  now  compared to the time when UNO was formed after World War II,why should the countries like Japan, Germany should be treated  as less important countries than the  five permanent member states to become eligible for becoming permanent members of UN Security Council ? There is no logic or reason in this. There is no justification to treat Japan and Germany as “lesser countries”, in view  of their role in World War II several decades back. Today, the commitment of Japan and Germany to world peace  is total, perhaps even greater than a few permanent members of UNO.

It is very important that the UNO should not only be fair in taking decisions with  regard to peace process but should also appear to be fair and democratic and the decisions of UNO should be world decisions and not that of five permanent members.

The urgent need is that UNO should remain as an organization of member states in all respect with equal status for every member state. This can happen only with the abolition  of  UN Security Council.

By abolishing Security Council, there would not be any vacuum. On the other hand, all  major decisions towards  protecting and restoring peace in the world can be taken with participation of all member states and taking decisions, with majority world opinion being ascertained by voting process.

Non existence of Security Council would enable the UNO to take decisions, in which there would be transparency with nobody complaining about any decisions, since majority views would  prevail.

It appears that abolishing Security Council is a pre condition for restoring genuine and lasting peace in the world today. 

Further, this would pave way as forward step towards forming some sort of world government, as far as peace process is concerned.

Click here to have Eurasia Review's newsletter delivered via RSS, as an email newsletter, via mobile or on your personal news page.

N. S. Venkataraman

N. S. Venkataraman is a trustee with the "Nandini Voice for the Deprived," a not-for-profit organization that aims to highlight the problems of downtrodden and deprived people and support their cause. To promote probity and ethical values in private and public life and to deliberate on socio-economic issues in a dispassionate and objective manner.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.