• Why the UN Security Council Needs Reform: Addressing the Democratic Deficit
• Sharing Powers and Responsibility: A Step Towards More Equitable International Relations
• UN Security Council Reform: Working Towards a More Effective and Democratic International System.

The United Nations was established in 1945 with the aim of maintaining international peace and security. One of the main mechanisms for achieving this goal is the Security Council, which is responsible for identifying threats to peace and recommending measures to address them. However, the current structure of the Security Council, with its five permanent members (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) having veto power, has been criticized for limiting the ability of the UN to effectively respond to global crises.

Photo credit: Firstpost

Palki Sharma Upadhyay,a journalist and anchor, during her broadcast on the Firstpost program “Flashback” in an episode titled “Why the League of Nation Failed,” advocated for a more equitable distribution of power and responsibility within the UN Security Council. Her words were: “If the idea is collective security, then don’t limit powers in the hands of five permanent members share powers share responsibility.” This approach, she argued, would allow for a more equitable distribution of power and responsibility in maintaining international peace and security.

The idea of collective security is rooted in the notion that the security of one state is interconnected with the security of all states. Therefore, it is in the interest of all states to work together to prevent conflict and promote peace. The UN was created with this idea in mind, and the Security Council was designed to be the primary body responsible for maintaining international peace and security.

However, the current structure of the Security Council has been criticized for being undemocratic and unrepresentative. The five permanent members were selected based on their status as major powers at the end of World War II, and they continue to hold disproportionate power in the UN today. This has led to accusations of a “democratic deficit” within the UN, with some arguing that the five permanent members use their veto power to protect their own interests rather than promoting the collective good.

Furthermore, the current structure of the Security Council has been criticized for being outdated and out of touch with the realities of the 21st century. The world has changed significantly since the UN was established, and new challenges have emerged that the current system is ill-equipped to address. For example, issues such as climate change, cybersecurity, and the rise of non-state actors like terrorist organizations require a more flexible and inclusive approach to global governance.

Palki Sharma Upadhyay’s argument that powers should be shared among all members of the UN reflects a growing consensus that the current system is in need of reform. However, achieving such reform is easier said than done. Any attempt to change the structure of the Security Council is likely to face resistance from the five permanent members, who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Furthermore, there is no consensus among the other members of the UN about how the Security Council should be reformed, with different countries advocating for different approaches.

Despite these challenges, there have been some efforts to reform the Security Council in recent years. For example, the “Uniting for Consensus” group, which includes countries such as Italy, Pakistan, and Mexico, has proposed expanding the number of non-permanent members of the Security Council and reducing the veto power of the permanent members. Similarly, the “Group of Four” (Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan) has called for an expansion of the Security Council to include more permanent members, including themselves.

However, any attempt to reform the Security Council will require a significant amount of political will and diplomatic maneuvering. The five permanent members will likely resist any attempt to reduce their power, while other countries will have their own interests and priorities to consider. Finding a consensus among the 193 members of the UN will be a daunting task, but it is a necessary one if the UN is to remain relevant and effective in the 21st century.

In conclusion, Palki Sharma Upadhyay’s argument that powers should be shared among all members of the UN reflects a growing consensus that the current structure of the Security Council is outdated and in need of reform. However, achieving such reform will require a concerted effort from all member states of the UN. The current structure of the Security Council has been in place for over 75 years, and any attempt to change it will face significant resistance from the permanent members who have benefited from the current system.

Nonetheless, it is important to recognize that the current structure of the Security Council is no longer adequate for addressing the complex and multifaceted challenges that the world faces today. The UN was created to promote collective security and cooperation among nations, and this can only be achieved if power and responsibility are shared equitably among all members.

Reforming the Security Council is not a simple matter, and there are many different proposals on the table. However, it is clear that the current system is in need of reform, and the longer this is postponed, the more difficult it will become. Member states of the UN must work together to find a solution that is fair, democratic, and effective in promoting peace and security for all.

In the end, Palki Sharma Upadhyay’s suggestion to share powers and responsibility among all members is a sensible solution that can help to mitigate the current democratic deficit within the UN. Although it may not be a perfect solution, it is a step in the right direction, and it can be a catalyst for further reforms that ensure a more just and equitable international system. By working together, member states of the UN can create a better future for all, where peace, security, and cooperation are the guiding principles of international relations.

We earlier published that Lai Mohammed, Nigeria’s Information and Culture Minister, has highlighted the issue of malnutrition as a serious threat to the survival, growth, and development of Nigerian children. Speaking at the inauguration of the Special National Food and Nutrition Media Team in Abuja…continue reading

When Prof. Uche Ikonne was the vice chancellor of Abia State university, he was so greedy that he converted the entire institution to his family business. His son, Chike, was the one in charge of printing examination booklets in the entire university throughout Ikonne’s five years reign – that was one of the contracts used to syphon millions from the school coffers apart from their lliodant outsource firm.

A medical doctor so to say printing examination booklets for an institution. What a wonder.

Same Uche Ikonne introduced Wifi levy in Abia State polytechnic and handed same over to his son to manage and syphon funds as well.

Those who are projecting the man to be Abia governor do not know him too well. I pity those of our people who are supporting a rat out of naivety to oversee a meat in the basket.

In our local colloquium, there is this adage that says,

there is no problem in giving the monkey water, where the problem lies is in retrieving the cup from the monkey after the deal.”

Prof. Uche Ikonne has no good track record as a public servant. He has never done anything so perfectly in his entire years in public service apart from embezzlement of funds – that’s his area of specialization.

Abia is already in a comatose to be left in the hand of a grumpy squanderer who would finally strangle the State before throwing the carcass to the vultures to feast on.

Shine your eyes, Ndi Abia