To say that the reform of the United Nations is long overdue is to state the obvious. In fact, it has never performed the function, or at least the main function, for which it was originally established; namely, to act as a forum in which various debates between the different states could be settled peacefully. There is a long list of occasions on which individual states have completely ignored the opinion of the majority of the member states, even when this opinion was supported by a U. N. Security Council resolution.

 

The UN has been facing additional problems since the collapse of communism in Europe and of the bipolar world. Many new actors have appeared on the world stage. The newborn states (mostly those built on the ruins of the multiethnic east European communist bloc) could potentially be integrated into the international community seamlessly. However, the emerging sub- and supranational economic, political, ethnic, and religious actors cannot be drawn into this system and as a result the UN has little influence over on them.

 

Moreover, the UN was partly based on the premise of a post-power politics vision. Unfortunately, military force has remained a central element in international relations. The permanent members of the Security Council are, except France, the ones which Franklin D. Roosevelt had suggested for the ’Four Policemen’. They were supposed to ’keep order in town’ like a good sheriff. However, ideological and geopolitical differences have rendered this body powerless in some of the most important crises during and after the Cold War.

 

The world’s power relations have changed dramatically since 1945, when the Security Council was established, and the Council no longer reflects the current global situation. Most experts agree that the Security Council should be reformed, but it is hugely optimistic to expect that this step will be taken any time in the near future. Permanent membership lends great status to China, France, Russia, the U.K., and the U.S. France and the U.K. have lost their legitimate claim to be called great powers with regard to their economic and political weight in the world, so both of them desperately cling to their few remaining vestiges of power. Therefore, the idea of a single EU seat on the Council is a futile one.

 

The most prominent candidates for permanent membership may well have legitimate  and meritorious claims but their candidacies struggle in a world whose strategic thinking is still dominated by the politics of power. Germany would further tip the balance in Europe’s favour and there is even internal European opposition (Italy) to its permanent membership. Japan’s candidacy is not supported by China. India may face weaker opposition, although China again would not be happy to see regional (and potentially global) rival among the permanent members of the Security Council. The Africans themselves are divided over a potential ’African seat’ to represent their continent, as are the Latin Americans over theirs.

 

The issue of morality is also an important one. The United Nations was supposed to be an organization of states which abided by uniformally high standards of human rights, civil rights and conduct in international affairs. These principles were abused from the start both by totalitarian states such as the Soviet Union and its satellites and by right-wing military dictatorships and authoritarian systems. The Realpolitik approach, which practically ignores the domestic affairs of an individual state, has made a mockery of the principles upon which the UN Charter was based. Unfortunately, this approach continually seems to survive the timid attempts that have been made to reform the organization. The most glaring example of this is the list of members of the UN Human Rights Council, which was created in early 2006. The list of members for 2009 which reads like a bad joke with such ’champions’ of human rights as Azerbaijan, China, Cuba, the Russian Federation, and Saudi Arabia. A generous interpretation may be that the UN members are trying to offer some incentive to these countries to improve their dismal record in this field but this list does not contribute to the credibility of either the Council or the UN itself.

 

Given the record of the UN and its current bloated membership, a prudent nation or group of nations should not wait for the UN to take action, which happens all to late in most cases. To be more specific, there are two reasons why, if ever the ESDP comes into being, the EU should not refrain from deploying its military force regardless of UN action. Firstly, such is the quagmire of international power politics that any meaningful international action will inevitably be vetoed in the Security Council by either China or Russia or the U.S., with the exception of some peace-keeping missions in areas of peripheral interest to these countries. Secondly, the EU is based on principles of freedom that its members have to observe, for example, free market economy and parliamentary democracy, and its decision-making process should not therefore be hindered by dictators and tyrants such as Kim Jong Il of North Korea or Fidel Castro of Cuba.