This statement can be supported by the fact that countries seeking NATO membership must provide evidence that they have a functioning democratic, political system based on a market economy. They also have to have the ability and willingness to make military contributions to the Alliance, commit to solving conflicts peacefully and to cooperate with other member states. However, there are a number of arguments against NATO's enlargement as well as the Alliance as a whole. NATO is much less experienced in handling international conflicts than, for example, the UN or the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). The OSCE has 55 member states and together with the UN can offer more diversity and experience in international security. These organisations should cooperate rather then compete against each other. NATO might be stronger in military sense but in today's world, peace-keeping is far more important and solving conflicts militarily should be viewed as the last resort. Indeed, one may question if the world is ever going to achieve disarmament. (www.osce.org). The general philosophy seems to be that countries should increase their military resources if there is a threat but also increase them if there is not one, since there may be one in the future. As a consequence of NATO expansion, more and more countries are arming themselves on the grounds of security. Another downside of NATO expansion can be seen in increased control and influence of the United States in and over Europe. (http://www.transnational.org/pressinf/pf36.html)
“The Bush administration was accused of wanting, at best, to turn what had been a strong and successful security organisation into an instrument of US foreign policy.” (Cornish, 2004)

There are several problems with the current state of UN Security Council. Firstly, the 5 permanent members with veto power are able to block any decision that goes against their interests or those of their allies. “Numerous commissions and inquiries have recommended constructive approaches for expansion and reform and for gradual erosion of the veto power, but all have been blocked by the intransigence of the permanent members.” (www.zmag.org). Many countries would like to become permanent members while others wish the permanent membership and the veto power that goes with it, was abolished altogether. In order to combat crime internationally, states need to cooperate. To be able to achieve this cooperation, powerful states and economies need to come together and make the best use of resources and intelligence available. At the moment it seems that the five permanent members make all the decisions. Power distribution based on who was on the winning side of the war 60 years ago is not representative. As time passes and many conflicts that should be resolved turn into endless fighting, it becomes obvious that a radical change in the UN structure is needed. Security requirements have changed dramatically since 1945, when the UN was founded. Therefore, the UN also needs to change, otherwise it will not be able to respond to evolving threats.

Even the Council itself recognises its weakness. In the executive summary: “The total global supply of available peacekeepers is running dangerously low. Just to do an adequate job of keeping the peace in existing conflicts would require almost doubling the number of peacekeepers around the world.” (www.un.org/secureworld/brochure.pdf) As far as peacekeeping goes, it appears that even if decisions are made, they don't account for much more than a charade. Even if the troops are sent to assist in peacekeeping, as they were in Somalia or Rwanda, their actions come across as highly inadequate. The reform proposals developed by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan have been met with harsh criticism. The report suggests two models - one involving the accession of new states into the permanent ranks without the veto power, the other involving new four-year renewable seats. Maybe it is time for to UN to be either replaced or completely restructured. The current structure is by no means the only possible one. The world needs an organisation whose intentions and judgement can be as trusted as far as possible. This is certainly hard to imagine with the overwhelming influence of the United States that often ignores all the rules and agreements and simply does as it please, as seen in the war in Iraq. The UN was created to prevent war but it was not able to stop the US invading Iraq.

One option is to consider creating a new security institution, which does not include the US. After all, that has been achieved with the International Criminal Court.

“The largest divergence between the European and American strategic outlooks is over the role of military force in security policy.” (Thomson, 2003) The French opposition to the US wanting to invade Iraq made it impossible to obtain a UN Security Council resolution. And so the United States and Europe - mainly Germany, France and some small countries- drifted apart on the fundamentals of security policy. This alienation led to these countries actively opposing the US in the UN Security Council as well as NATO.

In conclusion, the UN and NATO were established over 50 years ago, one to maintain global peace after the second world war, the other to act as a military presence against the emerging communist superpowers. In the current world of global terrorism and internal conflicts, there is still a strong need for global organisations to maintain safety and security, but the UN and NATO in their present form may not be the best vehicles by which these goals can be achieved.