This essay discusses the importance and relevance of the United Nations Security Council and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation as global security institutions, with particular regard to how global security issues have changed since the UN and NATO were first established. The initial aims and principles of UN / NATO will be described, and their effectiveness in relation to modern issues will be discussed.

Security needs in the 21st century are different to those 50 years ago. Mankind does not face simple wars anymore. These days we have to take into account existing threats such as terrorism and organised crime as well as new threats such as environmental degradation, exploitation of natural resources and global inequality. Terrorist activities in the Middle East, such as in Lebanon and Palestine dominated the latter half of the twentieth century. However, the September 11th attack by Al Qaida in 2001 marked a new era of global terrorism, and has been followed by other terrible atrocities, such as the massacre in Beslan and the Madrid train bombings. The threat of biological weapons is becoming ever increasing, and there are fears over the development of nuclear weapons by countries such as Iran, North Korea and Pakistan.

The United Nations developed from the League of Nations and came into existence on 24 October 1945, when the Charter was ratified by a majority of the 51 signatories. The Security Council is the most powerful organ within the UN system. Its main responsibility is to maintain international peace and security. There are five permanent members of the Security Council - the USA, the UK, France, China and Russia. Ten non-permanent members are elected for two-year terms. Article 27 of Chapter V ensures that all permanent members have a unilateral veto power in all substantive issues on the Council's agenda. All decisions made by the Security Council are binding and require at least 9 out of 15 majority vote. (www.una-uk.org/UN&C/sc.html) The Council's specific functions, as outlined in chapters VI, VII, VIII and XII include making recommendations about peaceful settlement of disputes, taking action against breaches of the peace, threats of the peace and acts of aggression as well as recommending the admission of new member states. (www.un.org)

One of the key issues faced by the UN in the 21st century is global terrorism, largely due to conflicts between islamic fundamentalism and capitalist ideals. “Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror,” Donald Rumsfeld wrote recently. “Are we capturing, deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?” (www.globalpolicy.igc.org).

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation was formed under Article 9 of the North Atlantic Treaty signed on April 4, 1949. The original signatories were Belgium, Britain, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal and the United States. NATO's purpose is to enhance the stability, well-being and freedom of its members by means of a system of collective security. In the years after World War II, many Western leaders saw the policies of the USSR as threatening stability and peace in Europe. NATO was created in the light of the cold war. It was originally formed as a strong military power to keep Russia and its nuclear weapons under control.

In the modern world, NATO's role has changed. With the cold war and the threat from Russian nuclear attack in the past, the Alliance has broadened its horizons and started to participate in peacekeeping missions. Security talks between members and non-members and links between the US, Canada and Europe are also on the agenda. NATO's mandate stated that it would comply with the UN charter. However, this has not always been the case. For example the UN did not sanction the bombing runs in Kosovo in 1999. NATO's assertion that the Council was paralysed by the certainty of a Russian veto was not accepted and NATO was criticised for its actions that killed many civilians and appeared to do more harm than good. Since NATO's creation, the Alliance has expanded from the 12 founding member countries to today's 26. There are different views on NATO's expansion. A study that the Alliance undertook in 1995 concluded that enlargement would increase stability and security for all the member countries. In the words of NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer: “It will be a major step towards a long-standing NATO objective - a Europe free, united and secure in peace, democracy and common values.”
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.

	Tento článok bol vytlačený zo stránky https://referaty.centrum.sk

Assess the importance and relevance of the UN Security Council and NATO as global security institutions