I may get a lot of flak for this one, but I must say that I agree with some of the things the Iranian president said in his speech last night to the UN. And the attack would come from a place of hate for all things Islamic that has arisen since 9-11. That hatred would lead us to believe that just because the president of Iran doesn't like our government, he is automatically a bad person. It is the same stupid mindset that got people to convert French Fries into Freedom Fries when France didn't join the war effort in Iraq. It is ignorance. Let's forget for a minute that this guy hates Israel and doesn't believe in the Holocaust. It does not make him unworthy of making a fair point. If you actually listen to some of the things he said, he did make some good point. The UN Security Council does need reforming.
The UN Security Council is made up of five permanent members and ten elected members. That single point makes no sense to me. Why should any member nation get a permanent spot on this very influential council? Basically, the nations that proclaimed victory after WWII also proclaimed their permanent leadership in the UN. To me this setup is nothing but bad management and a successful attempt at seizing power over other nations. That is what the Security Council has done since its creation.
This principle of permanent members is also based on the fact that they will always be ruled by decent and humane leaders. This is clearly not the case. Both China and Russia have almost been voted out of the security council for such reason. But they were not.
The US has been seen in the last few years to be using its seat on the security council for its own policy-pushing. But there are no calls for Security Council members for our removal. No only crazy Muslim dictators (who are actually freely elected...but it looks good to call him that) are speaking up. But maybe he has a good point. In his speech, he says, "Apparently, the Security Council can only be trusted to secure the rights and security of certain big powers." He is referring to the US and also to the US's refusal to stop to conflict in Lebanon when other member nations wanted to. He makes a fair point here. The point of the Security Council is to make decisions that are for the good of the entire world. The US seems to only make decisions based on our own backwards foreign policies.
To reform the Security Council, I feel it will be necessary to eliminate the permanent membership of any nation. Instead I think 15 nations should be voted on by the general assembly to make up the Security Council for a designated length of time. It would be in this way that ALL nations get to make the big decisions in the UN.
Much like Congress and the White House (or any government for that matter), fresh ideas and faces are needed to make change. If the UN is meant to fulfill its charter to help all nations, then this reform is very much needed. If the change does not occur, then I think the UN will go the way of our own nation and fall into the rut of bureaucracy and stagnation. It will cease to be effective and at that point should be disbanded.