An Inherently Unfair System (Oct. 5th)

    Today's class was congested with experience-based learning and information on international relations. Subsequent to last week's class, we imagined how difficult it is to detect whether a country is trustworthy, especially when there are substantial numbers of participants, like the UN. Controlling the behavior of politicians within the country is problematic enough, but with other countries involved, the difficulty and complexity are unthinkable. One possible factor that differentiates the two circumstances is the capability to police and enforce the law. For domestic circumstances, there are police and people who monitor the country, but there is no world police. Alongside such realizations, in this class, I acquired knowledge of new terminologies, such as bilateral treaties. This is a treaty in which two countries are unanimous on a topic and form a treaty, but this has its limitations because there is no going beyond the two countries, plus either side can betray the other. Therefore, we discussed solutions for these issues, but to no surprise, it was very difficult to think of an ideal plan, since this is a global issue copious politicians have negotiated throughout history. 

    Talking about history, in the 20th century, the forerunner to the united nations (the league of nations) was formed. I had partially learned about the history of the UN and about how the system runs (in another subject), but I had never been explained the limitations and downsides of the system so critically. For example, the League of nations being a racist constitution was new information. Being given this information, it made a lot more sense that the UN served as a more comprehensive and standard system, less problematic compared to the League of nations. Another major difference established was how Japan was portrayed. In our Contemporary Society class last year, we were told that Japan pays the most amount of money to the UN. I vividly remember wondering why Japan is not part of the P5 if they are paying so much, that I was even slightly provoked. Notwithstanding, when seeing examples of Japan and India justifying their purpose in the P5 in today's class sounded superficial. On top of that, the innumerable inherently and systematically unfair components of the UN shocked me, even though we dedicated an entire unit to learn about the UN last year. Adding on, the additional shocking news was how manipulative and secretive the P5 was. I had never known that the P5 had so many spies around the world and weapons, and plentiful other secrets that the media conceals. Today's class projected and showcased how not only political theories but also international relations have a very close connection to media construction and unreliable mainstream media sources. 

    Recently, I have been enjoying the experiential learning where Mr.Paterson moves students around to demonstrate because this way the information is more memorable and easy to comprehend. For example, after abundant years of reading the news, I finally understood why some countries are so extensive in their actions to protect other (ally) countries. Nonetheless, I am still unconvinced by this unorganized and unfair system. The judgments are very selectively enforced, too biased, and the punishments some countries receive due to bad relationships with the P5 are too extreme. So, when my "country" was talking about how to fix the situation, there was not a single competent idea. After discussing this for a few minutes, I realized how truly difficult it is to dismantle this system. The few ideas that did come up were things like gathering every country in the world except the P5 to create a new UN, or economically pressuring the 5 biased countries, or have another World War. All of these "solutions" have countless limitations, but in reality, these are the only possible ways to knock down the P5. While discussing this issue, another question that came to mind was what to do after deconstructing the current P5. I am personally in agreement with the P5 being dismantled but what next? Further research on what the critics around the world are suggesting is needed. 

Notes: 

After the League of nations (which was relatively racist) we needed something more comprehensive to provide a standard system that is unproblematic. 

UN is supposed to be a democratic meeting. how did the UN enforce the law? United Nations Security Council consists of 15 countries

P5+10 alternating countries. 15 is a representative of 194. disenfranchised - no power to vote. having a boy looks good, but is it enough to represent the rest. 

there have been many calls to reform the system but simultaneously everyone does not want to punish their friends.  how could we really reform the system? 

their judgments are selectively enforced, some countries are heavily punished depending on the relationship with permanent members. 

I'm exercising my vito -> the motion is dismissed. P5 is essentially untouchable(anything that is proposed can be dropped)

biased to the five countries. the entire world does not benefit from this system. 

P5 decides whether countries deserve economic sanctions or military actions against them. 

nothing to do with, right-wing left wing, communism, capitalism, dictatorship

in historical events USSR used the most vito, the US has recently used many. 

loads of people descended from the British empire.