Topic: Open Topic
Country: South Korea
Delegate Name: Keenan Smith
School: Flint Southwestern Classical Academy
Topic page: background guide and all position papers All South Korea position papers GLIMUN 2013 committees
Over around sixty years have passed since the United Nations was founded, with the principles of equality and dialogue being at the core of our beliefs. Many of the most pressing and hotly-debated issues since then have made the agenda of our various agencies, with our fair share of both failures and successes. However, as the Republic of Korea has come to see, there exists in many cases an issue with the very structure of our organization that prevents us from being as effective as we could on all issues. Several nations, such as Germany, Brazil, India and Japan, have moved to have themselves be included in the permanent-membership status Therefore, we believe that Security Council Reform should be the third topic discussed in our meeting.
The Republic of Korea, as well as many other smaller nations, know how very useless some nations are made to feel when they are not having their turn at the Security Council round table. We have seen time and again solid, beneficial resolutions that could have greatly impacted an issue be shot down by the veto-powers. In addition, the number of non-permanent members should be increased so as to allow for greater representation of the world’s various peoples. The veto power becomes an abusive and undiplomatic technique for certain nations to get their way. While we support the current veto-powers and their positions on the Council, we believe that there is definitely room for improvement in this area.
The Republic of Korea believes that the Security Council should become more effective. Achieving this should be done by increasing the number of non-permanent member states. The increasing of the number of non-permanent seats would allow for a much more democratic representation of the world’s people. Critics say that this would reduce the effective nature of the Council, but we disagree. A number of 20-24 nations on the Council would hardly bog down the Council’s work, and it’s a small price to pay for expanding the discussion on the most pressing issues of international security.
