The United Nations began with the lofty ideal that all countries are equal, and as such no country will be barred admission. Despite its healthy ideological roots, this has merely given the tin-can dictators of the world the legitimacy they desperately crave. The U.N. charter declaring the universality of human rights is virtually meaningless if several of its constituent nations brazenly flout them. From North Korea to the archipelagic African states, one can see barely veiled murderers sitting behind their official-looking nameplates at the United Nations, perpetuating unspeakable atrocities on one hand and demanding an international voice on the other. The tug-and-pull of economic sanctions, trading a few tons of steel for a few thousand lives, implies totalitarian crimes are ultimately acceptable. This sort of moral ambiguity leaves the question of human rights open and allows larger countries to make self-serving deals with dictators under the guise of internationalism.

The U.N. Security Council consists of the United States, Britain, Russia, China and France. There also are 10 rotating positions, but the five countries listed above are permanent fixtures — and each exercises absolute veto power on any resolution. This gives them a vastly disproportionate amount of influence in the group’s daily activities. The geopolitical landscape has changed significantly since 1945; new empires have sprung and old ones have decayed. The U.N.‘s power structure, however, has remained roughly unchanged. The Security Council is largely to blame for much of the current disillusionment toward the United Nations.

The group’s most glaring flaw, however, is its complete inability to exert itself autonomously. There is no significant military force solely loyal to the United Nations — only a small group of peacekeepers can truly be said to be acting in its name. As such, the United Nations is incapable of enforcing any of its resolutions, unless one or more of its powerful members decides to take up the cause. Placing the burden of enforcement on its member nations severely dilutes the effectiveness of the organization and puts restrictions on what issues receive attention. The United Nations has selected the regions of the world that receive its help solely according to economic usefulness. Africa was ignored for decades, or only given a pittance of a peacekeeping force while the problems of the Middle East have almost always been a daily discussion.

The Security Council’s veto power was granted against the protests of many nations because Joseph Stalin refused to join without it. The absence of a military was deemed necessary because of the danger of a rogue power using it for their own ends.

A nascent organization proclaiming international brotherhood could hardly afford to deny members, so the maxim that no sovereign state be denied was instituted. However, the dynamics that made these measures necessary are not entirely present today, and it seems clear that the United Nations’ lopsided power distribution has acted to its detriment. These are urgent issues that must be addressed if the United Nations is to continue in its current form.

The United Nations currently has its cup full to overflowing; Africa is locked in a food crisis, the Middle East is volatile and there are immediate concerns regarding climate change. With so many issues demanding attention, it may seem difficult to allocate time for reform. It is clear with every passing day that the United Nations cannot continue as it was. A failure to change may result in a semi-functional organization being replaced by no organization at all.

Pavan Vangipuram is a State News columnist and a chemical engineering junior. Reach him at vangipu1@msu.edu.