News Desk
The United States’ recent departures from international organizations like the World Health Organization and the United Nations Human Rights Council are more than just policy shifts; they are a signal of a broader retreat from multilateralism. Critics say these decisions reflect a pattern of prioritizing self-interest over global cooperation.
This raises a provocative question: should the U.S. go further and give up its permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council?
Supporters of this idea argue that the Council’s power dynamics are heavily skewed, with the U.S. using its veto disproportionately to block resolutions, especially those addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The U.S. has vetoed 53 resolutions concerning Israel, far more than any other member, leaving many to see the veto as less a tool for balance and more one of obstruction.
Some believe the world might benefit from replacing the U.S. with countries like India, Japan, or other emerging powers. These nations bring fresh perspectives, growing global influence, and histories that are less mired in the polarizing superpower rivalries of the past.
A restructured Security Council with more balanced-minded members could shift the focus to cooperation and problem-solving rather than gridlock and domination.
Would such a change mean the end of U.S. hegemony at the U.N.? Probably. But it could also mean a Council that better represents the diverse interests and voices of the world.
For Palestinians and others sidelined by decades of veto politics, this might finally create a path toward meaningful resolutions. Global peace wouldn’t be guaranteed, but the hope for a fairer, more inclusive order would feel a lot less like a distant dream.
