essay plans

Examine the criticisms of NATO & the UNSC (12)

1. UNSC/NATO unity is slowly fragmenting

UNSC

• fragmentation of unity is present through the 2003 Iraq War where the UK & USA accused Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and wanted to intervene, whereas Russia and France were hesitant about this choice

• shows clear division among the UNSC, especially between the permanent members as by not coming to terms on these situations this proves a critical weakness of the UNSC as it could be argued this goes against the UN's founding principles of maintaining peace and stability

• Iraq War goes against this, showing fragmentation of unity as being split on military intervention, this could potentially lead to further issues in this manner, undermining the UNSC

NATO

///

2. both ineffective at dealing w security crisis 

UNSC

• limited by the veto powers of the 5 perm members

• veto means that international action can be blocked by any of these members

• has resulted in failure to act on war in Ukraine (action vetoed by Russia) and in Gaza (action vetoed by US)

• has damaged reputation of UNSC and its ability to support peace/diplomacy

NATO

• failure to resolve international crises in which it’s intervened

• seen in Libya where the failure of long term planning after NATO intervention to remove Gaddafi in 2011 led to ongoing civil war

• led to criticisms of NATO’s ability to uphold peace and security

3. both overreliant on US for funding and support, which makes them susceptible to global influence loss if the US decides to withdraw its support from these organisations

UNSC

• UNSC peacekeeping operations are reliant on the US for aid and resources.

• seen in Somalia in 1992 where UN peacekeepers were unable to defend themselves against rebel attack and US troops had to rescue the situation.

• Without US intervention and support it's likely that the UNSC would've failed completely, especially since the UNSC has no standing army.

• If the US was to leave the UNSC it's probable that they would struggle in further operations without the US' help, reducing their influence and therefore their ability to intervene in conflict.

NATO

• US is one of NATO's biggest funders, contributing to 16% of total NATO funds and being one of their biggest military suppliers.

• With Donald Trump becoming increasingly sceptical of the organisation since his 2nd term, NATO is at risk of losing a significant funder.

• (Furthermore, the historical context of the USA being the main drive for NATO's creation increases its overreliance).

• This has been a significant criticism of NATO and its inability to act without US backing

4. world powers tend to dominate both insitutions, undermining smaller nations

UNSC

• world powers tend to dominate as the 5 permanent members are the only UNSC members that can veto resolutions they disagree with, whereas other nations can't.

• it means that bigger powers can better protect their interest giving them further power to influence global agenda unlike other states.

• in 2022, Russia vetoed against the UN's Resolution condemning their invasion of Ukrain

• shows the strength of the world powers as by easily dismissing this act of peace, it undermines the UNSC severely which questions the availability of the veto as states use it for their own benefit

NATO

• The USA accounts for 2/3 of NATO spending, evident with how in 2021 its Defence Expenditures were £811bn

• by the USA spending so much, it could be argued that other small states would become reliant on them. This could make other states more lazy towards their approach and essentially set up an institution where the US are putting in all the work

• this could also make nations feel comfortable knowing they can rely on USA protection, making them contribute significantly less

• in 2025 Trump called for Spain to be removed from NATO, referring to Spain as ‘laggard’ since they won’t spend up to 2% minimum

5. both have been weak in influence

UNSC

• in 2018 the UK accused Russia of poisoning British nationals in Salisbury with a nerve agent, then proceeded to encourage independent sanctions

• shows weakness of the UNSC as they were unable to deal with these tensions between the two nations.

• There was also no prospect of the UNSC issuing a resolution against Russia, further showing its weakness as it fails in looking for a solution in the problem, which may make Russia feel entitled to do what they want

• By using independent sanctions (UK, USA) without UNSC backing, this means they're ignored, undermining them by reinforcing the idea of nation states holding more power than political organisations

NATO

• Article 5 where an attack on one ally is an attack on all can be seen as intimidating but in reality it didn't stop Russia from invading Polish airspace in 2025

• undermines its initial purpose of countering Russian aggression, so the fact they still invaded shows Russia haven't felt pressured by the military alliance.

• The fact that it's 1 v. 30 and Russia still act how they want would damage the legitimacy of NATO, as no country would want to be in such a situation

evaluate the criticisms made of both the IMF and the World Bank (12)

1. western dominated

IMF

• The United States and other wealthy nations have a disproportionately large share of the votes

  • the U.S. holding veto power

  • 17.4% of the total voting power in the IMF

  • the long-standing "gentleman's agreement" ensures that the IMF's managing director is always European

• arguably Western countries use the IMF as an instrument of its foreign policy, using it to promote its own agenda and maintain influence over developing nations

WB

• similarly to the IMF the USA and other powerful countries have veto powers

  • the president of the WB is always a US citizen

  • US also has veto power

  • roughly 16% of the total voting power in the WB

• Western countries having a large say over IMF policy overshadows developing countries that have a minority share of votes, despite representing the majority of the world's population

• the western/US dominance of both institutions has been criticised especially in todays modern international system were new economic powers are emerging e.g. China and India who should arguably have more influence in global economic governing bodies

2. they promote neoliberal policies 

IMF

• seen with SAPs

  • conditionality of SAPs have been criticised of inflicting more harm than good on developing countries such as Tanzania, and increasing their dependency on powerful northern economies

    • (according to world systems theory by Immanuel Wallerstein it creates a state of neo-colonial dependency as peripheral states in developing world become dependent on cheap manufactured products of core states)

  • Hence, this conditionality of neo-liberal principles undermines state sov as states have little choice than to accept these loans limiting their ability to make its own economic policies.

WB