The United Nations Security Council, whose five members hold veto power, defines aggression. If one of these members chooses not to recognize an aggressor, the UN has no power to proceed against that aggressor. Since the primary interests of these states are not always aligned with the interests of the global community, aggression is likely to be defined in terms of political benefits for countries. States may choose not to enter a conflict due to the pressure this would place on their military capabilities, which would lead to the weakening of state defenses. The military plays an important role in the economy of many nations. Canada, for example, produces a large amount of weapons but sells most of them to other nations. In this way, Canada benefits economically from the war until it is forced into conflict. The UN seeks to act as a multilateral force but is significantly influenced by the United States. The United States provides the majority of the United Nations' funding. If the United States does not allow a state to be defined as an aggressor, it is almost impossible for the United Nations to act. The United States can allow a state to designate an aggressor to quell political pressure, but then withhold funding, preventing the United Nations from taking broader measures to repel or punish aggressors. Political pressures play the most important role in influencing states on how to define aggression because, no matter how large a state is, it cannot maintain power without the political support of other states and its citizens. However, the United States does its best to get away with it without the approval of other members of the Security Council. When states deal with political matters, they must proceed with caution... middle of paper... the very nature of the dishonesty of its members who control them. It seems that aggression will always be defined by political standards and not by humanitarian or other standards. Economic systems are driven by political actions, and the development and success of such systems allows for the creation of further military development. As military forces increase in number and sophistication, the world's great powers will use the capabilities of their militaries to pursue their goals. The power of the world is in the hands of a small number of politicians who have the ability to lie to their people and attack anyone they want without any disciplinary action from the United Nations. In a world where politicians wield the power to create the reality people see, there is some hope that people will hold great powers accountable for their aggressive actions??