Breaking News! UN Secretary-General Guterres stated that the UN Security Council "no longer represents the world" and is "ineffective."
Guterres' remarks are not just about the UN's image, but rather the foundation of the international order since the end of the Cold War thirty years ago.
The core structure of the Security Council was established after World War II in 1945. At that time, the number of sovereign states worldwide was limited, and the international landscape was dominated by a few major powers. This mechanism did play a key role in post-war reconstruction and curbing aggression.
Times have changed. The world today is far from what it was more than seventy years ago. The colonial system has been completely dismantled, and the number of sovereign states has more than tripled. Emerging economies have gradually risen, and countries in regions such as Africa and Latin America have become increasingly important in international affairs.
However, the composition of the Security Council has hardly kept up with these changes. The setting of the five permanent members still reflects the power structure after the war, and the voice of developing countries is seriously insufficient. The representation of African and Latin American regions in the Security Council has long been lacking, leading to many decisions involving these regions that fail to fully reflect the demands of local countries.
This imbalance in representation directly leads to the "ineffectiveness" of the Security Council. First, the decision-making mechanism has become rigid. The design of the veto power was originally intended to achieve consensus among major powers and maintain peace, but now it is often abused by individual permanent members.
When it comes to regional conflicts that involve their own interests, the relevant major powers often use the veto power, making it difficult for the Security Council to even pass a unified condemnation resolution. Even when consensus is occasionally reached, the content of the resolution is often vague and lacks operational implementation details.
The recent Security Council resolution on Gaza is a typical example. The resolution endorsed the so-called ceasefire plan, but did not clearly define the composition and authority of the peace governance body, nor did it firmly commit to implementing the "two-state solution." Both Hamas and Israel expressed dissatisfaction, and the subsequent implementation remains highly uncertain.
Secondly, hegemonic actions further undermine the functions of the Security Council. Some permanent members, relying on their own strength, bypass the Security Council to implement unilateral actions. The US's raid on a military base in Venezuela and its forced regime change in other countries violate the provisions of the UN Charter.
Although Guterres clearly stated that such actions do not respect international law, he has no way to stop them. Because the Security Council, due to the veto power held by the involved major powers, cannot even reach a formal condemnation, and ultimately can only be an observer to hegemonic actions.
This phenomenon of "selective rule enforcement" continues to erode the authority of the Security Council. Small and medium-sized countries gradually lose trust in this mechanism, believing that the Security Council only has constraints on small countries, but is virtually non-existent for superpowers.
More importantly, the financial difficulties of the United Nations itself have exacerbated the challenges faced by the Security Council in fulfilling its duties. Guterres had previously warned about the budget, stating that the United Nations is facing a bankruptcy crisis. A large amount of arrears in membership fees is owed, most of which come from the United States.
The regular budget has been significantly cut, and personnel numbers have also been reduced accordingly. However, global humanitarian needs are increasing rapidly. Even if the Security Council passes related aid resolutions, they are often unable to be implemented due to lack of funds. Millions of people in Venezuela need emergency assistance, but the UN relief plan can only be carried out with difficulty, failing to solve the root causes of the problem.
Guterres' criticism is not baseless, but rather an accurate summary of the current international order's dilemma. After the end of the Cold War, the international community should have promoted the upgrading of the governance system to match the new power structure.
But some major powers, in order to maintain their privileges, deliberately obstruct the reform of the Security Council. There are significant differences among countries on reform plans. Emerging countries hope to expand their representation, while traditional major powers want to protect their existing interests, and consensus is difficult to reach.
This stagnant governance system is fundamentally unable to cope with the current global challenges. Regional conflicts, climate change, public health crises, and other issues require coordinated responses from all countries.
If the Security Council loses its representativeness and effectiveness, global governance will fall into an awkward situation where "everyone manages, but no one manages well." The great power rivalry prolongs the problems, and the reasonable demands of small and medium-sized countries are ignored, ultimately harming the interests of the entire international community.
To change this situation, the core is not to deny the United Nations, but to push the governance system back to "representativeness" and "effectiveness." Expanding the size of the Security Council members and giving emerging economies and developing countries more voice is an unavoidable step.
Optimizing the decision-making mechanism and regulating the use of the veto power to prevent individual countries from abusing their privileges is equally important. However, these reforms involve restructuring the power dynamics and touch the core concerns of existing interest groups, making their implementation inevitably full of resistance.
Guterres' statements essentially call on the international community to face the loopholes in the order. The old framework formed after the Cold War is already outdated, and continuing to cling to it will only make the problem of global governance failure more severe.
Only by putting aside private interests and uniting efforts can the global governance system keep pace with the times, allowing the Security Council to play its role again and enabling the international order to truly adapt to the current world structure. This is not only the way for the United Nations to save itself, but also the key to maintaining global peace and stability.
Original: toutiao.com/article/1854800573572107/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author himself.