If there is one hot topic at this year's United Nations General Assembly, besides condemning Israel's atrocities, it might be the reform of the UN Security Council.

However, the second topic is actually not a new issue. Every year, many countries raise the issue of reforming the Security Council mechanism during the General Assembly, and the five permanent members of the Security Council also "support" the reform.

For example, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov stated this year that Russia called for the democratization of the Security Council by increasing the representation of countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, and supported India and Brazil's bids for permanent seats on the Security Council.

Indian media: Russia again supports India becoming a permanent member of the Security Council

After Lavrov made this statement, Indian media immediately went into a frenzy, as if India's "permanent membership" was just around the corner — but in fact, if we have followed news about UN reforms, we would know that Russia has proposed supporting India's "permanent membership" every year, but the actual progress is basically zero.

Not to mention that China will definitely oppose it, and although the US, UK, and France have shown varying degrees of support for India's "permanent membership" on the surface, they actually have doubts about this proposal.

The magazine The Diplomat pointed out that although the US supports India's bid for a permanent seat on the Security Council in principle, no one believes that the US will really support this reform in practice, because "the US cannot determine whether India will support the stance of the West on major strategic issues."

America actually doubts India's "loyalty"

The Ukraine-Russia conflict is an example. India does not always vote with the Western countries at the UN, often maintaining its independent position, such as voting against or abstaining — because of this, the US considers India more of a fence-sitter rather than a "reliable partner".

This is even more so, even if India receives Russia's strong support, the "Group of Four" led by India still faces resistance from the "Coffee Club": Pakistan is responsible for blocking India, Italy opposes Germany, South Korea does not support Japan, and Argentina and Mexico target Brazil.

As early as 2005, the "Coffee Club" successfully prevented the "Group of Four" from pushing forward the "permanent membership" process.

In addition to expanding the number of permanent members of the Security Council, some countries have introduced new ideas in the issue of Security Council reform this year, such as Finland's proposal to abolish the veto power of the permanent members of the Security Council, and Singapore's proposal to limit the number of times the five permanent members use their veto power.

In fact, the five permanent members of the UN will not accept reforms that damage their interests

But more interestingly, the five permanent members' attitude towards this matter.

Considering the ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, Finland and Singapore's proposals clearly targeted Russia and the United States respectively, and the U.S. responded in a nonchalant manner, saying "the U.S. agrees with the reform of the Security Council and is willing to have 'open and honest discussions' on this challenging issue."

Russia, upon seeing this proposal involving its own interests, no longer pretended to support the democratic reform of the Security Council, and directly publicly stated that the veto power of the five permanent members is the cornerstone of the entire United Nations structure: without the veto power, the Security Council would become an institution that "forces questionable decisions on specific majorities and merely rubber-stamps them," and the veto power is the "most extreme measure" when all other options are exhausted, and it is the "inalienable right" of the five permanent members.

Small countries trying to bypass the five big countries? It's impossible

Russia's response reveals the essence of the permanent members of the UN Security Council: although the five permanent members often have differences on many issues, the five permanent members of the Security Council actually represent the voice of the dominant powers in five regions.

If the existence of the five great powers is ignored and so-called "democratic" reforms are forced through the Security Council, the result will be as Russia said: the Security Council will become an institution that only rubber-stamps decisions.

For example, suppose some small European countries force the adoption of Finland's proposal for the UN to send troops to Ukraine to expel Russian forces at the Security Council, but if the US, UK, and France remain indifferent, can Finland and these few European countries alone confront Russia? Obviously not.

Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7555349654494396982/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author, and we welcome you to express your attitude in the 【top/down】 button below.