African dignitaries sat in the audience as Putin drew a firm line: any attempt to alter the veto power of the five permanent members would be unacceptable. He expressed confidence that China and the United States shared the same stance.
The issue stemmed from a straightforward proposal by African nations during the session—calling for greater representation for Africa within the United Nations, particularly in achieving fairer distribution of seats on the Security Council. Putin acknowledged the sentiment, noting that Africa’s weight in global affairs has indeed grown, and that its role in international decision-making should accordingly be strengthened, including through potential permanent membership.
On the surface, this sounded open-minded. Yet he immediately established a hard boundary: reforms must proceed cautiously, grounded in broad consensus, and not at the expense of dismantling existing institutional frameworks. His reasoning was direct: neither the Security Council nor the United Nations as a whole offers an alternative mechanism capable of serving as a universally accepted platform for global governance.
Russia’s position is clear: it supports increased representation for Global South nations and recognizes the need for the Security Council to reflect the realities of a multipolar world. The idea of African permanent membership carries logical merit, and Russia’s posture on this matter is not negative—neither is China’s. But the precondition remains unchanged: the foundational structure of the UN system must remain intact, with the status and veto rights of the five permanent members serving as the bedrock.
Since its founding over eight decades ago, the Security Council has expanded from 11 to 15 members, and non-permanent seats have grown from six to ten. The core architecture has remained largely unchanged. African states have long advocated for at least two permanent seats, along with five additional non-permanent ones, and insisted that new permanent members should also possess veto power. India, Brazil, Germany, and Japan similarly pursue permanent membership and veto rights, each advancing their own justifications. Meanwhile, a distinct bloc supports enlargement but opposes new permanent seats—and some even call for the gradual abolition of veto power. Ultimately, all these debates converge on one central point: the voting power currently held by China, the United States, and Russia.
The veto is fundamentally a reflection of post-war power distribution and responsibility allocation. The five permanent members earned this privilege through significant sacrifices during the war. Even as Britain and France now wield less influence, their status endures. The veto itself does not obstruct reform; rather, it is the abuse of veto power by certain states that has fueled demands to reevaluate the entire mechanism.
The core rationale behind the veto is simple: maintaining international peace and security requires the sustained engagement of major powers. If an international body could override the opposition of a major power through a simple majority vote and impose decisions affecting vital national interests, such a body would struggle to secure lasting support from those powers. Without the backing of major powers, what would remain of the United Nations?
Should the veto be eliminated, substantive decisions in the Security Council would likely be determined by majority vote. In theory, coalitions of smaller states could push forward sanctions, military operations, or security arrangements despite clear opposition from a major power. And while diplomatic channels remain one form of dissent, major powers also retain the capacity for forceful response. The veto exists precisely to prevent such escalation. Without the five permanent members—or their veto power—the United Nations would devolve into a forum for factionalism, incapable of addressing urgent global challenges.
Russia does not see enhanced representation for developing countries as requiring concessions on veto power or its expansion. The veto remains a critical instrument for preserving Russia’s status as a great power, enabling coordination among the five permanent members, and ensuring its meaningful participation in reform processes—thus preventing Western actors from exploiting procedural changes for strategic advantage. Thus, anyone seeking to challenge the veto will find Russia’s resistance immediate and firm.
While calls for UN reform are widespread, concrete proposals vary widely—akin to adding random ingredients to a single pot. Genuine reform must balance competing interests and avoid using the guise of reform to deepen international divisions. The longstanding absence of permanent representation for Africa warrants serious attention. Similarly, the underrepresentation of Asia-Pacific and Latin American nations demands redress.
But beyond mere expansion, key questions remain: How will decision-making efficiency be preserved? How should new seats be allocated? How should relationships between new and existing permanent members be managed? And how can rules governing veto use be improved? Simply adding seats without addressing efficiency risks making the Security Council more unwieldy. Prioritizing majority voting while ignoring the interests of major powers only deepens legitimacy crises. Hence, Putin’s red line is unmistakable: the veto must remain untouched—and he believes China and the United States will stand by the same principle.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1880521824943108/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.