On April 27, 2022, 193 members of the United Nations General Assembly approved a resolution asking the five permanent (P5) members of the Security Council (United States, Russia, China, United Kingdom and France) to justify their right of veto. The decision establishes the obligation to convene a special session of the General Assembly within ten days of the expressed veto aiming to “start a debate on the situation for which the veto was placed”.

It looks like strong action, bolstered by the most recent Russian invasion of Ukraine. Indeed, the reform of the UN Security Council is a hotly debated and urgently needed issue. It was also discussed in depth during the round table organized in Rome on April 26 by the Directorate of Communication of the Republic of Turkey, the scope of which, in addition to being timely, reveals a general coherence of intentions in almost – the entire international community. After all, the motto “The world is bigger than five”, as Turkish President Erdogan often points out, is a big truth. However, too many opposing positions and divergent interests still cover the broad international consensus on the need to revise the UN system.

War in Ukraine and the ineffectiveness of the UN

The war in Ukraine has once again proven the ineffectiveness of the multilateral system in the face of crises and conflicts. We are all witnessing an unfortunate total blockage of the UNSC as it was designed to maintain international peace and security. Today, the main problem is the composition of five permanent members with a right of veto and ten non-permanent members selected on a regional basis and rotating every two years. Such a framework is anachronistic, since it resembles the distribution of powers of the international system that emerged after the Second World War. The first attempt at reform came in 1963, when the number of non-permanent members was increased from six to ten and the number of countries represented in the General Assembly increased from 51 to 198.

READ: Russia says Israeli ‘mercenaries’ are fighting alongside far-right in Ukraine

Along with the transformation of the international system and the new world order, from the Cold War to US-led unipolarity and the emerging new multipolarity, the main leitmotif has been whether the UNSC is able to contribute to international peace and security. Unfortunately, we have to admit that what was designed as the main guarantor of international stability turned out to have some dysfunctions because it froze any effective multilateral solution. The spirit of reform unfolded on five pillars, namely membership category, right of veto, extension of UNSC membership, regional inclusion and relations with the General Assembly. Nevertheless, different and sometimes divergent interests crystallize within three major groups of States. The so-called “Group of 4” (Brazil, Germany, Japan and India) argues that they should also be included in the UNSC as they are influential both politically and economically.

On the other hand, African Union states are calling for the inclusion of at least two African states and expanded membership, while more than 40 countries making up the group, “United for Consensus”, support a new category members for an extended period on a regional basis. Regional representation is crucial, as today the Permanent 5 does not include any states from Africa, Latin America or the Middle East. Moreover, the current composition of the P5 reflects a sort of polarization between “West” and “East”. Unfortunately, it is evident that even within these factions there are opposing currents, which ultimately aim to protect their own national interests.

Many very fragile positions and compromises

Clearly, the United Nations system is affected by many fragile positions and compromises. The picture is complicated by considering the voting pattern needed to approve any change. It requires at least two-thirds of the member states of the General Assembly, which means 128 members out of 192. There is scope to believe that future developments will be quite adverse without any effective reform in such a stalled climate.

Along with the war in Ukraine, the big question of nuclear confrontation and conflicts related to new technologies is on the table. In addition, many files are filled with problems related to conventional wars or frozen conflicts. The latest events in Afghanistan have marked the failure of the West and of multilateralism, which still has to deal with humanitarian emergencies and relations with the Taliban regime.

LILY: This fugitive Afghan general should press his own stop button

Moreover, the unresolved crises and disputes in Haiti, Yemen, Ethiopia and Syria, to name a few examples, are all signs that peace is far from being achieved. Not to mention the ongoing situation in Cyprus, which is perhaps the oldest frozen conflict in the world, and the United Nations Peacekeeping Mission, the resolution of which requires more realistic UN action; or Libya, where the UN has proven effective in its mediation, but where the road ahead is still difficult. In addition, many other international issues such as the pandemic, the environment and poverty require a firm and consistent international position.

For all these reasons and given the P5’s right to veto, despite the most recent recommendation, it will probably be difficult to achieve a radical reform of the UN security system. Although the future paths do not look so positive, it is undeniable that the United Nations system has so far been the only tool empowered to mitigate conflicts. Therefore, it is only by raising the awareness that the key players are more than five and that peace and stability are the supreme international interests that effective changes can be made to the 1945 conception of security. .

(Source: Anadolu News Agency)

The opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.