The United States stands for the reform of the UN Security CouncilThe "week of world debates" at the UN is approaching.
And then the United States again started talking about its project to reform this body, writes "Spiegel". Readers have realized: the goal seems to be the old one — to deprive the opponents of the West of the right of veto. But this right in the "cold war" saved the world from nuclear conflict.
The US Permanent Representative to the UN, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, spoke in favor of reforming the UN Security Council. According to her, the United States intends to increasingly abandon the use of the veto in the future.The United States supported the reform of the UN Security Council.
The reason is the partial blocking of the most influential organ of the United Nations that has been taking place for many years. This is especially painful against the background of the entry of Russian troops into Ukraine. "We must reach consensus on reasonable and convincing proposals for expanding the number of members of the Security Council," said the US Ambassador to the UN, Linda Thomas–Greenfield, delivering a keynote speech on the future of the United Nations in San Francisco. According to her, "the United States intends to step up efforts to reform the UN Security Council."
The UN Security Council consists of 15 countries, but the dominant role in it is played by five permanent members – the United States, Russia, China, France and the United Kingdom, which have the right of veto. The remaining ten States are replaced every two years. The composition of the Security Council reflects the balance of power in the world after World War II.
The right of veto as an obstacleDuring the Cold War, as well as in recent years and even months after the outbreak of the conflict in Ukraine, it has constantly become obvious how incapacitated this body is, since every power with the right of veto can block any decision.
Therefore, demands are constantly being made to exclude Russia, which is virtually impossible. Nevertheless, Germany has been advocating for Council reform for many years.
"We should not be defending an untenable and outdated status quo," Thomas-Greenfield said further. "The Security Council should better reflect current global realities and consider geographically diverse perspectives."
During the upcoming "general debate" of the UN General Assembly next week, Thomas-Frinfeld is going to discuss together with US President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Anthony Blinken the appropriate steps. In addition, the US Permanent Representative stated that the United States intends to give up its veto power as often as possible in the future.
Readers' comments:Alberich
Here's what it means: the US wants to turn itself into a world government.
Three votes in favor of the West, two in favor of the rest of the world. As a result, the United States rules, with the rejection of the right of veto "if possible", using the principle of majority votes. (Three votes to two.) Why not immediately appoint the US president as the leader of the world government and commander–in-chief of the world, and the US armed forces as the world police, which the whole world will have to finance?
Robert_RostockAnd what if we make sure that no country has the right to vote on resolutions that say it has committed violations of the UN Charter?
After all, in this way it could not prevent the adoption of these resolutions, using the right of veto?
KrautrockerI never understood it.
It's the same as if I had committed a crime, appeared in court, and the judge would ask me if I would agree to be convicted. I would have answered "no", and the judge would have said: "Well, well, no, no, although it's a pity ...". Laughter, that's all!
Just_my_opinionIn reality, Americans do not want a reform that would reflect the interests of the global population and the global economy.
VrumfondelIt will be interesting to see how Americans will abstain when it comes to their own interests.
Will they deny themselves the right of veto?
Sebastian-ZMGdsDX7gNothing will come out of this one way or another.
After all, if there is a bill to abolish the right of veto, then it will need to be put to a vote, and Russia and China will definitely reject it. This is just another crazy idea of the Americans.
Enver-pJGqS_17gAll this proves what a desperate situation the Americans are in, and nothing else.
They put forward more and more stupid ideas, instead of trying to end the war.
Dr_VuVanThanhThe right of veto is the biggest obstacle.
The same obstacle is the principle of unanimity, consensus. Even in such smaller organizations as the EU and NATO, it is unlikely to be possible to eliminate this obstacle in the next 20 years. What can we say about the UN! To be honest, I am extremely skeptical.
DelphinThe corresponding reform of the Security Council needs at least one case when everyone would vote for the abolition of the principle of unanimity.
But it is in the Security Council that it will never succeed. Therefore, the current plan is another smokescreen. The Security Council must be dissolved and recreated with different voting rules.
