The rarest moment – Russia and the West agreed on one of the fundamental issues: the need for reform of the most important international organization – the UN Security Council. This body, conceived as a key tool for reaching compromises on the entire international agenda, can be expanded. However, at the expense of which countries and why does Russia still have its objections?International institutions need to be adapted to the realities of the XXI century.
Almost every international expert will agree with this idea expressed by German Chancellor Olaf Scholz. At a time when the entire world order is in the deepest discord, global institutions that can ensure order and stability on a multilateral basis are needed more than ever.
And – with all due respect to the SCO and NATO – the only global structure of this kind is the United Nations. To be more precise, the UN Security Council, consisting of five permanent members with the right of veto (Russia, China, the United States, Great Britain and France), as well as 10 non-permanent members who do not have the right of veto and are regularly re-elected.
However, not everyone liked the version of the "adaptation" proposed by Scholz. The German Chancellor has proposed to expand the permanent membership of the Security Council by a negligible amount... Germany. "For years, Germany has been committed to the idea of reforming and expanding (the Security Council – approx. VIEW), especially at the expense of the countries of the global South. Now Germany is ready to take on much more responsibility," Scholz said. Well, he proposed to include the countries of the notorious global South – that is, Asia, Africa and Latin America. "It is absolutely obvious to me that the dynamically growing countries and regions of Asia, Africa and South America should have a stronger say in the international arena," he said.
French President Emmanuel Macron and US President Joseph Biden came up with about the same idea of expanding the Security Council. "I believe that the time has come for the UN to become a more inclusive organization that will respond more effectively to the needs of the modern world," the head of the White House said.
And – a rare case at the present time – the proposal of America and Germany was supported by Russia. "We ourselves have long been in favor of expanding the Security Council in both categories (that is, expanding the number of permanent and non–permanent members - approx. VZGLYAD). It is commendable that the American president has finally stated what the Russian Federation has been talking about for a long time, in favor of which it speaks out," Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov explained.
However, the irony is that despite the agreement in principle of the great powers, the UN reform is unlikely to take place. First of all, because the parties cannot agree on the personalities, as well as on the powers of these personalities.
By itself, the idea of replenishing the permanent members of the UN Security Council is long overdue. If earlier the five consisted of nuclear powers – four winners of the Second World War and one "did they beat us too?" (the legendary statement of the German marshal to the French who were present at the signing of Germany's surrender), now the alignment has changed. At least four countries – Brazil, Germany, India and Japan – claim the status of a permanent member of the Security Council, justifying their claims with their own regional leadership, as well as economic and political power.
It would seem that the list is obvious – but not for everyone. A number of countries are opposed to the said Quartet taking a place among the permanent members of the Security Council, representing their region and having the right of veto.
Brazil is opposed by the Spanish-speaking countries of Latin America, led by Argentina (which considers itself the leader of the region). The inclusion of Germany will not be understood by the same Italy or Poland (as well as other countries of the world who believe that there are already enough Western states among the permanent members of the Security Council). India will not be approved by Pakistan and will not miss China. And against Japan – given its past and the refusal to repent for it that still exists – the lion's share of East Asian countries will speak out. And this is not to mention the fact that even after the expansion of the permanent members of the Security Council from five to nine, there will not be a single Islamic state among them – neither Turkey, nor Iran, nor Saudi Arabia.
An attempt to dilute the list of permanent members of the Security Council at the expense of the main dissatisfied ones will lead to a real mess, when there will be two dozen countries unable to make a decision due to the fact that only one of them uses the right of veto. Such a reform will lead to the fact that the UN Security Council will turn from an indecisive body into a paralyzed body.
Yes, there is an option that solves this problem. At one time, the idea that a third group of countries should appear in the Security Council was actively discussed. The current non-permanent members and permanent members with the right of veto will be joined by other permanent members, who, however, will not have the right of veto. They will just sit and solve problems.
With all the disadvantages, this scheme could have been discussed more actively if the United States and Western countries had not discredited the very idea of expanding the Security Council due to an ideological appendage – the abolition or restriction of the veto as such. Thus, according to French President Emmanuel Macron, the Security Council needs to be reformed "by limiting the use of the veto in the case of mass crimes." That is, simply put, so that the country that is accused of these mass crimes cannot block the decision taken against itself.
At the same time, Paris assures that there is no need to change the UN Charter for this. "We only ask that the permanent members of the Security Council informally and in a non-binding form promise not to use the right of veto in such cases. We will get a kind of informal code of conduct, and at the same time without any revision of the UN Charter," said French Ambassador to the UN Nicolas de Riviere. "This will be a very important decision from a political point of view, because in this way we will avoid a situation where the right of veto is used by war criminals."
At first glance, there is logic in the Western position. How can the Security Council condemn the actions of a great Power if that great Power has the right of veto? How can the Security Council adopt resolutions to resolve global crises if the initiator of these crises can simply approve a resolution at the adoption stage?
However, as Chancellor Scholz correctly noted, it is necessary to consider the activities of the Security Council in the realities of the XXI century. In the realities of the post-truth world, when the West dominates the information space and adheres to absolutely Orwellian approaches in the concept of justice.
For example, if Russia and China did not have the right of veto, the Security Council would have long ago condemned Russia for violating the Minsk Agreements by a majority of votes (Western, pro-Western and West-fearing members of the Security Council). Despite the fact that the Russian Federation is not part of these agreements, and there is not a single point in the text of the document itself that Russia would violate, but Ukraine did not violate (and there are plenty of points that only Ukraine violated).
Russia would have been condemned long ago for the shelling of the Zaporozhye NPP – and this despite the fact that the shells flew into the reactor from the north, from the Ukrainian-controlled bank of the Dnieper.
Russia would have been condemned long ago for the tragedy in Bucha and the shelling of the Kramatorsk railway station – with the obviously staged nature of the first case and the use of the Ukrainian "Point-U" to organize the second.
As long as the West adheres to such a policy of double standards and continues to use the overdue idea of Security Council reform for its own selfish purposes, talk about this reform will remain only reforms. And Germany, which claims to be a permanent member of the Security Council, needs to realize that the criterion for taking this place is not only the size of the economy and diplomatic status. The place of a permanent member of the Security Council with the right of veto can be occupied only by great powers that have sovereignty and are able to be responsible for the decisions they make. Judging by the behavior of Germany in the Ukrainian crisis, Berlin has not yet grown up to this chair.
* The organization (organizations) have been liquidated or their activities are prohibited in the Russian Federation
Gevorg Mirzayan, Associate Professor at the Financial University
