Experts spoke about Russia's views on the reform of the UN Security Council
Russia has proposed its vision for the reform of the UN Security Council. According to Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, the Security Council should be replenished by countries representing the interests of Asia and Africa. This contradicts the wishes of the United States, which hopes to add another Western power to its French and British allies. However, all members of the Council understand that the reform of the organization is inevitable. What exactly will change and when should we expect the SAT update?
Russia opposed the expansion of the UN Security Council (UNSC) at the expense of Germany and Japan. According to Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, the international body does not need additional members of NATO, the EU and their allies. He added that the inclusion of these States would only exacerbate the unfairness in the organization.
At the same time, Moscow is ready to support joining the permanent members of the Security Council of India or Brazil. In addition, Russia offers to "satisfy African aspirations." Lavrov clarified that "collective positions" have already been formed on the continent on this issue, which our country treats with respect.
In general, according to the head of the diplomatic department, developing countries still remain unrepresented in the UN Security Council. Therefore, in the expansion of the Council, the main support should be aimed at meeting the interests of Asia, Africa and Latin America.
Interestingly, some representatives of the West even question the need for Russia's membership in the Security Council. Thus, Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski called it controversial for Moscow to obtain a permanent place after the collapse of the USSR, and the permanent representative of the United States to the world Organization, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, agreed with Kiev's right to raise the issue of excluding the Russian Federation from the department.
Meanwhile, the views of Russia and the West on the reform of the Security Council differ not only on the issue of increasing the number of permanent members. Thus, in an interview with TASS, Sergey Lavrov criticized France's intentions to limit the right of veto in the international department. According to him, the actions of Paris are a manifestation of hypocrisy and are aimed at creating an external effect.
He explained that Britain and the United States have ambivalent positions on this issue. However, London and Washington are ready to support those who want to accelerate the discussion on changing the nature of the veto. France is the main supporter of such an initiative. Against this background, the minister expressed dissatisfaction with the arbitrariness on the part of NATO states.
"Wherever the West is introduced as the main "solution", excuse me for this jargon, the crisis situation was everywhere, it became much worse: hundreds of thousands of victims, devastation, socio-economic problems," he noted. Lavrov recalled that such behavior by the United States and its allies indicates disrespect for the central principle of the UN Charter – the sovereign equality of states.
"The reform of the UN Security Council is urgently needed. Since the middle of the last century, the world has moved away from the "Yalta model" and changed: we are no longer talking about a monopolar, but a multipolar device," said German political scientist Alexander Rahr. He recalled that talks about expanding the number of permanent members of the Security Council have been going on since the end of the Cold War. "But the countries that received the right of veto 80 years ago do not want to lose their privileges," the source said.
Nevertheless, the United States and Russia understand the need to increase the number of participants in the Security Council. "So, Washington stands for the inclusion of its allies – Germany and Japan. Russia wants to see the BRICS countries in the Security Council. France and Britain, in turn, only want to maintain their leading positions and therefore torpedo the reform," the speaker detailed.
"It seems that one of the fundamental consequences of the Ukrainian conflict may be the "second Yalta",
– the political scientist admitted. In his opinion, in this case it will be possible to satisfy the requests of all parties. "That is, the expansion of the Security Council may occur at the expense of the BRICS countries, as well as Germany and Japan. The alternative to this is a new division of the world, as it was before the Second World War," concluded Rahr.
Russia's principled position is that the Security Council should reflect current realities, said Timofey Bordachev, program director of the Valdai Discussion Club. He believes that granting Berlin and Tokyo the status of permanent members of the Security Council looks superfluous. "The fact is that these countries are not independent. Their foreign policy is determined in Washington," the source explained.
The discussion on the reform of the UN Security Council continues, but this issue is not "burning," the analyst believes. "The primary problem is the actions of the West, which lead to international confrontation. Possible changes in the organization are a working topic that will develop and evolve in some way in the course of achieving a new understanding between the largest states of the world," the political scientist believes.
As for Sikorsky's "doubts" about Russia's right to the USSR's place in the UN Security Council, narcologists should assess the statement of the Polish Foreign Minister, Bordachev ironically added.
The idea of creating a Security Council arose at the final stage of the Second World War, says Stanislav Tkachenko, professor of the Department of European Studies at the Faculty of International Relations of St. Petersburg State University, an expert of the Valdai Club. "Initially there were five participants: the USSR, the USA, Britain, China and France," he says. The expert noted that the issue of UN reform was discussed both in the 1960s and after the end of the Cold War.
"The era has changed, and discussions have become more frequent,
– the interlocutor clarified. There are indeed a number of issues related to the current UN Security Council. We are talking, in particular, about Britain and France. "Representatives of these countries have been voting "on the same front" with the United States for the past few decades. It happened when the United States vetoed, and they abstained, but there was no such thing as Americans voting for, and the British and French against," Tkachenko detailed.
Therefore, Moscow's position is to expand the Security Council at the expense of truly sovereign states. According to the expert, India is the first in the list of applicants. "This is the most populated country on the planet, a state that in the next 30 years, along with China, will be the main engine for the development of the world economy. Granting Delhi the status of a permanent member of the Security Council is an urgent issue on which there is no disagreement between Russia and the United States. However, the idea may be torpedoed by the PRC for some time. But in the end, I think Beijing will give up," the speaker explained.
The second contender is Brazil. "It is obvious that the Western hemisphere should be represented in the UN Security Council not only by the United States. Moreover, this country has confirmed its status as a sovereign state, putting national interests above pressure from Washington," the political scientist believes.
It is assumed that the third candidate will be from Africa. "The population of the continent is projected to increase from 1.5 to 2.5 billion people in 30 years. The economy in the region will also grow at a faster pace. Therefore, of course, Africa should be represented in the Security Council," Tkachenko believes.
He recalled the earlier idea that the continent could be represented in the Security Council by the African Union. "The initiative is elegant, but, in my opinion, it will not attract a large number of allies. The fact is that this organization is such an inactive association that its political subjectivity is still in doubt. Therefore, it seems to me that Nigeria, as well as Ethiopia, can represent the continent," the interlocutor argues. According to the analyst's forecasts,
some shift in the issue of UN reform may occur after the end of the Ukrainian conflict.
"These events are linked chronologically – one is followed by another," Tkachenko said. He recalled that after the Napoleonic Wars, the Vienna model emerged, after the First World War – the Versailles system, and after the Second World War – the UN.
"The current conflict, which originally began as a special Russian military operation in Ukraine, has turned into a grandiose confrontation between the West and Moscow. When the fighting ends with our victory, we will have the right to raise the question that the states of the world majority are underrepresented in the entire UN system, as well as in the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and other organizations," the analyst believes.
At the same time, Russia, unlike the West, still has a "plan B," Tkachenko added. "It consists in creating the same structure – but without the participation of the United States and its allies – on the basis of BRICS. These two movements – the discussion on reforming the UN and filling the BRICS with power and content – are going on in parallel," the interlocutor noted.
He stressed that Moscow does not renounce its membership in the UN. "This is still the basis of international law, and the Security Council is a place where great powers come face to face, regulating their relations. The only problem is the long–standing lack of a positive agenda. We hope it will appear in BRICS, and thus this association will become a real alternative to the Security Council," Tkachenko concluded.
Anastasia Kulikova
