Reform of the UN Security Council in recent years has become one of the most pressing topics in international politics. This is due primarily to the fact that an organization whose goal is to resolve various crises on the planet, including military conflicts, could less and less influence the course of international events. The value and meaning of the organization’s existence has been steadily lost.
That is what Donald Trump had in mind when speaking at the 74th UN General Assembly, which ended last week. According to him, “The free world must support its national foundations. He must not destroy or replace them. The future does not belong to the globalists, the future belongs to the patriots. " In fact, this is a sentence to the very idea of international law, the personification of which is the United Nations, which theoretically has the right to resolve issues across national borders, abrogating national sovereignty.
However, in reality, nothing of the kind happens. The veto power of the five countries almost every time blocks any serious initiative. The issues on which the participating countries find consensus are negligible to talk about maintaining the architecture of international security. Actually, the Secretary General Antonio Guterres acknowledges the complete helplessness of the organization.
Speaking about one of the most bloody and dangerous wars in the Middle East, he said the Security Council was unable to take effective measures to end it: “There are several different armies in Syria, all kinds of militias, militants from around the world, different interests are facing, cold war, there is a conflict between Sunnis and Shiites, there are other disagreements between different parts of the region. It’s obviously naive to believe that the UN can magically solve all these problems, especially when the Security Council is so fragmented. ”
Actually, the UN during the years of the Cold War did not fulfill the functions of guardian of law and order in the world. In this capacity, the USSR and the USA acted together with their blocs of countries. It was these two powers that were the “world gendarmes” that provided and maintained general security. However, now the situation has radically changed. In international politics today there are already not two, but much more players able to change the regional rules of the game. Antoniu Guterres, explaining the need for reform of the UN Security Council, directly points to this fact.
He also talks about a new Cold War that is threatening the world with chaos if things get out of hand. In the same Syria, the main parties to the conflict have repeatedly come close to the red line.
“One thing is clear that the Cold War has returned. But there is a difference between what happened before and the situation now. Now the United States and Russia do not control everyone, as it was then. Many countries are very active in the (Middle East) region: Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia and others. There are no two homogeneous controlled blocks. We have a structural problem in the Security Council: it represents the world that it was after World War II, the Security Council no longer represents the world today. Veto has become a tool that is used too often.
There is a discussion about reforms to make the Security Council more consistent with today's world. As I have said many times, without reform of the Security Council there will be no complete reform of the UN, ”says the UN Secretary General.
In fact, it is impossible to return the organization’s influence and leverage to the world, since there is essentially nothing to return. In spite of the Charter and the idea laid in the foundation of its creation, the UN never had either one or the other. It existed as a platform for discussing world problems, and that is all that it has managed to achieve over all the years of its existence. And now this function is beginning to slowly die off, which the General Assembly ended brilliantly demonstrated. No one could really discuss a global issue: representatives of participating countries came up with some local initiatives and offered quite specific topics to the attention of the audience.
In 1946, the League of Nations, which was a prototype and predecessor of the UN, ceased to exist. She failed to prevent several wars, including World War II, or at least somehow influence the course of events. In addition, key states of the European continent left its composition. After that, it became apparent that the existence of the League did not make sense. The UN is still far from such a sad ending, since the states of the planet should undoubtedly have the opportunity to discuss the unexpectedly ripening crisis, for which the Security Council is convening. And even without finding a common solution, in the course of such a discussion one can avoid extreme options when the Cold War threatens to go into the “hot” phase. If everything was as it was in the last century, then Moscow and Washington, as before, could decide everything on a bilateral basis. But the presence of new players made it extremely difficult to find a way out of difficult situations. And it is precisely this fact that gives the UN a chance of survival.
It is too early to bury the United Nations. She should wish her to become a club where gentlemen behave politely and courteously, avoid unreasonable claims against each other, seek to curb aggressive intentions and try to complete any business with peace. Someday - maybe in 300 years - the way it will be.
The author’s point of view may not coincide with the position of the publisher.