[Global Times reporter Liu Caiyu Wu Ming] According to the United Nations website on the 26th, the United Nations General Assembly decided on Tuesday that if the five permanent members of the Security Council (China, the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom and France) use the veto in the Security Council, the General Assembly will automatically within 10 days. Hold a meeting.

  Any such use of the veto will now trigger a meeting of the General Assembly in which all UN members can review and comment on the exercise of the veto, according to the consensus resolution adopted on the 26th. States will have the right to speak first in General Assembly debates to explain the context for the use of the veto.

According to reports, the drafters of the resolution are Liechtenstein and other countries, of which the United States, France and the United Kingdom are among the co-sponsors.

  Deputy U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Richard Mills expressed deep concern about the so-called "abuse" of the veto, and was "particularly disturbed by Russia's pattern of veto abuse over the past decade."

The Deputy Permanent Representative of Russia to the United Nations, Kuzmin, said that although the resolution is beautifully packaged, it is undoubtedly an attempt to exert pressure on the permanent members of the Security Council, and it is an approach that Russia categorically rejects.

Jiang Hua, Counselor of the Permanent Mission of China to the United Nations, said that based on our consistent position on the role of the UN General Assembly, we can understand and agree with the starting point of this resolution.

However, he also pointed out that the new mandate given to the UN General Assembly by the resolution means establishing a mechanism that automatically triggers the meeting of the UN General Assembly, which is likely to cause confusion and confusion in practice in practice.

It is difficult to determine whether such an arrangement will achieve the intended purpose of the resolution.

  He Zhipeng, a professor at the Law School of Jilin University, analyzed the Global Times reporter on the 27th that the functions of the UN General Assembly and the Security Council are very different: the Security Council can directly authorize actions and have executive functions; while the UN General Assembly is more of a discussion venue. Most of the time it's just an opinion.

Some countries request that the issues that the UN Security Council cannot continue to discuss due to the veto by the permanent members should be transferred to the General Assembly for debate, which is equivalent to transforming the action proposal into a debate topic. The degree of operation is lost, but the degree of reasoning is improved.

He Zhipeng said that we cannot unilaterally believe that such an arrangement is only beneficial to certain countries. What is important is that the vast number of developing countries, including China, should improve their international discourse ability, and explain their views in a rational, beneficial and restrained manner, so that we can discuss in the debate. Invincible.

  Lu Xiang, a researcher at the Institute of American Studies of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, believes that the current resolution will only increase some public opinion effects. For example, members of the United Nations can discuss a resolution after Russia vetoes it, and then exert more pressure on it in public opinion.

Historically, the U.S. has used the one-vote veto second only to Russia (the Soviet Union). In this case, the U.S. may not really approve of this resolution, but now supports it because it has the confidence to have the initiative in global public opinion and to be able to Use more resources.

Lv Xiang believes that the resolution does not have a very positive impact on the general direction of UN reform, and adding additional discussions to the veto power that cannot be changed afterwards will only increase various voices and consume more resources.