久久精品国产亚洲7777小说_国产91成人精品亚洲精品_亚洲aⅴ久久久噜噜噜噜_久久精品亚洲精品无码_青青青视频免费_9191精品国产费久久_成人国产一区二区三区精品_99久久综合久中文字幕_免费黄色一级电影

Security Council reform and the future of the United Nations

Article by Xia Guohan

Originally published in World Cultures - Focus, Jul, 2022

On 26 April 2022, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution sponsored by the Principality of Liechtenstein that, following the exercise of the veto by any permanent member of the United Nations at a United Nations meeting, the President of the General Assembly may convene a debate on the veto by the 193 members of the United Nations, at which the permanent member will be asked to give a reasoned explanation of why it has exercised its veto, and at which the representative of each country participating in the meeting will be able to express his or her opinion. Each country represented at the meeting would be able to express its views on this. Although the proposal has the support of over 100 UN members, including the US, it is not legally binding and does not fundamentally affect the status of the permanent members of the Security Council, but represents an attempt at some new checks and balances on the veto system.

On 4 May 2022, French President Macron and Indian Prime Minister Modi issued a joint statement after their meeting, reiterating France's support for India's application for permanent membership of the UN Security Council. Biden expressed his support for Japan to join the permanent membership of the Security Council.

All of these international developments point to the same proposition - the issue of UN Security Council reform. As the core political arrangement of the post-World War II international order, the UN has made tremendous contributions to peacekeeping, counter-terrorism, climate change and sustainable development in the 70 years since its establishment. However, as the world situation has changed and the international strategic context has shifted, the current UN system has become unsustainable in many respects, and its core mechanism, the Security Council, has repeatedly faced the risk of "dysfunctionalisation". It is in urgent need of effective institutional reform and forward-looking strategic repositioning. This article explores the roots, history, options and difficulties of UN Security Council reform, and attempts to explore the possible future reform direction and strategic repositioning of the UN from the perspective of the changing international strategic landscape.

I. Origin of the UN Security Council

"The concept of the "Four Policemen" and the birth of the "Permanent Five"

The predecessor of the United Nations was the League of Nations (League of Nations), which was formed after World War I. At its peak, between 1934 and 1935, the number of member states reached 58, exceeding the number of member states when the United Nations was founded. The League of Nations was founded after the First World War. The League of Nations was founded on President Wilson's "Fourteen Points of Peace" and was intended to be a collective security organisation coordinated by the great powers to prevent war between nations. However, the reality was quite harsh, from the Spanish Civil War to the Italian invasion of Albania, from the September 18 Incident to the Second World War ...... The League of Nations always seemed to be unable to prevent world wars, or even completely incompetent, and became a platform for the international sharing of spoils by the powers. It was a trading platform for the international spoils of war.

As World War II drew to a close in 1943 and the defeat of Germany and Japan became apparent, Roosevelt began to consider how to re-establish the international order after the war, believing that the role of the armed forces of small states in a world war was almost negligible and that the great powers should assume special responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security (small states should be disarmed). The "Four Policemen" concept - the four anti-fascist giants, the US, the Soviet Union, China and Britain, and their allies, had more than 75% of the world's population, and as long as these four countries coordinated to maintain world peace, they would effectively suppress the re-emergence of Japan and Germany and avert the risk of a world war. But the idea was immediately opposed by internationalists, represented by then US Secretary of State Hull, who still advocated a universal CSTO based on the equality of states to maintain world peace, similar to the League of Nations. In the end, Roosevelt revised his idea of shared governance by the great powers and combined it with the traditional idea of collective security, resulting in the parallel design of the United Nations Security Council (a variant of the "Four Policemen"), which embodies the special responsibility of the great powers in the maintenance of international peace and security, and the United Nations General Assembly, which embodies the principle of sovereignty and equality of states. The former embodied the special responsibility of the great powers in the maintenance of international peace and security, while the latter embodied the principle of the equality of states.

In addition, Churchill and Stalin were initially opposed to the "four policemen" concept, arguing that the "three policemen" of the US, the Soviet Union and the UK would be sufficient and that China was not needed. However, Roosevelt insisted that China be included in the "Four Policemen" system on the grounds that China had made a great contribution to World War II. From a strategic point of view, Roosevelt believed that the pro-American Chiang Kai-shek government of the Republic of China would inevitably turn against him after the war and would be able to act as a check on the Soviet Union in East Asia; the Soviet Union opposed it for the same reason, but of course, at this time, the US, Soviet Union and Britain did not anticipate the subsequent Communist civil war and the change in China. For its part, the UK argued for the inclusion of France in the core security mechanism, as it was the most geopolitically powerful country on the continent and could act as a counterweight to Germany. The European Union (the predecessor of the European Community and the European Union), a grand strategy of Eurasian integration, was launched by France under the Iron Curtain to regain European leadership and marginalise British influence. Thus, at the San Francisco Constitutional Convention in April 1945, the P5 membership of the UN Security Council was finalised between the US, the Soviet Union, Britain, China and France.

"Coordination of the Great Powers": the original design of the UN Security Council

From the League of Nations to the United Nations, the core strategic value of the international system designed after the two world wars was "great power coordination", i.e. to ensure that the core interests of the five permanent members would not conflict. In other words, the bottom line objective of the UN Security Council system is to ensure that the five permanent members do not engage in all-out war with each other, thus avoiding a third world war, which is the significance of the "veto" of the five permanent members.

A few confusing concepts about the UN need to be clarified here.

Firstly, the UN is not a "supranational organisation" or a "world government", but remains an "intergovernmental organisation" and therefore does not have a sovereign status above that of its member states. In other words, if the international community is to be considered a "supranational organisation" or "world government", it is still an "intergovernmental organisation". In other words, if we consider the international community as a neighbourhood, the UN is a combination of a property owner and a neighbourhood association.

Secondly, the UN does not have an independent army, but it has a multinational military force, the United Nations Peacekeeping Force, which currently has a total strength of about 120,000 troops and is mostly equipped with defensive light weapons. In other words, in an anarchic international system, the UN lacks an overwhelmingly superior armed force, and is therefore mostly unable to intervene directly in international conflicts of any scale, and can only try to mediate through political means.

Finally, how is the relationship between the UN and the P5 defined? As the UN itself does not have the power to check the permanent members, the P5 can only check each other, i.e. the relationship between the UN and the P5 is more like that of a CEO and a board of directors, while the other UN members are the general shareholders. The election of the UN Secretary-General is based on the unspoken rule of intercontinental rotation and the exclusion of citizens of the P5 countries from the election, in order to maintain the neutrality of the UN.

II. The structure of the Security Council

Since the Cold War, the international community has been calling for reform of the UN Security Council. Objectively speaking, the design of the UN Security Council system was based on the results of the Second World War, so there are certain structural problems inherent in it.

First, the problem of the monopoly of core powers. The nature and composition of the Security Council are historically limited and specific. The five permanent members are non-elected, open-ended, non-rotational and have the right of veto. As the membership of the UN has changed and the international balance of power has changed, an imbalance of power has emerged both within and outside the P5: internally, the P5 have been divided into the following categories in terms of power and political affiliation The "upper three (US, China and Russia)" and the "lower two (France and Britain)" are more likely to become "upper two (China and US)" and "lower three (Russia, Britain and France)" after the end of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. In addition, the UK's exit from the EU has strengthened the Franco-German axis in the EU, and Germany's influence and leadership in the EU is higher than France's, so it has repeatedly asked France to change its permanent seat to an "EU" seat; from an external perspective, some regional powers, represented by Germany, Japan, India, Brazil and the United States, have become more important. From an external perspective, some regional powers, represented by Germany, Japan, India and Brazil, boast that they are more powerful in one or more areas than individual P5 countries, but for many historical and practical reasons, they are unable to enjoy equal rights in the UN Security Council. This is also an important reason why many regional powers have been strongly demanding reform of the Security Council.

Secondly, the imbalance in representation. With the changes in the international situation, especially the accelerated decolonisation process after the Bandung Conference, more and more colonial countries have gained independence and joined the UN, resulting in a dramatic increase in the number of UN members. The number of members of the Council (permanent + non-permanent members) has expanded to 193, with the number of members of the Council falling to 8%. This proliferation of states raises three questions about the imbalance in the representation of the UN: first, the imbalance in the ratio of developing to developed countries. Secondly, there is an imbalance in the population ratio: the total population of the developed (Western) countries, represented by the US, UK and France, is only 1 billion, whereas the global population has long exceeded 7 billion. Finally, there is an imbalance in geographical representation, with the P5 countries located on three continents - Asia, Europe and North America - in the northern hemisphere, making the permanent membership body more of a "northern hemisphere club", while the vast and populous continents of Latin America and Africa are completely unbalanced. Latin America, Africa and other continents are not represented at all.

Thirdly, the limitations and dysfunctions of the UN. Since the end of the Cold War, the international landscape has changed drastically, with the collapse of the Soviet bloc and a unipolar hegemonic dividend for the United States, but its dominant position in the world has gradually been challenged in various ways, so in order to maintain its hegemonic system, the United States has repeatedly tried to "Americanise" the UN, i.e. to make it a subordinate body of the United States. In the event that the United Nations does not cooperate with US strategic intentions, the United States will, at best, disagree with the UN General Assembly (e.g. by defaulting on its dues or deliberately not granting US visas to Russian delegates to the UN, thus preventing them from attending UN meetings at UN headquarters in New York), or, at worst, directly bypass the UN system and use NATO and the Five Eyes Alliance to carry out independent actions (e.g. the second Gulf War, when France directly used its veto power in the Security Council to prevent the United States from participating in the war). In the second Gulf War, for example, France used its veto in the Security Council to prevent the US from sending troops, and the US then joined forces with the UK and Australia to carry out independent military operations, committing war crimes and crimes against humanity). On the other hand, the end of the Cold War saw the emergence of a number of very powerful non-state actors, typified by (governmental/non-governmental) international organisations and transnational corporations, which either have a well-structured transnational power network, a technological advantage in a particular field that is unmatched by sovereign governments (e.g. large US internet companies), or powerful financial and lobbying power ...... Any of these types of non-state actors may have a competitive structure with the UN in terms of their ability to influence or address global issues. The UN, on the other hand, lacks both the financial resources and the necessary will and prestige to do so. All of the above has left the UN and the Security Council in the post-Cold War era with significant limitations and a risk of dysfunctionalisation in certain areas.

In conclusion, the calls for reform of the UN Security Council have intensified since the end of the Cold War, but what are the core issues for such reform?

III. Security Council Expansion and the Veto

——The core issues of UN Security Council reform

Expansion of the Security Council

To date, there has been only one effective reform of the Security Council in relation to the expansion of its membership: in December 1963, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution to increase the number of non-permanent members of the Council from 6 to 10, with a corresponding increase in the number of Council members from 11 to 15. In 1979, the 34th session of the UN General Assembly began considering a motion entitled "Question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council", which centred on the question of enlarging the size of the Council or increasing its representativeness.

The expansion of the Council includes both permanent and non-permanent members, and it is clear that the former is the central game changer. There are two main categories of Member States interested in becoming new permanent members of the Security Council: Japan and Germany, the defeated countries of World War II, which carry heavy historical burdens, and which have exhausted every possible means to become permanent members, but the actual results have not been satisfactory; and regional powers among developing countries, such as India in South Asia, Brazil in South America, Egypt in the Middle East and Indonesia in Southeast Asia. The second is the regional powers among developing countries, such as India in South Asia, Brazil in South America, Egypt in the Middle East, Indonesia in Southeast Asia, etc. These countries are either the geopolitical hubs of the subcontinental tectonic plates or the heads of local regional integration organisations, and are all lords. In their view, the post-Cold War era has seen a general de-escalation of relations between the major powers and a focus on regional conflicts and internal strife in the Security Council, almost all of which are found in developing countries, particularly in the Middle East and Africa. Developing countries know their own situation best and have the most say on issues of national interest, and should be more involved in the work of the Security Council.

Veto power

Another focus of Security Council reform is the question of the veto. The subject of the veto is the five permanent members of the Council, as stipulated in Article 23, paragraph 1, of the Charter. The veto is a reflection of and a product of the international balance of power at the end of the Second World War and the most violent form of State conflict in the framework of the United Nations system. Theoretically, it is clear that the veto does not reflect today's international power landscape, as India, with over a billion people, is the second most populous country in the world, while its 'mother country', the United Kingdom, has a population of only 60 million, yet the latter can veto any of the former's proposals with one vote.

At a practical level, the debate on veto reform is divided into two types: whether the veto power of the P5 should be limited or eliminated, and whether the veto should be extended to new permanent members. The former is supported by Iran, Cuba and others, who believe that the veto is a negation of the democratic principles that should govern the United Nations and that it runs counter to the fundamental principle of "the sovereign equality of all Member States" enshrined in the Charter, and is an act of hegemony. The first group is the current permanent members of the Security Council, which are equivalent to those with vested interests; the second group is the candidate countries that aspire to become permanent members of the Security Council and wish to improve their international status and be on an equal footing with the P5, such as Germany and Japan; the third group is the countries that emphasize the strength and efficiency of the UN and believe that the abolition of the veto will undermine the principle of "unity among the great powers", with unpredictable consequences. The third group is those countries that emphasise the power and efficiency of the UN and believe that the abolition of the veto would undermine the principle of "unity of powers", with unpredictable consequences. It is worth mentioning that although the US has expressed its support for India's accession to the UN, it has been evasive on the issue of whether to give it the veto power.

IV. The difficulty of Security Council reform as seen in the game between the "Quadruple Alliance" and "Uniting for Consensus

In the mid-1990s, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution to launch a reform plan for the UN, establishing a working group on Security Council enlargement, chaired by the President of the General Assembly with the participation of all member states. Since then, there has been a proliferation of proposals for Security Council reform, the most representative of which is the game between the "G4" and "Uniting for Consensus" camps.

"The G4 Nations: representatives of the pro-permanence camp

In 2004, India, Brazil, Germany and Japan formed the "G4 Coalition" to take advantage of the reform of the Security Council to become permanent members of the Council. "The G4 called for six additional permanent and four additional non-permanent members of the Council, with two additional permanent seats each for Africa and Asia, and one additional permanent seat each for Latin America and Europe. The new permanent members should have the same responsibilities and obligations as the current permanent members, but the issue of the veto should not be an obstacle to Council reform.

"Uniting for Consensus (UFC): representatives who refuse to add "permanent" members

"The Uniting for Consensus group, nicknamed the "Coffee Club", was founded in 1995 by Italian Ambassador Francesco Paolo Fulci, together with Pakistan, Mexico and Egypt. The four countries have been in the same boat since 1995. The four countries were united by their rejection of the proposal to increase the number of permanent members of the Council and wanted instead to encourage an increase in the number of non-permanent seats. Soon several countries, including Spain, Argentina, Turkey and Canada, became founding members of the group, which in a short time included some 50 countries from Asia, Africa and Latin America. "The core argument of the Uniting for Consensus group was that an increase in permanent membership would further exacerbate the disparity between member states and lead to an expansion of a range of privileges.

During the 59th session of the UN General Assembly in 2005, the Uniting for Consensus group put forward a proposal that centred on increasing the number of non-permanent members from 10 to 20, who would be elected by the General Assembly for a two-year term and would be eligible for re-election, with the criteria for selection and rotation of seats to be negotiated among the countries of each region. The ten new non-permanent seats would be distributed among the five existing UN regional groups, with three each for Asia and Africa, two for Latin America and the Caribbean, and one each for Western and Eastern Europe. On 20 April 2009, Italy, as representative of the Uniting for Consensus group, proposed a new reform model that would create a new category of seats, still non-permanent but elected for an extended term (3 to 5 years). The new seat would not be allocated to a single member, but would be elected for a longer term (3 to 5 years) and would not be eligible for re-election. Such new seats would not be allocated to a single country, but to different regions on a rotating basis.

"The Uniting for Consensus group, whose purpose is to counter the proposal of the Quad for additional permanent members, was joined by 120 members at a group meeting held in Rome in May 2011.

The difficulties of Security Council reform

It is clear that the difficulties in reforming the Security Council, both in terms of expansion of permanent membership and the abolition of the veto, are the result of a combination of difficulties.

First, opposition from the current P5 countries. As vested interests in the core institutional arrangements of post-World War II international politics, the five permanent members are naturally opposed from the bottom of their hearts to any reform measures that would touch their cake. So why is it that the US supports Japan's membership and France supports India's? There are two considerations here: firstly, the core issue is not the increase or decrease in the number of permanent seats, but the veto power, the United States supports Japan and India to become permanent members, but does not support their veto power, in other words, the United States only wants to add two obedient younger brothers to the basket of permanent members, disguised as a balance between China and Russia, but will not give them substantial power; secondly, the United States, Britain and France know very well that once India submits its application for permanent membership, China will not be able to take up the position. Once India's application for permanent membership is submitted, China is bound to veto it with one vote, while Japan's application for permanent membership will be jointly vetoed by China and Russia, so it is better to verbally promise support and sell a blank cheque to offend people and let China and Russia do it, which has no impact on the outcome.

Second, Security Council reform or the reversal of the post-war order? The entire UN system is based on the distribution of power based on the results of World War II. If Japan and Germany are allowed to join the Standing Committee, it may lead to questions about the legitimacy of the results of World War II and the post-war international order. In the case of Japan, for example, the greatest political aspiration of successive rightist Japanese prime ministers has been to make Japan a so-called "normal country" by "amending the constitution", the most important right of which is the right to engage in war on its own under Article 9 of the peace constitution. If Japan is allowed to become a normal country, it will in effect give Japan the legitimacy to amend its constitution. Once the amendment is successful, Japan may not only develop a new tendency to revive Nazi militarism, but also find ways to get rid of the strategic ties of the United States. In short, Japan's accession to the permanent seat may turn into a "multi-lose" situation in East Asia, including China, the United States and Russia, and may also give rise to certain historical nihilism and delusions of subversion of the post-war order.

Thirdly, the competition among regional countries. Another conclusion can easily be drawn from the case of the "four-nation alliance" and the "Uniting for Consensus" game: historical baggage aside, even seemingly "harmless" countries like India and Brazil are unlikely to be able to compete with each other. "The biggest obstacle is not the P5, but the geo-competing countries in their region and the small and medium-sized neighbouring countries, such as Pakistan in the South Asian subcontinent and Argentina and Chile in the South American subcontinent. The reason for this is also very simple: India, Brazil and Germany are the number one power in their sub-geopolitical blocks, and they are already suppressing the small and medium-sized countries in the neighbourhood in terms of comprehensive power, and if they have the title of permanent member, they are bound to become regional hegemonic countries, not to mention that India is a hegemonic country that inherits the tradition of British imperial colonialism and pursues "India Firstism India is a hegemonic country that has inherited the colonialist tradition of the British empire and is committed to "India First". In order to prevent this, the optimal game strategy for the small and medium-sized countries in the region, when it is clear that they do not have the possibility to join the permanent membership, is to unite to prevent the big regional powers from joining the permanent membership. This is the underlying logic of the confrontational game between the two groups described above.

Fourth, the unexpected abuse of power. The last point is that, as we all know, the P5 are the only group of countries in the world that legally possesses nuclear weapons (atomic bombs + hydrogen bombs), and if the permanent membership of the Security Council is expanded, will this lead to unexpected abuses of power, such as nuclear proliferation by India. Compared to the three points above, such unintended abuses are the most likely to spiral out of control and lead to international catastrophe.

Concluding Remarks: The Visible Direction of Security Council Reform and the Future of UN

While the difficulties of reforming the UN Security Council are numerous, it is not difficult to identify two obvious directions for reform.

The first is to attach certain restrictions to the veto. At present, it seems impossible to abolish the veto system outright, but it is possible to gradually add some restrictions or monitoring measures. For example, the Liechtenstein proposal, which has just been adopted by the General Assembly, requires the permanent members to explain the exercise of the veto, although it is clearly suspected of targeting Russia.

Second, the expansion of the non-permanent membership of the Security Council should be based on the principle of regional balance. It is easier and more practical to expand the non-permanent membership than to expand the permanent membership (there are already successful precedents), and in the future, it is very likely that the expansion of the non-permanent membership and the balance of representation will be promoted first on the basis of the principle of regional balance.

In the light of the laws of history, the First World War gave birth to the League of Nations system and the Second World War to the United Nations system, is it not possible to argue that it could only be the Third World War that could lead to a disruptive change in the current international system? And because of the nuclear balance of terror, the chances of a third world war breaking out in the form of a full-scale war between the great transcontinental powers are almost nil. So, although the UN has historical flaws in its institutional design and there is a risk of dysfunctionalisation in its handling of international crises, it is difficult to foresee a disruptive change in the UN in the foreseeable future, i.e. a change in the membership of the P5.

This does not mean, however, that the current UN system is not subject to change.

Firstly, there are many voices urging reform within the UN, and even the Security Council system will inevitably come to accept some modest reform adjustments.

Secondly, as a result of the dysfunctionalisation of the UN, there is a risk that in the future, more regional security organisations parallel to the UN will emerge, aiming to solve security issues autonomously without relying on the UN and in a way that strengthens regional autonomy and regional coordination, which will in turn weaken the authority of the UN

Finally, will the core mandate of the UN Security Council be changed from "great power coordination" to "great power symbiosis"? In the context of the polarisation of China and the US, the US tends to organise security alliances to contain China, while China proposes the concept of "community of human destiny" based on the ancient philosophical "world view". In other words, the United States continues its Cold War mentality of containment, sabotage, intimidation and control in dealing with other countries, while China favours "non-interference in internal affairs" and "win-win" approaches to make a bigger pie. In the future, if the UN system can replace the negative logic of "great power coordination" with a more positive logic of "great power symbiosis", it may be possible to revive the existing system.

https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1kz4y1Y7u1