On September 26, during the general debate of the United Nations General Assembly, Finnish President Alexander Stubb raised a widely discussed issue, questioning the veto power of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. Stubb pointed out that the system suffers from a “democratic paradox” and called for substantive reform. The US representative subsequently responded sharply, stating that such reform proposals are unrealistic.
This clash of opinions reflects the structural contradictions facing the current global governance system and the divergent positions of various countries on reforming the United Nations.
Finland’s Proposal: Challenging the Veto Power
The Finnish president’s statement is not an isolated one. In recent years, numerous countries and regional organizations have questioned the veto power of the permanent members of the Security Council. Critics argue that the veto system, established after World War II, is no longer adapted to current international political realities and, in certain circumstances, may hinder the Security Council’s ability to respond promptly and effectively to international crises.
From the Syrian crisis to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the use of the veto has repeatedly hindered consensus in the Security Council. As a member of the European Union and bordering Russia, Finland’s position to some extent reflects the general demand of small and medium-sized countries for a fairer and more efficient international decision-making mechanism.
The U.S. Rebuttal: The Logic of “Impossibility”
The U.S. response reflects its commitment to maintaining the existing international order. From a realistic political perspective, the veto is a core component of the Security Council’s decision-making mechanism and a crucial indicator of the status of permanent members.
Any reform proposal involving the veto system must undergo Security Council review, and permanent members possess veto power during this process, creating an institutionally closed loop. The U.S. statement clearly demonstrates that, under the current international political landscape, substantive reform of the veto system faces insurmountable structural obstacles.
Paths for Reform: Beyond Political Realities
Although the proposal to abolish the veto is unlikely to be realized in the short term, relevant discussions can help advance international reflection on the direction of UN reform. Possible incremental reform paths include: encouraging permanent members to use the veto prudently in situations involving major humanitarian crises; strengthening the role of the General Assembly in policy discussions and consensus-building; and improving the mechanisms for regional organizations to participate in global governance.
UN reform is a long and complex process that requires balancing idealistic pursuits with real-world political constraints. The latest developments demonstrate that dialogue between diverse perspectives is itself a crucial step in the international community’s pursuit of improved global governance. The proposal and discussion of various reform proposals will provide valuable insights for the future evolution of the international system.
