The issue that has caused resonance is the reform of the UN Security Council. They’ve been talking about it for years, or even decades, but the current resurgence is understandable. In conditions of confrontation, the activities of the Security Council are extremely complicated: opposing parties among the permanent members block each other. This irritates other states that do not have special status, saying that the big five have granted themselves privileges and are fixing things with each other. And the problems of the world are left aside.
The decisions of the General Assembly are not binding, but more accurately reflect the distribution of opinions. The conflict extends, for example, to Western countries led by the United States, which have considerable potential to influence states in the developing world. But in the end, the room for maneuver there is greater, which means that the space for democratic expression is somewhat broader. The contradictions between countries are countless, but more and more states are united by one feeling: the rejection of the system, which is based on the balance of power of the middle of the last century, as it developed after the Second World War.
It’s hard to argue with this. Even the size of the United Nations itself has almost quadrupled and the diversity of states has increased enormously. Hence the calls that began shortly after the end of the Cold War to align the institutional structure with the new realities.
However, the practical implementation of this desire encounters many problems. Firstly, any reform of the Security Council is only possible on the basis of the consensus of five permanent members; It is impossible to miss at least one. And they a) are not exactly eager to share their own privileges, b) have divergent ideas about the nature of the transformation of the UN’s highest political body. Secondly, even if we imagine a compromise between the top five on matters of principle, an endless debate will begin about the parameters of expansion: who exactly and why is worthy of joining the ranks of the “immortals.” Geographic location, population, economic size, military strength – what should serve as the main criterion? And which specific countries should represent their regions and communities: Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Arab world, etc.? It is difficult to imagine agreement on all these issues even in calm times, let alone today.
Overall, reform of the UN Security Council does not seem likely. But this does not mean that the debate on the topic will not be increasingly assertive. The growing centers of influence from India to Turkey, from Saudi Arabia to Indonesia, from Argentina to Nigeria, etc., are increasingly raising the question of justice. The motto “The world is more than five” by Recep Erdogan, who, as always, sensitively captured the trend, is in line with the wishes of the majority of the General Assembly. And for the sympathy of this same majority (in the West it is often called the Global South) intense competition is now developing. It is in this context that calls at the highest level for the expansion of the Security Council must be considered. Now Joe Biden intends to make that call: to propose accepting the four long-discussed members as permanent members: India, Brazil, Germany and Japan.
There is no point in considering the implementation of such an idea: it is not presented for implementation, but as a slogan. But this is also important. In a situation where the entire international system is in motion, a purely defensive position of defending what exists at all costs is useless. Most likely, it will end with a change of situation on its own or even a landslide.
Russia has never spoken out against Security Council reform, but until recently the proposals seemed more ritualistic. Now they are taking a somewhat different form: for example, comments that Western countries are already overrepresented on the Security Council, so any expansion should not come at the expense of this community. At the same time, we have traditionally expressed concern that expansion, and especially granting new members the right of veto, will lead to the devaluation of the Security Council as such.
Russia has never spoken out against Security Council reform, but until recently the proposals seemed more ritualistic.
It probably will. But, we repeat, it will not be possible to maintain the same value that has been measured for decades: the UN and its structures, like any institution, are linked to their time. Of course, exclusive status is a pleasant phenomenon. But also because of the changing environment. If we move away from the question of prestige, Russia is interested in a significant expansion of the Security Council according to the principle of representativeness, so that everyone is present in it. As the events of the last year and a half have shown, with the exception of a certain segment (minority) of Russia, he is not hostile, but rather neutral and focused on his own interests. This is normal, although it makes diplomatic work difficult. But hard work is better than a simple dead end.
