The inaction of the UN Security Council in the face of the war in Ukraine reopens the debate on its reform

MADRID, 28 May. (EUROPA PRESS) -

The United Nations Security Council has as its main responsibility "the maintenance of peace and security" in the world. More than a year after the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the body is still tied to a system of vetoes that prevents any notable intervention, which has reopened the everlasting debate on its possible reform.

The Council, considered the main executive body of the UN, has 15 chairs, of which ten are renewed in turns, every two years. The remaining five are always reserved for five specific countries, which are also granted the power to veto any binding resolution that is put on the table.

Built at the dawn of World War II, these five permanent posts reflect the weight of the victorious powers, in such a way that in real terms for decades any major decision has had to receive explicit approval --or at least abstention-- from the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom and France.

The UN Secretary General himself, António Guterres, acknowledged last weekend, in his clearest statements on this subject to date, that "the Bretton Woods system and the Security Council reflect the power relations of 1945". . "And many things have changed since then," he declared in an appearance before the media on the sidelines of the G7 in Hiroshima (Japan).

For Guterres, "it is time to reform" the global political and financial frameworks, which he considers to be "redistributing power in line with the realities of today's world." This redistribution of power, however, would imply that the main powers of the mid-20th century agreed to lose or at least share their current political weight.

The power for a hypothetical reform of the Security Council rests with the UN General Assembly, the body in which all member states of the organization are represented. Its annual debate session accommodates numerous speeches by leaders calling for such reform and the Assembly actually has an informal working group, but there is no practical progress.

Reforming the Security Council would go through modifying the founding Charter of the United Nations, which in turn establishes in article 108 the need to agree at least two thirds of the members of the Assembly. The threshold does not seem unattainable if it were not for the later note: "Including all the permanent members of the Security Council."

The historical powers do not seem willing to give up their current weight and are limited, if anything, to being willing to share it. Such is the case of Russia and China, which have raised the need to reform the Security Council but to incorporate the voices of emerging powers such as Brazil, South Africa or India, countries with which they share the BRICS forum.

The Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, took advantage of the Council's rotating presidency in April to point out that it is "undoubtedly" necessary to "eradicate" the current under-representation of African and Latin American countries and suggested taking the G20 as a reference. or "something you remember" to this format.

The United States is also "committed to the reform" of the council, as explained by its ambassador to the UN, Thomas Greenfield, when outlining Washington's positions last month on the future of a body that it considers "essential" but "is far from perfect".

The North American Administration is open to a format that "better reflects the world and the diverse geographical perspectives", which means that there are not only 15 countries or that there are permanent seats for nations of Africa and Latin America. "The Security Council should reflect the global realities of today, not those of nearly eight decades ago," Greenfield proclaimed.

The United States is willing to listen to "creative solutions" while warning that the UN, as an institution, faces "a turning point." Not surprisingly, all the sanctions that have been adopted in the last fifteen months to respond to the Russian invasion of Ukraine have been carried out outside the United Nations, when precisely one of the main historical tools of the Security Council has been the approval of binding penalties.

In the international arena there are also voices that, although they see the reform as "urgent", do not believe that adding more vetoes will solve the current challenges. This is the opinion of the United for Consensus Group, of which Spain is a part along with Argentina, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Italy, Malta, Mexico, Pakistan, South Korea, San Marino and Turkey, contrary to "unequal privileges".

This group advocates for a "more democratic, responsible, representative, transparent and effective body", far from "historic injustices" and where there is "broader representation and a greater voice for developing regions and small countries.

Among the voices most critical of the UN in the last year is that of Ukraine, whose president, Volodimir Zelenski, has demanded that Russia be expelled from all forums of the international organization. In April, he denounced that Russia, a "terrorist state", had the privilege of assuming the presidency of the Security Council, by virtue of a shift system that rotates for months.

The echoes of Guterres's recent speech also reached Kiev, "some words that the world had been waiting for a long time", in the words of Mikhailo Podoliak, one of Zelensky's main advisers. In his opinion, "the body that is supposed to guarantee global security no longer works" and has become "a daily mockery of common sense and International Law."

"It is time for the passengers who have gotten into the car without a ticket to get off," Podoliak asked, pointing to Moscow.