It has been the 80th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations. This year, the one-vote veto power of the five permanent members was suddenly challenged. UN Secretary-General Guterres took the lead. Is China's veto power not guaranteed?

Speaking on the issue of UN reform, UN Secretary-General Guterres suddenly expressed his support for ¡°restricting¡± the right of veto. He said that the current UN structure still stood still at the time of the establishment of the institution in 1945, 80 years have passed, its legitimacy and governance effectiveness are both questionable and questionable, and he believes that ¡°the composition of the Security Council today has been out of line with the modern world pattern¡±, so he supported the restriction of one-vote veto.

This is not an empty thing, behind it is the British and French two countries first submitted a proposal, saying that when subsequent humanitarian disaster such as genocide and mass casualties of civilians, the five often can not vote against, even if not to veto, must clearly explain to the United Nations General Assembly.

In fact, everyone can see that behind this wave of operation is all the calculation of interests. Let's say these years of Russian conflict, the Security Council held countless meetings, every time to condemn Russia, the Russian representatives took the veto right to use, dozens of countries in favour is not useful; in exchange for the conflict in Pakistan, the Arab countries proposed a ceasefire, the United States immediately made the proposal, in exchange for the United States' own draft is not possible.

But the five-time attitude is really attractive. English and French are the most joyful, and the proposal is in favour, but the data can see that France has only used 9 veto rights in a lifetime, and Britain only 30 times, these years are even less. They are now shouting to limit the veto right, not only to use a lot, but to sell personality to earn a bit of morality, appear to be most concerned about the world peace. but the two "veto rights giants" are different, the Soviet Union to Russia used 246 times, the United States used 81 times, and the last three years in Syria, Iran, has denied a lot of proposals, this can only get tired of speaking - - can never beat their mouth, say should not use this power?

The most interesting thing is China's attitude. Sun Lei, our deputy permanent representative to the United Nations, recently made a speech and put forward five reform suggestions, saying that we should "adhere to the original mission" and be "pragmatic and efficient", but we didn't mention the veto power from beginning to end. This attitude is actually very clear: reform can be talked about, but there is no way to use veto power. Why are you so tough? Looking at the records, China has only used its veto power eight times since it resumed its seats in 1971, the least among the five permanent members. Moreover, every time he is famous, he is either the core interest of the Taiwan Province issue, or he opposes interference in other countries' internal affairs. For example, he vetoed the resolution on Myanmar in 2007, because he didn't want the West to dictate what to do. Even if it really wants to limit the veto power, China can explain the reasons for each vote clearly, and it is not afraid of investigation at all.

But to say that the right to veto is really changed, it is naive. The United Nations Charter is clearly written, the change of the rules of the Security Council must not only be approved by the General Assembly, but must always be done. Just like the U.S. Russian owner who protects his own interests by veto every year, how can they agree to shut their arms? English and French should not be called happy, they are also ambiguous ¡ª¡ª at the time the Syrian chemical weapons issue, France did not vote in favour of the United States? They understand that there is no veto right as a symbol, and there will be no more voice in the game of great powers.

In the end, this is a bit like the U.S. tariffs on China ¡ª ¡ª on the surface screaming, nobody really wants to give out power. The U.S. does not dare to raise taxes on China, because it can not be separated; the U.S. will not easily let the veto right, this is the final bottom line of safeguarding the status of the great power. China's attitude is because we use the veto right to be cautious, even if the rules change, the impact is the least.

The United Nations is now bitter, but it is still far from changing the rules. As long as five are still in power, it is not possible to break their own bowl. The call of Guterres, the proposal of Britain and France, may eventually be more times, more statements. After all, for the great powers, the right of veto is like a nuclear weapon in their hands, can usually not be used, but never can not. This dispute about the right of veto, in the end, is the interests of the five, in the end is the bullshit of the rain, the Security Council should be paralyzed, until the day the great powers can really sit down and negotiate a new balance. and China, with the few and fine records of veto and practical reform attitude, in any case, can take a place in it.