On September 16, UN Secretary-General Guterres openly called for reforms in the Security Council and proposed ¡°the abandonment of the old pattern of 1945¡±, a statement that quickly caused international concern.

He made it clear that the current structure of the Security Council has failed to adapt to the modern international landscape, especially in responding inefficiently to major international conflicts and even being paralyzed.

He supported the proposal put forward by Britain and France to limit the veto power of the five permanent members by one vote, and stressed that reform is the key to maintaining the legitimacy and governance effectiveness of the United Nations.

The right to veto is one of the core mechanisms of the UN Security Council.

Since the founding of the United Nations in 1945, China, the United States, Russia, Britain and France, as permanent members of the Security Council, have a veto power.

This system was originally designed to avoid direct conflict between the great powers and ensure international peace.

However, as the international pattern changes, this privilege is gradually exposing problems.

When the five permanent members exercise their veto power, they are more motivated by their own interests, which leads to frequent deadlocks in the Security Council in solving major international issues.

Taking the Russian-Ukrainian conflict as an example, the Security Council has repeatedly attempted to pass resolutions condemning Russia or imposing sanctions, but Russia, as a member of the Pentagon, frequently exercises its veto, making it impossible to pass the resolution.

The same is true in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The United States has repeatedly vetoed proposals calling for a ceasefire in Israel, while other countries have opposed U.S.-led resolutions.

As a result, the Security Council is almost incapable of taking any substantial action in these major humanitarian crises.

This inefficiency raises widespread questions: what is its significance if the Security Council can¡¯t even stop war and massacre?

Meanwhile, many emerging countries and regions have strongly called for reform of the Security Council structure.

Countries such as India, Brazil, South Africa, Japan and Germany believe that the existing distribution of permanent seats in the Security Council is seriously unfair and cannot reflect the multipolar trend of today's world.

These countries demand that the number of permanent seats be increased to better represent the voice of most countries in the world.

However, according to the UN Charter, the reform of the Security Council requires not only two-thirds of the support votes of the UN General Assembly, but also the unanimous consent of the five permanent members.

This means that the prerequisite for reform is the willingness to give up or adjust their own privileges.

However, the attitude of the P5 towards veto power is extremely conservative.

This power is the core tool forining dominance in international affairs.

The United States and Russia are clearly opposed to any reform proposals that weaken the right to veto.

While China uses less veto rights, it is also difficult to support weakening that power in principle, as this will bring more uncertainty to future international games.

Although Britain and France have proposed limiting their veto rights, this is more of a gestual consideration, an attempt to occupy a moral height, rather than a genuine desire to give up their privileges.

Despite the heavy resistance to reform, Guterres¡¯ calls are not meaningless.

He hopes to take advantage of the 80th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations to put this issue back on the international agenda. Comprehensive reform is difficult to achieve in the short term, but some gradual improvements are still possible.

Promoting the reform of the Security Council is both the responsibility of the Secretary-General and an important measure to safeguard the authority of the United Nations.

While the existing interests of the Pentagon have made reforms difficult, Guterres¡¯ efforts have at least allowed the international community to rethink the issue.

Even limited reforms can inject new vitality into the United Nations, showing it is still struggling to adapt to the needs of the times, rather than a completely rigid organization.