On September 12, the United Nations General Assembly was full of heavy atmosphere. A bill on the fate of Palestine was brought to the table. 142 countries around the world voted in favor and 10 countries voted against it.

The proposal took place on the occasion of the 80th anniversary of the United Nations, and in this year that should be celebrated, there are always some countries that choose to sing back to the world.

At the same time, the heavy atmosphere also came from a letter written by Secretary-General Guterres, in which two things were mentioned, after seeing there was no joy of celebration, only a deep sense of crisis.

The first thing is that most countries owe an account to the UN, Guterres said. As many member states fail to pay their contributions on time, the United Nations intends to cut more than 15% of its regular budget by 2026, or $500 million.

The second thing, Guterres clearly stated, The Security Council needs structural reform, especially pointing to the "one-vote veto power" possessed by the P5 countries.As soon as this word came out, it was equivalent to directly touching the most sensitive nerve of the United Nations.

The United Nations no longer has the authority.

The United Nations is now experiencing its worst crisis of trust since it was founded, which is not an exaggeration.

A piece of data can tell the problem: At the beginning of the Cold War, about 70% of Security Council resolutions were still enforceable, but now the implementation rate has dropped to less than 40%.

More and more countries have begun to delay their contributions, and this is a silent protest that demonstrates the growing distrust of the United Nations.

To date, more than sixty countries have failed to pay this year¡¯s contributions, including China and Russia, the three largest countries in the world.The United States owes the most, up to $1.5 billion; Russia, despite sanctions and uncomfortable payments, is still trying to find ways to pay; China says it is moving forward in accordance with fiscal plans and international strategy, and will pay by the end of the year.

This could cut more than 2,600 jobs and could also be affected by key projects such asining peace and security, safeguarding human rights and promoting sustainable development.

Recent international hotspots have highlighted its powerlessness, for example, in the Ukraine issue, Russia has used its veto rights several times, blocking all proposals that are detrimental to it.

In Gaza, Arab countries have repeatedly called for a ceasefire, but the United States has repeatedly vetoed it, continuing to give the green light to Israeli military operations.

This practice of big countries only caring about their own interests and ignoring international peace is constantly weakening the credibility of the Security Council. The abuse of veto power has turned the Security Council from a "safety valve" for maintaining peace into a "stumbling block" for confrontation between big powers.

He suggested that at least in the face of serious crises such as genocide, the use of the veto right should be restricted ¨C whoever votes against it must be publicly explained to the UN General Assembly and subject to censorship.

Behind this is actually the dissatisfaction of many countries with the old order. A big country like India has long been unhappy with the old rules set in 1945, feeling that its right to speak has been ignored, and the call for reform has been constant.

Reform is not so easy.

When it comes to reforming the United Nations, it is clear that it is not so easy, and the problem lies precisely in the rules set by the United Nations itself ¨C the Charter of the United Nations holds the final decision firmly in the hands of the five permanent members of the Council, forming a dead circle of ¡°no one can change.¡±

According to the regulations, any reform that wants to move forward must be passed by the Security Council, and no permanent member of the council can object.In other words, the privileges of the five constants ultimately require their own consent, otherwise this is something that is impossible to accomplish.

For the five permanent members, the veto power is not as simple as holding a meeting and raising their hands. It is directly related to the core interests of every country. The United States has made it clear that this is a key tool to protect itself and its allies, such as covering Israel or blocking Iran and North Korea.

Russia even regards this as a security guarantee. Without the veto power, the United Nations will become the one-word hall of some countries. Although China usually uses less, it will never let go as long as it encounters bottom-line problems such as Taiwan Province and the South China Sea.

The United Nations Security Council was originally designed to recognize the power of the great powers, to pull the conflict of potential gunfire and to the conference table.This mechanism can turn, provided that the great powers have special powers, really to the veto right reform, the United Nations itself may be difficult to secure.

The reform is intended to strengthen the right of speech.

Guterres is screaming everywhere for reforms, which he may not really think will succeed.

He knocked on the alarm clock to remind the world: The United Nations is now increasingly marginalized, and there would be no need for it if there were no right to speak in the world.

China¡¯s position is balanced: On the one hand, it expresses its support for reform, especially for increasing the voice of developing countries, which can bring closer relations with countries in the "Global South".

But on the other hand, we have always stressed that "consensus must be reached", that there is no hard push or timetable.

This is China's release of a radical reform plan that has shown an open attitude and actually delayed it.

There are other countries, such as India, Germany, and Japan, that are determined to have a veto and see reforms as a ticket to the core of power.

But they compete with each other, coupled with the interests of the existing great powers, and instead disperse the reform camp that hadn¡¯t been united ¨C the more confusing the situation, the more difficult it has been to move forward.

conclusion

No one is willing to give up privileges, but no country can bear the consequences of the failure of the United Nations.

This matter of reform, which can't be changed or abolished, is destined to be stuck here for a long time, becoming the epitome of games and calculations between countries. If global governance wants to move forward, it is difficult to be visible to the naked eye.