The United Nations Security Council’s “one-vote veto” has always been a hot potato, on the one hand, it is the backbone of the post-World War II global order, on the other hand, it is also increasingly like a synonym for the monopoly power of the great powers.
President Stubb bluntly said at the UN General Assembly that he wanted to cancel the veto power of the five permanent members. Britain and France rarely expressed their "support for restrictions", and Russia opened it directly. However, China played a clever trick of "finding another way" and brought the topic to the most taboo missile defense system in the United States.
This, originally the drama of the "reform veto right", suddenly turned into a debate on nuclear security, so that the United States suddenly fell into its own pit, it is difficult to think out.
The logic behind things is much more exciting than it is on the surface.
Reform seems to be a real thing.
In a speech at the United Nations General Assembly, Finnish President Steven Stevenson said: “The United Nations needs to be reformed by the one-vote veto.”
As soon as the words fell, many countries in the audience nodded and said yes, especially the Singapore Foreign Minister also stood up to support "restricting the use of veto power". This voice sounds like a call for fairness, but in fact, the abacus behind it is not difficult to guess.
Finland has changed a lot over the years.Since joining NATO, its neutrality is basically outdated, and its diplomatic position is clearly closer to the West.
Choosing to propose “abolishing the veto right” at this point is said to be a reform, but it is more like testing the West’s camp to see if it is possible to push down the Security Council’s power structure.
After all, the United States recently used its veto power six times to intercept ceasefire resolutions because of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and Russia also used its veto power to block many Western proposals on the Ukrainian issue. At this time, jumping out and shouting "reform" is not just taking the opportunity to beat the five permanent members, especially Russia and the United States.
To be honest, this proposal is not purely for the good of the United Nations, but in the name of reform, playing the calculator of power.In addition to Singapore's annexation, it is clear that this is not a momentary rise of any country, but an organized political operation.
The matter of veto right, long ago was not a technical issue, but the protective river of the power of the great powers, think, why is it easy to talk?
Behind the words, every thought.
This wave, the reaction is different, but not simple. English France first came out "support", but it is to say "limit use" rather than "cancellation", it is like to say "I am willing to diet, but please do not take my plate."
Their attitude sounds open-minded, but in fact they want to brush a wave of moral existence without moving the fundamentals.
The abacus of Britain and France is not difficult to understand. As an old power whose economic and military strength is declining, veto power is their last "sword of Shangfang" on the global stage.
Really to cancel, then it really becomes a "luxury escort". so their "support", more symbolic gestures, really want them to take out practical action, that is not to think about.
Russia’s reaction was much more direct, and both TASS and the Russian Foreign Ministry stated clearly that Finland’s proposal to “challenge the public” was “completely unrealistic.”
At a time when the Russian-Ukrainian conflict continues and the confrontation with the West intensifies, the veto is Russia’s last line of defense against the western siege.
China's reaction, however, was both stable and coincidental.Geng Xiaoping did not directly respond to the question of veto rights at the nuclear disarmament conference, but moved the topic to the field of nuclear security.
He called for the abandonment of the global missile defense system, the withdrawal of nuclear weapons deployed overseas, and the cessation of the "nuclear sharing" policy, while pointing out that nuclear submarine cooperation between the United States and Britain violates the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
These remarks not only accurately countered the double standards of "reform" in the United States and the West, but also brought the debate that originally focused on procedural rules to the height of global strategic stability.
China did not take a positive step in defending its veto right, but instead changed its direction, exposing the United States itself to the embarrassment of "allowing state officials to fire."
The United States has been changed, and it really can't take it
The United States has been advancing missile defense systems globally over the years, such as the "Zeus Shield" in Eastern Europe, the "Tifon" program in the Asia-Pacific, plus the AUKUS nuclear submarine cooperation of the three countries, these actions are seen by many countries as provoking the arms race and undermining regional stability.
China puts these questions on the table this time, it’s like asking the United States: you speak out to “reform the United Nations”, then you yourself violate international rules, what about it?
What is even worse is that the United States is not very good at taking the ball and continuing to advance these plans will both cost a lot of money and blame the allies.
For example, South Korea and the Philippines do not have much to buy on the "Tifoon" system, Canada simply refuses to upgrade the North American air defense system.
For example, the "Space Army" program and missile defense system pushed by the Trump era have been criticized for burning money without a bottom.A report from the Congressional Budget Office shows that the funding demand for such projects has risen to billions of dollars, and in the context of fiscal austerity, it is really not enough to do.
Not to mention politically, once the retreat, Trump will be attacked as "weak", but to hard down the scalp, will be criticized and engaged in the Cold War thinking.
From the surface, the United States wanted to borrow the "reform veto right" to point to China and Russia, as a result, China kicked the ball back, and kicked to the area that the United States most did not want to touch.
conclusion
The controversy over the right of veto, in the end, reflects the deep restructuring of the international order. Small and medium-sized countries want to fight for greater power of speech, and the five main countries want to preserve the already existing ground.
China's response this time is neither eager to express its position nor fall into defense, but to guide on more general issues. This strategy is not to avoid the problem, but to solve the problem from another angle. It reminds the world that the reform of the international order should not only focus on "who has veto power", but also on "who really safeguards global security".
The U.S. situation also demonstrates that it is difficult to maintain global leadership based on the unilateral logic of "I have said it" The future governance system does not need a reformist who screams slogans, but a coordinator who can balance the interests of all parties.