The atmosphere at the United Nations General Assembly debate in 2025 was not easy, but it wasn’t expected that Finnish President Stevenson sparked a larger barrel of cannabis in one word.
He proposed that the UN Security Council should be thoroughly reformed, not only to abolish its veto right, but also to suspend its voting rights in cases of serious violations of the UN Charter.
The US State Department only returned six words: "Thoughts are too naive," this sudden confrontation, not only a diplomatic language collision, but also put an old question on the table: should the power of the five constants not move, the dream of the ten constants, is progress, or a fantasy?
The Voice of Finland
Stubb's high-profile speech, in fact, is not surprising that Finland, as a new NATO soldier, just turned from Russia's "neighbor" to a part of the military alliance, seeing the UN's power in dealing with the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, his words are more like the emotional outbreak after a long period of repression.
Since the outbreak of the war in Ukraine in 2022, Russia has used its veto in the Security Council more than 10 times, almost every time precisely blocking resolutions that are detrimental to it.
That is to say, even if other UN countries agree, if Russia says no, then no, Finland is obviously tired of this “rule of the game”, especially after joining NATO in 2023, the confidence in the Security Council mechanism is gradually worn out.
Stubb's speech this time, on the face of the system, in practice, there is a saying: if a country can launch a war on the one hand, while shutting off the microphone in the United Nations, then where does this system have credibility?
On the other side of the Middle East, the "one-vote veto" has also been popular, with the United States vetoing a resolution calling for a humanitarian ceasefire in the Security Council six times in a row over the past year, as the smoke in Gaza has risen again and civilian casualties have risen.
Regardless of what other countries say, the U.S. has always been “escorting” Israel, even the most basic humanitarian aid, stagnated by a paper veto.
Although Stubb did not name the United States, he repeatedly emphasized in his speech that "international humanitarian law must be respected" and "a ceasefire should be achieved immediately in Gaza." It is self-evident that Jianfeng pointed out.
He represents not only the voices of a single country in Finland, but more and more small and medium-sized nations that feel powerless about the status quo of the Security Council, which are watching the great powers come together in the Security Council.
But unable to lend a helping hand to the innocent people in the conflict, he began to raise increasingly sharp questions: Is the veto power of the five permanent members not set up for peace?
From the battlefields of Eastern Europe to the ruins of the Middle East, Stubb's proposal is more like a concentrated expression of "long-standing grievances". He is not challenging a certain country, but questioning whether this system is still worthy of the word "United Nations".
Six words in America.
The U.S. response was short, with only six words, but the information density was extremely high, not a simple diplomatic rejection, but a naked expression of power.
To understand these six words, we have to go back to the year in which the United Nations was founded, 1945, when the world had just emerged from the ruins of World War II, and five victorious nations were seated on the “trone” of the Security Council, carrying the “patron” of the right to veto.
This is not a reward, but an exchange. If these big countries want to stay on the table, they have to be left with the right to make decisions. Therefore, from the beginning, the veto power has been the "ticket" of the United Nations system.
For the United States, the veto right is not only a institutional arrangement, but also the bottom line of national interests, whether it is to protect Israel or against Russia, the veto right is the last trick that the United States can "stop the brake" in international affairs, cancel it, which is equivalent to handing over the steering wheel to others, in the six words of the U.S. State Department, that is, "Are you joking?"
Moreover, trying to move this system is like playing a game that can never be won, and according to the UN Charter, any substantial reform must be agreed.
In other words, it is more difficult to get five people with veto power to raise their hands and agree to cancel their veto power than to have cats hold a meeting. The United States uses the word "naive" not because it doesn't understand the necessity of reform, but because they know too well that this proposal can't go on at all.
Of course, there is a deeper consideration. Although Stubb's proposal is under the banner of "global governance", how does the United States think it is "the reality of resisting Russia in the name of reform"?
Finland just joined NATO, the position is clear, and the United States itself is unhappy with Russia, but it is inevitable that because of the Russian issue, the entire Security Council structure has been pushed back.
Therefore, the response of the United States is actually sending a message: reform can be talked about, but don't touch the core. The veto power is the last "turnaround card" of the United States in this world. Even if it is an ally, don't want to take it away easily.
Five permanent changes to ten permanent?
Stubb's other major proposal is to expand the "five norms" into "ten norms", so that more countries sit in the power core, it sounds quite democratic, but really to implement, the problem is much more than imagined.
First of all, it is a super problem who enters and who doesn't enter. India, Germany, Japan, Brazil and South Africa are all queuing up to "apply for entry", but each of them has "rivals" opposition.
As soon as India said to move forward, Pakistan jumped out; as soon as Germany nominated, Italy was not pleased, coupled with China, the United States and Russia's attitude toward these candidates is not unified, expanding this matter, moving and taking the whole body.
Even if it really expanded, would the new permanent council members have a veto right and another debate, if so, would the Security Council become a “ten-man maid”?
A resolution can be blocked by the rotating of ten countries, efficiency will not be directly reduced to zero, if not, then why are these countries willing to be "second-class permanent", which is like buying a first-class ticket, but only sitting in the economy class, who would be happy?
Therefore, it is now more feasible to make some “progressive” modifications, such as limiting the scope of the use of veto rights, especially on major humanitarian issues such as war crimes and genocide, requiring the Five-Year Plan not to say “no” easily.
Or, to increase the number of non-permanent members, to expand representation, even without substantial power, can say a few more words, but the problem is that these reforms, whether gradual or radical, can not bypass a core.
Are big powers willing to let go? So far, the Security Council has maintained the "principle of unanimity of big powers", with the aim of preventing split. But now, big powers are no longer a band of the same tune, and they compete fiercely with each other. Can they sincerely cooperate?
In the end, the core contradiction of the Security Council reform is fairness and efficiency, while more and more countries want to participate in global governance, while on the other hand it is always dead to seize power.
This kind of game can't be solved overnight. It's not like building a bridge, but more like reconciling a dispute left over from history, involving power, interests, identity and changes of the times.
On the one hand, the fierce voice of the Finnish president, on the other hand, the six-word response of the United States, the Security Council reform again became the focus on the international stage, this debate, in fact, is not a new thing, but a new old account.
It reveals a long unresolved paradox: the United Nations, as a symbol of global governance, is constantly faced with the reality of privileged minority countries.
Stubb's words may be "naive", but they are not unreasonable. Although the denial of the United States is "cold", it tells the reality. In this era of endless global problems, institutional reform always comes behind political interests, but because of this, such arguments are particularly important.
It may not be important whether it can become a decimal; it is important whether it is still willing to face the changes in the world and no longer take power as a "family treasure", and the future of the Security Council is not only about who sits at the table, but also about whether the table can still withstand the weight of the world.
Source of information:
Targeting Russia, Finland proposes to cancel the "one-vote veto power" of the five permanent members, but it hits the weakness of the United States 2025-09-26 18: 17 · Shangguan News
Finnish President Calls for UN Reform in General Assembly Speech 2025-09-26 14:40