At the end of the 80th session of the UN General Assembly, in addition to the focus of concerns raised by Trump and the conflict in the region, two issues relating to the United Nations were again raised.The first is whether the mechanism of the permanent members of the Security Council should be reformed?The second is whether the United Nations needs to remain in the United States?On both issues, countries have made constructive proposals, and China's opinion has become a key factor in influencing the final decision.

Colombian President Petro¡¯s visa to the United States was revoked, not only as a sign of the U.S. government¡¯s disregard for international law, but also as a sign of hegemony.

This proposal, in fact, is the ¡°mind¡± of the American right-wing parties such as Trump.

After all, Trump's front foot just complained that the United Nations facilities are outdated, the institutions are swollen, the efficiency is underground, and behind the foot there are far-right presidents who say that they should blow up the United Nations headquarters building or let poison gas drive everyone away, etc. This series of extremely inappropriate words, all indicate that the United States is extremely dissatisfied with the existing international order marked by the United Nations, and the unilateral hegemony trend is gradually dominating in the American public opinion.

The only variable is that the United States under Trump's leadership and the United Nations are completely messed up, intending to set up another set of international order that serves the core interests of the United States, but can such an international order still be considered "international"?

If this method is feasible, then the next scene may be that most countries will send representatives from both organizations permanently, and whichever party's decision is beneficial to their own side will follow whichever party's plan, which will undoubtedly aggravate the opposition between countries and the intensification of world camp.

So where should the new UN be located? It seems that China has become an inevitable choice in the hearts of most countries.

First of all, this trend is formed because China has always adhered to the principle of fairness and justice when dealing with international focus issues, not justified hegemonism, nor engaged in isolation of small groups, and through the influence of economic rise, it has driven more and more developing countries to achieve common prosperity. Such a "big brother" naturally speaks with innate authority.

Second, when dealing with international affairs, China lacks subjective interpretation and control, respecting the sovereignty of all countries as a prerequisite, which fundamentally differentiates the United States from the West, and therefore is a growing number of partner countries around China.

In fact, China has not made similar efforts. The International Mediation Institute, which was officially opened in Hong Kong not long ago, is an epoch-making symbol. This may also be the fundamental reason why more third-party countries are willing to participate in it. The international organizations led by China no longer have the so-called "one-vote veto power", but are replaced by the transparent * of the international community.

Of course, we also see the problems and challenges facing them, such as the relatively slow efficiency of each word, the responsibility of each other, the difficulty of implementing decisions, etc., but this officially puts all the issues apart, without anyone carrying private goods.

Therefore, China does not fail to assume a similar burden, but rather to see the shortcomings ahead and the long-term development, and to take on this burden step by step.

The existing order of the United Nations, whether reformed or abolished, has become the inevitable choice of the times.

When people propose UN reforms, it inevitably involves a five-point veto and whether permanent membership should be expanded?This time, when Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov talks about the issue, it is unusual to allow two countries, namely, India and Brazil.

This move is more of a factor in the diplomatic difficulties faced by Russia, the investment of both India and Pakistan, but whether it will eventually succeed, a lot of political factors need to be considered.