Reforming the UN: Staying Relevant in a Changing World

Nearly a year has passed since Russia invaded Ukraine.

The United Nations Security Council has been ineffective in stopping the war,

paralyzed by Russia, which has the power to veto.

The Council's inability to stop the aggression has made it the target of criticism.

"The UN system must be reformed so the right to veto is not a right to kill."

This has led to calls for change.

Many member states are also voicing an urgent need to reform the Security Council.

"Members of the UN Security Council, including the United States,

should consistently uphold and defend the UN Charter and refrain,

refrain from the use of the veto."

"The call for reformed multilateralism,

with the reforms of the Security Council at its core,

enjoys considerable support among UN members."

The United Nations was founded in 1945

to preserve international peace and security after World War II.

Since then, the number of member states has quadrupled,

and the international order has changed drastically.

"Even diplomats who gather here at the U.N. headquarters

say its ‘credibility and relevance' are now on the line.

This edition of GLOBAL AGENDA from New York

looks at how the world's only truly universal global organization

must change in order to meet the needs of the times."

Welcome to GLOBAL AGENDA from our studios here in New York.

The United Nations was established to maintain world peace and stability,

develop friendly ties among nations,

and create a center for harmonizing efforts to solve problems.

But now, people are beginning to wonder, is it out of date?

Is it really effective and responding to the challenges of the modern world?

Our guests today will help us answer those questions.

First, let's go to Karin. Karin Landgren

has worked with the UN for over 35 years.

She's a former UN Under-Secretary-General,

has led United Nations peace operations in Liberia, Burundi and Nepal,

and has addressed issues related to the Ebola epidemic, child protection, and refugees.

Thank you for joining us.

Pleasure.

So, Karen, what would you say are the weaknesses and limitations that

the United Nations has shown through this war in Ukraine?

The Russian invasion of Ukraine showed in particular the limitations of the UN Security Council,

more than any other part of the United Nations.

In particular, it showed that the UN, which is,

through the Security Council responsible for maintaining international peace and security,

is not able to prevent an aggression of this type.

And once it's happened, is not able to reverse it.

What we also saw is that the members of the Security Council

could not agree even to condemn that invasion,

because of Russia's veto of any resolution that they might want to put forward.

Let's go now to Brett.

Brett Schaefer is a Fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

He was appointed by the UN General Assembly to serve as an expert

on the UN Committee on Contributions from 2019 to 2021.

He's written extensively on foreign policy and economic development,

especially as they relate to the UN and its affiliated organizations.

Brett too, thank you for joining us.

Thank you.

And what would you say are the weaknesses that we've seen at the United Nations?

Well, I agree with Karin. I think it's pretty obvious that the United Nations Security Council

has been unable to act decisively in response to Russia's war of aggression in Ukraine.

And that is because Russia has a veto

and is able to stop anything that the UN Security Council

decides to do in terms of a decision or a resolution.

But I want to point out that this is not necessarily a mistake.

The UN Security Council was set up with the permanent members to have vetoes,

because the major powers at the time, the victors in World War Two,

essentially would not join an organization that potentially could act against their interests.

And so, the veto was put in there by design

to ensure that the great powers after World War Two

would be able to participate in the UN system,

and be able to support its operations,

for the most part, and that was a protective measure

to make sure that it was inclusive of the great powers at the time,

which was essential for the organization to be relevant.

Thank you. Let's go now to Aude.

Aude Darnal joins us from the island of Martinique.

She's with the Stimson Center and recently launched a project there

on the role of the Global South in the world order. Thank you, Aude.

Thank you for having me.

And what would you say to this point?

Like my fellow guests just mentioned,

I think that the paralysis of the United Security Council

has really been enlightened once more by the war in Ukraine.

The inability to take action by the most powerful body of the United Nation,

because it is the only one whose resolutions are binding,

contrary to the General Assembly.

But beyond that, obviously, there is a question of the veto hold by the P5 members.

But beyond that, I think that it also shed some light once more about the frustration of countries

from the Global South about the lack of representation within that body,

the UN Security Council in particular,

which is composed of 15 members,

five permanent and ten non-permanent members.

This lack of representation has been a major point of frustration,

which has been voiced by different leaders from the Global South.

Thank you, Aude. Let's go now to Shinyo Takahiro.

He joins us from Osaka. He is Dean and Professor of Kwansei Gakuin University,

he served as Ambassador at the Permanent Mission of Japan to the UN from 2006 to 2008,

and then, as Japan's ambassador to Germany.

Taka, thank you for joining us.

Thank you very much. Very pleased to be with you all.

Well, as to the question.

I would like to say that United Nations itself as a whole is functioning pretty well,

particularly in the socio-economic field,

including the SDGs fighting against poverty and so on, so forth.

But at the same time, I think the most difficult issue

and also the malfunctioning is the Security Council,

the political and security area.

Particularly, I think the Security Council has lost its credibility and effectiveness,

particularly through this, the invasion of Russia, against the Ukraine.

And also, I think, it clearly shows that the members of the Security Council

don't have any concert.

Concert among big powers is totally lacking.

Thank you. All of our guests have already pointed

out one of the biggest obstacles to the United Nations

has been a special power given to five countries

with a special status in the Security Council, the right to veto.

The Security Council is the main organ responsible for maintaining international peace and security.

Its primary responsibilities are recommending peaceful resolutions to conflict,

establishing UN Peacekeeping Operations,

and applying economic sanctions.

And the Council is the only UN body that can make decisions

that are binding on all member states.

The Security Council is made up of five permanent members,

and ten non-permanent members whose terms last 2 years.

Permanent members have veto power,

and no resolution can be adopted if one of the 5 members opposes it.

This framework was designed to help the Great Powers work together

to preserve global peace and security.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991,

Russia has used its veto the most, 32 times,

often over Syria's civil war in support of the Assad regime.

Next is the United States, with 17,

using the veto to support Israel regarding issues with Palestine.

China has used the power 16 times,

most recently regarding sanctions against North Korea

over its renewed ballistic missile launches.

In the last year, Russia has vetoed two resolutions regarding Ukraine,

one calling for the immediate withdrawal of Russian troops,

and another condemning Russia's declared annexation of four Ukrainian regions.

What must be done to bring about peace and security?

Time and again member states have debated changes to the veto power.

France, which last used the veto in 1989 proposed in 2013

that the permanent members collectively and voluntarily limit their use of veto

in the event of a mass atrocity.

The proposal was co-sponsored by Mexico and supported by 100 countries

but has since stalled.

And what about the number of permanent members,

and which countries should really have that status?

Karin, the last change in the Security Council membership was in 1965,

when it was expanded from 11 to 15 members,

but that was an increase of non-permanent members,

not those with veto power. So why has there been no progress since?

It's been very difficult to get action on changing the Security Council.

Partly, for decades, the council was inert during the Cold War.

And it was really only in the 90s post-cold war

that it revived and blossomed and was able to do a great deal in the 1990s in particular.

So that's also when serious discussion

took off on what changes might there be in the council

to make it more representative of the world.

Changing the UN Charter,

which would be needed to change either the membership of the Council

or the veto power of the permanent members is a complex process.

It's like changing a constitution.

It hasn't been made easy.

So first of all, the proposal needs to be adopted

by two thirds of the members of the General Assembly.

And then it needs to be ratified by two thirds of member states,

parliaments, congress, diet what have you.

So, this is lengthy and complicated and that has to include

all the parliaments of the permanent members.

Step one needs to be UN member states

agreeing on how they want to see the reform take place.

And there is no agreement at the moment on that.

Brett, US President Biden said in his speech last September at the General Assembly

that he wants the Security Council to include permanent seats for,

in his words, "those nations we've long supported,

and countries from Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean."

Now, how serious do you think he was when he suggested this?

I think he wanted to make a good impression in the General Assembly.

Those countries that they've long supported include India and Japan.

And so, they were talking about adding permanent seats,

at least for Latin America and Africa in addition to those two countries.

More than likely, he's talking about a larger expansion,

because those regions want more than one, just, permanent seat.

But he knows that the prospects for that actually happening are extraordinarily unlikely.

For instance, China would be very concerned about Japan or India

becoming permanent members of the Security Council, both countries have aspired to that.

In Latin America, there's a dissention among the countries there

as to who actually should be the permanent member.

Brazil wants it, Mexico wants it, Argentina wants it.

In Africa, you had the same thing.

Egypt, Nigeria, Kenya, South Africa,

there are a multitude of countries that want to have a permanent seat on the Security Council,

not all of them are going to become permanent seat, permanent members.

And that leaves aside the fact that you're talking about also an expansion of elected seats.

So, from the United States' perspective, historically, this has been the issue.

It's not necessarily that a new permanent member be added to the Security Council,

or that some expansion occurs.

They don't want a significant expansion.

As we've seen, in the current context,

the Security Council becomes easily paralyzed,

especially when the interests of great powers are at stake,

the permanent members can exercise their veto.

As you add more permanent members, potentially with the veto,

that dynamic becomes worse.

And the likelihood of the Security Council seizing up over many more issues becomes likely.

Aude, how are nations in the Global South reacting to such proposals?

Obviously, they're the ones who would be most affected.

Yes, indeed. The Global South countries have been prominent advocates

for the reform of the UN and the UNSC in particular.

However, I think it is important to really underline the fact that the Global South is not a monolith.

I mean, we're talking about countries from across the planet, across regions,

Latin America, Asia, Middle East, Africa.

And obviously, the same way that this there is no consensus between the West and the Global South,

there is no consensus in between those regions,

but also inside, within those regions.

So again, I think that this lack of consensus

is really a challenge for this reform to happen.

And this is not just about the representation issue.

I mean, obviously, the question is

how many states will be added to the permanent or non-permanent membership?

Who will get those seats?

But there is also the question of the veto.

Even on this question, which is critical for the reform to actually occur,

there is no consensus.

Some want to abolish it, some others who want to extend it,

and some others do not want that.

And so, until there is a consensus, which is quite unlikely at the moment,

to be frank, it will be very difficult to see reform take place.

Karin, did you want to add to that?

It is noteworthy that two permanent members, the UK and France,

have voluntarily abstained from using the veto since 1989.

Neither one has used the veto since then.

So, there is a whole move to see greater voluntary renunciation of veto use.

And it's interesting that this is one of the points and principles

that the US has brought out in its new commitments of last September,

that they also want to see veto use, including their own,

be very rare, very infrequent.

Brett, you wanted to?

As you mentioned, France and the UK have voluntarily not vetoed anything since 1989.

But they would,

if they thought that their interests are going to be negatively impacted by a resolution in the Security Council.

They have not said that they will not veto. They just have chosen not to.

The United States, Russia and China have obviously cast vetoes over that time.

And they will continue to do so. So, this is a feature of the Security Council,

that is going to continue.

So, we can lament the fact that national interests are impeding the work of the Council,

or its decisiveness in situations such as what's going on in Ukraine.

But it is a permanent fixture of the Council and something

that we're going to have to acknowledge going forward.

We also should acknowledge that if you add more permanent members with vetoes,

this problem is going to get worse, not better.

But there are other provisions within the Security Council

that don't necessarily have to, how should I say,

use the veto.

For example, I thought that

a party that is involved in a conflict,

currently involved, directly involved in a conflict,

even a power with the veto, is not allowed to use that power.

That they should be abstaining if they are direct party to the conflict.

Is that not true? However, we are seeing Russia who is directly involved with this,

using its veto power. Taka, you had your hand up?

Yes, exactly. I think that when you come to the matter of the veto,

I think, to change the charter is very, very provoking,

and I think it is almost impossible.

So that maybe I think what we are able to do is,

limit the use of the veto in accordance with the present regulations, or the charter provisions.

And as you rightly said, Article 27 and 3

stipulates that the directly involved members should abstain from the voting,

when it comes to the peaceful solution of the matter.

And that is Article 27, Paragraph 3.

And this has not been observed.

So, I think this practice must be changed.

And this will also make it easy for the solution of the problem,

peaceful solution of the problem.

So, I think the members of the Security Council, not only permanent,

but also the non-permanent, must stick to the principle of Article 27 Paragraph 3.

And also, I think the veto restriction is very difficult to be done in the Security Council itself.

They can only argue in the General Assembly.

It is the function of the General Assembly to limit the charter provisions

or to give some new thinking in the form of the resolutions.

Karin, could you jump in on Article 27? Explain further what you think.

I think that a real issue today would be who is going to define

who is a party to a dispute under this article.

No one is going to tell the Security Council

who should recuse themselves from voting.

It's up to the Security Council to decide.

In the coming days, speaking now, in early February,

Russia is initiating a debate on the supply of Western weaponry to Ukraine.

Obviously, the arguments are going to be made about who all might be parties to this dispute in Ukraine.

So there are some built in traps and difficulties to assuming

that Article 27 can be applied to prevent aggressors from using their vetoes.

What we see some UN member states doing now is at least mentioning the Article

to make sure it doesn't get completely lost to history.

Recently, Ecuador, a new council member,

has been talking about the application of 27-3.

So arguably, that's a first step.

Aude, if I may go to you.

It's obvious that the African nations,

and of course, those in Latin America as well,

have been asking for membership for better representation within the Security Council.

They have been talking about the importance of having more of a place in the Security Council.

Right now, we don't have any African state or any state from Latin America

within the UN Security Council's permanent membership.

We only have one Asian state.

And that lack of representation means basically,

that those countries don't get a say in major decision-making processes.

And again, that leads back to the frustration that

we've been hearing over the past year, since the war in Ukraine started.

Obviously, those are not new issues.

But again, the war in Ukraine really shed more light onto this.

Thank you, Aude. Well, Russia's repeated vetoes led to a new provision last April.

When any permanent member uses its veto,

an emergency special session of the General Assembly is called within ten days,

calling that power to explain their veto.

Now to break the impasse in the Security Council, the General Assembly is

taking on an expanded role and growing its influence.

The General Assembly adopted a new resolution in April last year.

When a permanent member exercises its veto, the Assembly holds a meeting,

where all UN members can scrutinize and comment on the veto.

"It is so decided."

Russia condemned this decision.

"Today's decision is an attempt to exert pressure on the permanent members of the Security Council.

This is an approach that we categorically reject."

Liechtenstein's Ambassador, who drafted the resolution,

said it is intended to discourage the use of vetoes.

"In a way to say, this is a meaningful step

to put the General Assembly in its rightful role.

We as member states are part of the change."

The General Assembly also called for a number of emergency special sessions to counter Russia's vetoes.

Immediately after the onset of the invasion,

a resolution was passed calling for the immediate withdrawal of Russian troops.

"The fighting in Ukraine must stop.

It's raging across the country from air, land and sea."

The resolution was adopted with the approval of 141 countries.

But five countries including Russia and North Korea voted against it.

Thirty-five countries including China and India abstained.

While many countries welcome decisions by the General Assembly,

resolutions are not legally binding.

Karin, could you explain to us what's important or significant about this new provision?

The veto initiative is really important.

It's been an idea that's been around for a while,

and Ukraine was the catalyst that made it happen in the General Assembly.

So, it means that all member states can weigh in on something

that has happened where there's been a veto in the Security Council.

It doesn't compel those who vetoed to explain what they did.

They get to speak first, if they want to speak.

More importantly, it lets all members express their views on the issue and on the veto.

So, we saw it used three times last year.

I think it's too early to say whether it really influences the politics around the use of the veto.

But it does involve all member states in a significant way in those discussions.

Brett, if you want to add?

Sure, I think that it does signal sort of the weight of public opinion

in the General Assembly on the matter at hand.

However, I don't think it's going to significantly influence the member states

who are casting the veto, the permanent members.

Because in the Security Council, almost always those permanent members

when they cast the veto, explain their vote.

And they do this in a public way.

So, they're already doing this to some extent.

Also, when a country decides to cast a veto, it's a very serious thing.

And they put a lot of thought into that before they do cast that veto.

Knowing that there's going to be some ramifications for it, there's going to be some criticism for that.

And they decide to do that anyway.

Aude, you can see which countries are in line with certain countries

when it comes to their votes in the General Assembly.

In criticizing Russia,

what can we say about the legitimacy then

of bringing these items to the General Assembly?

What can we say about the power balance that's happening inside the General Assembly as well

when it comes to issues such as the war in Ukraine?

We need to acknowledge the fact that

Russia has been working quite well at strengthening its relations

with countries from the Global South, in particular, in Africa, economic security ties.

We can talk also about our economic ties between

Russia and Brazil and Latin America, for instance.

And so those votes really showcase once again,

national interests and a will for these countries to remain independent.

So, maintain that policy independence

and protect their interests and their relations with both worlds,

the multiple partners, the multiple countries involved,

whether that's the United States, Russia, but also its influential partner, China.

And so, once more, it's not just a black and white situation.

And I think that those votes, once again,

really display the fact that these countries want to advance and protect their interests

and not simply accept pressure from one side or the other.

May I jump in with one financing point?

One appeal we're hearing from members of the Global South,

is that they would like the West to pay as much attention to their priority issues,

as the West has been paying to Ukraine for the past year

and put as much funding into issues of their concern,

as the West has put into Ukraine.

And that means that forthcoming summits and discussions on the SDGs,

on climate financing, even a water conference coming up next month,

have taken on fresh importance,

because these are now settings where the West is going to be judged to live up to its commitments.

If I can ask Takahiro, yes, please jump in.

Yes, I have been waiting.

And I would like to say that

the frustration is of course on the side of the Global South, always.

The permanent members of the Security Council want things to be dealt with

within the framework of the Security Council and not referring to the General Assembly.

That is an overstretch of the Security Council's function.

And that should also be one reason for the Global South to discuss this issue

within the framework of the General Assembly.

And I think it should be done because they have one vote.

One country, one vote. There is no veto at all.

But I'd like to say that the General Assembly is not a panacea of course, not alone.

Because 193 countries are too many to decide

on very important things which need to be decided

rather sooner or later soon.

And in this case, I think we should also reform the General Assembly agenda

mandate issue, and also the topics of discussions.

Because they are discussing so many things and overlapping too much.

So, that I think the streamlining of the agenda to be discussed,

should also be done.

And I think these kinds of efforts should also, must be made with regard to the General Assembly.

And doing that, I think, we can also expand a little bit the function of the General Assembly,

in terms of the solution of political issues or security issues,

when the Security Council does not function.

Thank you.

Well, there is more to the UN than its two main bodies.

Over the decades the UN has spawned numerous organizations and special actions

to negotiate cooperation and solve crises in times of war.

They've proven effective even in Ukraine.

Around 8 million people are estimated to have fled Ukraine since the beginning of Russia's invasion.

The UN has played a large role in providing emergency assistance,

such as food and shelter.

UN agencies have raised more than $2 billion dollars in humanitarian aid for Ukraine.

The UN has also led efforts to avoid a global food crisis.

Concerns over food shortages grew when Ukrainian grain exports stagnated.

UN Chief Antonio Guterres, along with Turkey,

brokered a deal between Russia and Ukraine to get the supply moving again.

Exports of grain and fertilizer have resumed since the agreement.

"Getting more food and fertilizer out of Ukraine and Russia

is critical to further calm commodity markets and lower prices for consumers."

The UN has also been involved in ensuring the safety of nuclear power plants caught in the crossfire.

The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, one of the largest in Europe, is located in Ukraine,

and has been occupied by the Russian military.

The area around the plant has been bombarded repeatedly.

The UN and Turkey worked with Ukraine and Russia

to conduct an inspection by the UN's nuclear watchdog,

the International Atomic Energy Agency.

"This is something that cannot happen,

and this is why we are trying to put in place certain mechanisms."

The IAEA still has experts stationed at the power plant,

so they can keep track of the situation on the ground.

Karin, how would you view the efforts of the Secretary General?

Extremely important. I mean, there is so much more to the UN than the Security Council.

And the crisis over Ukraine has shown the impact

on the world of grain, fuel, fertilizer challenges.

The Secretary General has stepped in and,

I think, shown the value of continued diplomacy and engagement, has pulled in other countries

who may be effective interlocutors in this context.

We sometimes overlook how much authority the Secretary General has,

and that is written into the Charter, to take initiatives,

whether that is to bring issues to the Security Council, or to take initiatives in his own right.

So, we are seeing some of the things he's able to do through this crisis.

Brett, what do you think of the efforts made by Guterres at this moment?

And it doesn't have to be, of course, just him,

but the overall role of the Secretary General and the importance there.

Sure, he was instrumental in negotiating the Grain Deal.

And I think that has had a significant impact on the global food shortage.

I think that shouldn't be overlooked.

Other parts of the UN organization that had played a significant role

in Ukraine and around the world, the High Commissioner for Refugees,

the World Food Program, and many other organizations

that are addressing the ramifications of conflict around the world.

One thing I want to say about the Security Council

is we focused a lot on the three vetoes this year

and the inability to address the situation in Ukraine.

But I think we need to not overemphasize that the Security Council hasn't done anything.

There have been a number of resolutions that it's passed this year

in terms of renewing the mandates for various peacekeeping operations,

addressing situations in Burma and in Libya, and other things.

So, it seems like this Security Council is compartmentalizing the situation in Ukraine,

allowing these other issues where there's not such significant disagreement, to proceed.

And that's probably a good thing to address those situations around the world.

And I think we need to acknowledge that.

But writ large, I think we also shouldn't be

deluded by what's happened in the post-cold war era,

where there was a significant increase in the amount of activity by the Security Council,

in terms of addressing international peace and security issues.

Because the bulk of the history of the organization from 1945 until the Cold War ended,

was actually a much more paralyzed

and a much more restricted activity by the UN Security Council.

And so, what we've seen over the past, say,

five to ten years is more a return to the norm.

And I think we need to adjust our expectations not on when this Security Council was acting,

unusually cooperative, but instead maybe anticipating a return

to what it was for the first 45 years.

Taka, what do you think of the influences

that other organizations related to the United Nations outside of the Security Council,

the General Assembly have on the rest of the organization?

And of course, the role of the Secretary General himself?

Well, first, I think the role of the Secretary General, I would like to say that it is very important,

difficult for the Secretary General to decide when to intervene in the conflict,

not too early, not too late.

So, I think the solution proper, the finding of the time,

in accordance with the advice coming from his aids is important.

And Mr. Guterres was a little bit late.

So, I think this is a very highly political, sensitive issue,

but I think the Secretary General must perhaps use his power more

which is not always stipulated in the Charter of the Security Council.

And coming to your question, the external

and the bodies outside of the United Nations, how to work with them.

I think what is more important is to work with the G20.

And I think, more discussions and more collaboration must be made

between the United Nations and G20.

Particularly in socio economic areas.

And I think this is also the proposal of Mr. Guterres,

to have the high-level annual meeting with the G20 countries.

I think, this is the right direction to go

reflecting also the views of the leading Global South.

And that is also very important.

Aude, you've worked with different organizations related to the UN in the Global South

and I'm sure you've seen areas where reform can be taken there as well.

So, if you could explain what you feel

what are the successes of having these organizations versus

the difficulties that they have run into.

Yes, sure. I think that is an important question that we need to discuss as well.

Like my fellow guests mentioned, I think, yes, indeed,

billions have been invested with positive impacts through the different programs

that the different UN agencies implement

or funded throughout the world and global south countries.

We also have the case of peacekeeping missions

and their role in protecting civilians in conflicts.

However, I think it's also important to acknowledge pitfalls

and major challenges within these different agencies and programs and clients.

And I'm going to talk from my experience working in West Africa,

and as a recipient of funding by UN agencies.

When UN agencies fund programs they generally go through international NGOs

who capture most of the funding,

and actually very little reach local actors,

local NGOs and local practitioners and that is a real problem.

The lack of transparency and the very little we know is that

very little funding actually reaches those local actors.

Secondly, there's been a lot of talk about localization.

The USA ID, for instance, is putting some efforts into it.

And I think more efforts need to be done within UN agencies as well,

which is localization, which is basically

enabling ownership and leadership of programs by local actors.

And not just simply having foreigners designing and implementing programs.

If I may go to my last question, I know this is a difficult one to answer,

but is there one thing specifically we can do right now,

despite the limitations of the Charter,

despite certain limitations with veto power, et cetera, cetera?

Is there one thing we can do? And

what would you want to see this organization turning into

so that it is still relevant today?

I would go for expanding representation, because again,

we cannot continue with multilateral bodies,

within which pretty much the majority of world is on the sideline.

So, I will go for that, even though that that remains a challenge,

given the lack of consensus within the Global South itself.

My second answer, which regards the relevance of the United Nations,

I will say that it remains a relevant, multilateral organization because,

in my view, it is the primary forum which gathers every country around the world,

and which has such a wide mandate.

So, from peace and security to socio economic issues, I mean, you name it.

So, in that sense, to me at the moment,

that's the only organization that really allows that.

However, its relevance, its credibility

is particularly challenged in the current context.

I mean, it has been for decades, but in the world of, in this world,

where we're seeing a change of power balances,

we're seeing multiple crisis from the COVID pandemic

to climate insecurity, to a war that is affecting pretty much the entire world,

because of economic, in particular economic and human insecurity consequences.

Thank you. Taka, how about you?

I think we need immediate reform of the Security Council.

There are two, one is a sort of the hard Security Council reform,

which needs a change to the Charter Agreement.

And the other one is a soft reform

which doesn't need the change of the stipulation of the Charter.

With regard to the hard Security Council reform,

I think we should proceed with a two-stage reform process.

The first is to reform the Security Council as soon as possible

by creating sort of so-called semi-permanent member seats.

And by enlarging six to eight semi-permanents,

which don't have any veto powers,

which keep those seats for only six years, or five to six, or for four to six years,

before the seats go up for election again.

I think with this kind of new category of permanent members,

the Security Council can be reformed,

rather soon, within two or three years, by 2025 or so.

While at the same time, we should also proceed with the softer,

Security Council reform by introducing a resolution in the General Assembly,

which doesn't need any change of the Charter Amendment,

Charter Provisions, by introducing, for example,

a system not to cast vetoes for the issues of genocide and crime against humanities.

Karin.

My organization Security Council Report does not take a position for

or against reform of the Security Council.

That said, there are two things

that the Council could do that would significantly enhance its credibility.

Since its job is to maintain international peace and security,

it could do much more to try to prevent conflict breaking out.

That means discussing fragile situations around the world.

The Council very rarely discusses emerging situations

because it is so sensitive for any country to find itself discussed in the Security Council.

But any country and the Secretary General can bring issues for discussion to the Security Council.

That needs to happen much more than it does now.

The second thing is weapons of mass destruction.

Even as we see the various nuclear regimes evaporate,

control regimes evaporate around us,

the Security Council very rarely talks about weapons of mass destruction.

It does so in specific contexts, Syria, Iran, DPRK,

but not keeping the world as a whole safe from nuclear and other weapons.

Brett, would you like to…

Thank you.

We talked a little bit earlier about how

the UN has been effective in helping people around the world

through either providing food assistance to refugees, etc.

That being said, there's a lot of things wrong with the organization.

Part of the problem is that many member states

contribute very little to the UN.

The lowest assessed countries in the UN system pay $38,000 a year to the organization

0.001% for the regular budget and 0.0001%, for the peacekeeping budget.

The United States pays the equivalent of 184 countries combined

through its assessment.

What that means, isn't, I'm not saying that everybody should pay the same amount.

But I'm saying that every country should have skin in the game.

If they're paying a certain amount to the organization,

they're going to have more of an incentive to make sure that those contributions are used well.

And finally, turning to the UN Security Council, I think reform is unlikely,

because I think that the permanent members with the veto,

have a vested interest in making sure that they're able to cast that veto

if an issue comes up that addresses one of their major concerns.

That is not going to go away.

I think that Taka's proposal where you have sort of mid-tier

level members of the Security Council, a small expansion of countries

that can stay on for longer periods of time and get reelected,

I think that's probably the most realistic path for reform.

But, so, despite all these problems, then why is this organization still so relevant?

Because what is we see what's going on in Ukraine.

What we see happening with the refugees in Syria,

because of the refugees in Africa, because there are people around the world

who are in desperate situations and the UN is the best vehicle for providing them with food,

with support with shelter.

This, I think is the most impactful thing that the organization does.

Unfortunately, it's not the one thing that gets the most headlines from it.

Instead, you get about the vetoes on Ukraine.

The importance of the of the United Nations right now,

is, of course, very clearly to be seen,

in comparison to the League of Nations,

where, I think, the major countries are not in that system.

Some countries were not participating in it.

And some countries withdrew from this,

and that led to the outbreak of the Second World War.

What we have to do is stop and prevent the Third World War breaking out.

So, now, we are witnessing interstate war, not intra, interstate wars.

And this is a tradition of wars between the countries.

We are in a very, very difficult situation that we had before World War Two,

so that the importance of the United Nations is even greater

than ever, and that is prevention of the war.

Thank you all for your insight.

It was very valuable to hear from you today.

Even UN insiders agree the system is not perfect.

The institution is composed of states with individual interests,

and their responses to various crises, like the war in Ukraine,

have raised questions about their commitment to multilateralism.

But their interaction proves to us

the importance of keeping all those parties at the same table

to remind them time and again,

of the reason the UN was created in the first place,

to ensure a more secure and peaceful world.

Thank you for joining GLOBAL AGENDA.