Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The United Nations, established in 1945, faces persistent challenges in its reform process, primarily due to the complex interplay of geopolitical interests, particularly the delicate balance between the "East" (Russo-Chinese alliance) and "West" (USA and its allies). This dynamic, often characterized by policy confrontations and strategic competition, frequently impedes meaningful structural and functional overhauls, especially within the powerful Security Council. The original UN framework, a product of post-World War II realities, struggles to reflect contemporary global power shifts and diverse demands, leading to a perpetual deadlock in critical reform initiatives.
East-West Policy Confrontations and UN Reform Deadlock
The unresolved reform process in the United Nations is deeply intertwined with the persistent East-West policy confrontations, primarily manifested in the rivalry between the USA and the emerging Russo-Chinese alliance. These confrontations stem from differing geopolitical objectives, interpretations of international law, and visions for global governance, leading to a paralysis in key reform areas.1. Veto Power and Security Council Expansion
The most significant impediment to UN reform lies in the veto power held by the five permanent members (P5) of the Security Council: the USA, Russia, China, France, and the UK. Any substantive resolution, including those pertaining to Security Council reform, can be blocked by a single P5 member. This power, enshrined in Article 27 of the UN Charter, was intended to ensure cooperation among major powers but has frequently led to inaction and deadlock.
- US Stance: While the US has expressed support for a "modest" expansion of the UNSC, including permanent seats for African nations, Latin America, the Caribbean, and long-standing allies like Germany, Brazil, India, and Japan (G4 nations), it has been cautious about changes that would diminish the Council's effectiveness or impact the veto power. The US has historically used its veto to protect its interests and allies, particularly Israel.
- Russo-Chinese Alliance Stance: Russia and China often view the veto as a promoter of international stability and a check against military interventions. They tend to coordinate their voting in the Security Council, frequently casting "double vetoes" on resolutions, particularly concerning issues like Syria and Ukraine. Their opposition to any dilution of veto power for existing P5 members, and their reluctance to expand permanent membership without significant concessions, further entrenches the deadlock.
2. Divergent Visions of Multilateralism and Global Governance
The East and West hold contrasting philosophies on global governance, which exacerbate reform challenges:
- Western Multilateralism (US-led): Generally advocates for a rules-based international order, often emphasizing human rights, democracy, and interventions in cases of mass atrocities. The US has pushed for operational reforms, transparency, and accountability within the UN bureaucracy.
- Eastern Multipolarity (Russo-Chinese): Emphasizes state sovereignty, non-interference in internal affairs, and a multipolar world order. Russia and China often use their veto to uphold these principles, blocking resolutions perceived as infringing on national sovereignty or promoting regime change. This approach frequently clashes with Western humanitarian interventionist impulses.
3. Entanglement in Current Crises
Geopolitical crises often translate directly into policy confrontations within the UN, diverting attention and goodwill from reform efforts:
- Syria Conflict: Russia and China have repeatedly vetoed resolutions aimed at addressing the Syrian conflict, citing concerns over sovereignty and foreign intervention.
- Ukraine War: Russia's invasion of Ukraine has led to numerous Security Council resolutions being vetoed by Russia, with China often abstaining or supporting Russia's position. This conflict has highlighted the Council's inability to act effectively when a permanent member is directly involved in a major international dispute.
- Israel-Palestine Conflict: The US has consistently used its veto to block resolutions criticizing Israel, further illustrating how national interests supersede collective action.
Impact on Reform Proposals
The policy confrontations have stalled several reform initiatives:
- G4 Proposal (Brazil, Germany, India, Japan): Calls for adding six new permanent members (without veto power in some proposals) and four non-permanent members. This proposal is consistently met with resistance due to existing P5 members' reluctance to share power and regional rivalries among other nations.
- Uniting for Consensus (UfC) Group: Opposes new permanent members, proposing instead an increase in non-permanent seats with extended terms, often backed by countries with regional rivalries to G4 aspirants. This division among non-P5 members further complicates consensus.
| Aspect of UN Reform | US/Western Stance (General) | Russo-Chinese Alliance Stance (General) | Impact on Reform |
|---|---|---|---|
| Security Council Expansion | Supports "modest" expansion, including G4 and African/Latin American representation, but wary of diluting effectiveness or veto power. | Generally cautious on expansion, strong resistance to diluting existing P5 veto power. China has reservations on G4 bids due to regional dynamics. | No consensus on new permanent members or changes to veto, leading to deadlock. |
| Veto Power Reform | Generally opposes abolition but open to "responsibility not to veto" in mass atrocities (though rarely implemented). | Strongly defends veto as a stabilising mechanism and a check on unilateral interventions. | Abolition or restriction of veto power is deemed "mission impossible" due to P5 opposition. |
| Global Governance Vision | Rules-based order, human rights, democracy promotion, potential for humanitarian intervention. | State sovereignty, non-interference, multipolarity, often prioritising national interests over intervention. | Fundamental ideological clashes translate into policy deadlocks on interventions and sanctions. |
| Budgetary & Administrative Reform | Advocates for transparency, accountability, and efficiency (e.g., Trump administration calls for reduced bureaucracy). | Often wary of reforms that could disproportionately affect developing nations or be perceived as Western dominance. | Some progress possible on management, but broader structural issues remain untouched. |
Conclusion
The unresolved reform of the United Nations, particularly its Security Council, is a stark reflection of the ongoing East-West policy confrontations and the entanglement of the USA versus the Russo-Chinese alliance. The entrenched geopolitical interests, divergent interpretations of international law, and the strategic use of veto power by the P5 members continue to stifle efforts to create a more representative, effective, and legitimate global body. Until these major powers find common ground, perhaps through incremental reforms, greater transparency, and a commitment to shared global challenges over national self-interest, the UN's capacity to address 21st-century threats will remain significantly hampered. A truly reformed UN necessitates a renewed spirit of multilateralism that transcends existing power blocs.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.