Mass of vetoes: first agreements on the reform of the UN Security Council are expected before the end of the year

The reform of the UN Security Council will be discussed in detail approximately in December at Intergovernmental negotiations at the General Assembly, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Alimov told "Izvestia". This issue has become one of the most discussed during the UNGA High-level Week, which ends in New York. In addition to the need to expand the Security Council, a number of countries have called for limiting the right of veto for its permanent members. Following France, the second country from the "Big Five", the United Kingdom, joined this initiative. However, technically this would require changing the entire UN Charter through multi-level voting.

When to expect the reform of the UN Security Council

During the high—level week of the UN General Assembly, dozens of countries spoke about the reform of the Security Council, which is now perhaps the most pressing issue in the context of the work of the World Organization. Specifically, future changes in the main UN body will be discussed before the end of the year.

— It should be borne in mind that a specialized format is provided for discussing the issues of reforming the UN Security Council — Intergovernmental Negotiations (WFP). They have been held since 2009 at the General Assembly in the format of its plenary sessions. The previous round of the WFP ended in July this year, and the next one will start approximately in December," Alexander Alimov, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, told "Izvestia".

At the same time, statements at the UN General Assembly have raised the level of discussions on this issue quite a lot. The tone was set by the Secretary General: Antonio Guterres questioned the legitimacy and effectiveness of the UN Security Council, which, in his opinion, reflects the "realities of 1945."

There are completely different approaches to reform. The Foreign Ministers of Germany, India, Brazil and Japan — the so—called "Group of Four" - reiterated their support for expanding the council to include both permanent and non-permanent members. Another model is being promoted by the "United for Consensus" coalition, which includes Italy, Pakistan, Mexico and South Korea. She opposes the creation of new permanent seats and suggests making the council more representative by reforming non-permanent membership.

The Russian side has repeatedly stated that it would be satisfied only with the inclusion of the countries of the Global South from Africa, Asia and Latin America in this body. "Our principled approach is that the reform of the Security Council cannot provide any additional seats to Western countries, especially Germany and Japan, which have embarked on the path of militarization and revanchism," Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said in New York.

From the Garden of Eden to the jungle: where did the meeting with the German Foreign Minister appear on Lavrov's agenda?

And why was there so much talk about Nazism on the final day of the UN General Assembly?

In the West, Germany and Japan are seen as the most obvious candidates for the expansion of the UN Security Council due to their significant contribution to the organization's budget and wide presence in other structures, a member of the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC) believes. Andrey Kortunov. But Berlin and Tokyo almost completely duplicate Washington's foreign policy course, and their appearance will only increase the excessive representation of the West, depriving the body of a geopolitical balance. The expansion of the Security Council at the expense of the developing economies of the Global South will increase the legitimacy of its decisions and provide the global majority with real levers to protect their interests.

Due to fundamental differences in the "five" permanent members of the Security Council (Russia, the United States, China, Great Britain, France), there is no reason to expect a compromise in the near future. And although certain steps may be taken to involve India or Brazil in the work of the Security Council, there is no reason to count on making a final decision yet, Kortunov stated.

What will happen to the right of veto

Another sensitive issue is the right of veto in the UN Security Council, which is held by its five permanent members. In particular, Finnish President Alexander Stubb called for the abolition of this, as many believe, "privilege." This time, the appeals have moved to a new level. Since 2015, France and Mexico have been promoting the initiative to voluntarily waive the veto when considering mass crimes. Britain has now joined it. In other words, two of the five permanent members of the Security Council are already in favor of limiting this right. In total, 128 countries are already reportedly supporting the initiative.

Russia is against restrictions and declares that the veto is not a privilege, but the cornerstone of international architecture, forcing the powers to seek consensus. Beijing also stands in solidarity with Moscow. The most vague position now remains that of the United States. As former UN Under-Secretary-General Sergei Ordzhonikidze emphasized, there is no need to expect breakthroughs on this issue. Despite the fact that the United States formally represents the Western camp of the UN Security Council, Washington is unlikely to join the initiative.

Deadlock and even dumber: the UN cannot elect a new Secretary General

Why are the candidates not satisfied with the permanent members of the Security Council

In 2025, the United States repeatedly used its veto power on UN Security Council resolutions on Gas. In June, Washington blocked a draft on an immediate and permanent ceasefire, and in September, a resolution on a ceasefire, the release of hostages and the lifting of restrictions on humanitarian supplies. In both cases, the remaining 14 members of the Security Council voted in favor.

To cancel the right of veto, it is necessary to amend the UN Charter: the amendment must be adopted by two thirds of the members of the General Assembly, and then it must be ratified by two thirds of the UN member states, necessarily including permanent members of the Security Council. All this makes the promotion of such radical ideas in intergovernmental negotiations unrealistic and only delays the general discussion, Ordzhonikidze emphasizes.

At the same time, there is no question of Moscow "blocking" any reform initiatives, since discussions within the WFP have not yet reached an advanced stage, said Alexander Alimov.

—Any models that would enjoy universal support from the international community and could be used as a basis for future reform have not yet crystallized," the deputy minister noted.

If the reform does affect the institution of the veto, the consequences for the UN may become critical. This tool was created as a safeguard against the political clinch of the world powers. Without the ability to block Security Council resolutions, it will become an instrument for automatically approving decisions of the numerical majority, and large countries will begin to ignore the UN, depriving it of its legal capacity. And there is no alternative to the World Organization, at least not yet.