NEW YORK — President Joe Biden elevated the need for United Nations Security Council reform during his General Assembly address as Russia, a permanent member of the council, wages war against Ukraine.
But Biden’s words do not guarantee action as Russian President Vladimir Putin undermines the U.N. and its organ for international peace and security with threats that could escalate the invasion into a nuclear conflict.
BIDEN CONDEMNS PUTIN’S ‘NEEDLESS’ WAR AND REASSURES CHINA HE DOES NOT SEEK ONE
During his address, Biden urged the U.N. Security Council’s permanent members of China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States to use their veto powers only “in rare, extraordinary situations to ensure that the council remains credible and effective.” China’s and Russia’s positions on the council have stopped the majority of world leaders from more forcefully responding to the Ukraine war.
“That is also why the United States supports increasing the number of both permanent and nonpermanent representatives of the council,” Biden told the U.N. “This includes permanent seats for those nations we’ve long supported and permanent seats for countries in Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean.
Marti Flacks, a former White House National Security Council aide, borrowed a Biden catchphrase when she described his reference to U.N. Security Council reform as “a big deal.”
“It’s obviously a strategic move at a time when the U.S. is trying to gain allies in Ukraine and should give that issue some momentum,” the director of the Center for Strategic and International Studies’s Human Rights Initiative told the Washington Examiner. “However, Security Council reform is also a dangerous path because while mostly everyone agrees on the principle, the details are incredibly tough and inevitably will lead to strife.”
One example? “Picking one African and one Latin American country to permanently join the council,” Flacks said.
But Biden’s Security Council reforms would require amending the U.N. Charter, in addition to China’s, Russia’s, and two-thirds of the General Assembly’s approval, according to former Pentagon staffer Brett Schaefer. There are also concerns expanding the council would simply exacerbate diplomatic and procedural impasses. U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres even conceded the multilateral organization is “gridlocked in colossal global dysfunction” during his General Assembly address.
“It’s a proposal that has been kicked around for years but never goes anywhere,” Schaefer said. “I first wrote about it in 1997.”
“What Biden was proposing is more of a gentleman’s agreement that the P-5 would agree to abide by or a unilateral commitment of practice by the U.S.,” the Heritage Foundation international regulatory affairs senior fellow added of the council’s permanent members.
Former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine John Herbst reminded reporters of the U.N.’s “uniting for peace” resolution parliamentary measure, which the General Assembly could pass if the Security Council fails to fulfill its Charter-mandated functions.
“I’ve never had high expectations for the U.N. in dealing with truly difficult issues where permanent members of the Security Council are at each other’s throats,” said Herbst, the senior director of the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center. “Obviously, it can have effect on the legitimacy of the institution. … There’s no question the U.N. is a necessary institution, just not a panacea.”
A senior Biden administration official admitted to reporters the president’s Security Council reform proposal is not fully formed.
“We have historically and continue to stand behind the idea that Germany, Japan, and India should be permanent members of the Security Council, and then the question is for the announcement today that the United States supports the Latin American, Caribbean country, and an African representative,” the official said this week.
U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Linda Thomas-Greenfield told the BBC that Security Council reform discussions would “take place over the course of the next weeks and year.”
“I would hope China and Russia would agree with us that it is time for the Security Council to change, and I note that [Russian] Foreign Minister [Sergey] Lavrov, when he was in Africa, talked about Security Council reform and mentioned that Russia might be supportive,” she said. “So we will engage on this and see how far it gets us.”
But during a bilateral meeting between China and Russia on the sidelines of the General Assembly, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi told Lavrov through a translator that Russia “must continue to play its important role” as a Security Council permanent member and that “even though the U.N. is located in the U.S.,” “no one can deprive Russia of this right.”
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
The Security Council’s limitations were demonstrated this week during a French-requested meeting on the “maintenance of peace and security of Ukraine.” Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba amplified the council’s focus on “fighting impunity,” but Lavrov, who arrived late and left early, dismissed criticism and repeated false claims against Ukraine and President Volodymyr Zelensky.
“Impunity reflects what has been going on that country since 2014 when national radical forces, open Russo-phobes and neo-Nazis came to power then as a result of an armed coup with direct support of Western countries,” he said. “Intentional fermenting of this conflict by the collective West remains unpunished. Of course, you won’t punish yourselves.”
