Dr. Wang Huiyao's proposal for Security Council reform represents a necessary reckoning with the body's fundamental design flaw: a structure born from victor's privilege rather than universal principle. The UN Charter's preamble declares the determination of "WE THE PEOPLES" to establish conditions for justice and maintain peace, yet Article 27's veto provision, imposed through coercion at San Francisco when US Senator Tom Connally literally tore up the Charter and threatened smaller nations that opposition to the unanimity principle would mean "no Charter at all", created an architecture of paralysis. The current crisis validates Finnish President Alexander Stubb's warning that without genuine agency for the global south, nations will abandon the system entirely. Dr. Wang's G-21 expansion model addresses this democratic deficit elegantly, but it requires deeper structural surgery. Beyond his proposed associate membership, the Council should adopt a three-tiered system: five legacy permanent members retaining diminished veto authority; twenty permanent seats with rotating regional representation from all continents (ensuring Africa, Latin America, and Asia each hold multiple voices); and a fluid crisis membership allowing directly affected nations temporary voting rights during conflicts concerning their regions, fulfilling the Charter's Article 2 promise of "sovereign equality of all Members" in practice, not merely principle.
The veto's corruption of the Council's moral authority stems from its transformation from a conflict-prevention mechanism into a license for complicity in atrocity. As the UN's own documentation reveals, 324 vetoes in less than eighty years, averaging four annually, have created what amounts to feudal sovereignty over global conscience. The year 2023 witnessed consensus proving elusive, with veto-casting permanent members primarily the United States and the Russian Federation impeding swift, effective action to address deteriorating situations worldwide. The humanitarian cost is staggering: American vetoes shielding Israeli actions in Gaza despite mass civilian casualties, Russian vetoes blocking Ukraine resolutions while cities burn. Dr. Wang's supermajority override requiring two-thirds of both an expanded Council and the General Assembly represents a crucial step, yet it remains insufficient. The reform must include automatic veto suspension during declared humanitarian emergencies involving crimes against humanity or genocide, as determined by the International Court of Justice, not by the Security Council itself. Article 24 charges the Council with acting on behalf of all members in maintaining peace, but this delegated authority should be revocable when weaponized against the Charter's Article 1 purpose: "to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace."
The reason why Veto power were given in the first place is to avoid war among major powers which could escalate into World War III, something that the UN is created to help prevent from happening. And I think it serves that purpose well over the last 80 years. Let’s keep that.
I am opened to add more permanent members, but with no Veto power. It makes sense that India, Brazil, South Africa and Japan would always have the seats at the UNSC, given their population size and economic leverage. But Veto power should be kept with the existing five for now. UK or France may withdraw itself afterward and give the seat to EU if they think it is more appropriate.
What a horrible idea to expand the number of countries with permanent seats. I would give permanent seats to “regions” (eg Africa, Middle East, Central America, South America, Central Asia, etc) and have countries of each region take turns to represent the region.
Dr. Wang Huiyao's proposal for Security Council reform represents a necessary reckoning with the body's fundamental design flaw: a structure born from victor's privilege rather than universal principle. The UN Charter's preamble declares the determination of "WE THE PEOPLES" to establish conditions for justice and maintain peace, yet Article 27's veto provision, imposed through coercion at San Francisco when US Senator Tom Connally literally tore up the Charter and threatened smaller nations that opposition to the unanimity principle would mean "no Charter at all", created an architecture of paralysis. The current crisis validates Finnish President Alexander Stubb's warning that without genuine agency for the global south, nations will abandon the system entirely. Dr. Wang's G-21 expansion model addresses this democratic deficit elegantly, but it requires deeper structural surgery. Beyond his proposed associate membership, the Council should adopt a three-tiered system: five legacy permanent members retaining diminished veto authority; twenty permanent seats with rotating regional representation from all continents (ensuring Africa, Latin America, and Asia each hold multiple voices); and a fluid crisis membership allowing directly affected nations temporary voting rights during conflicts concerning their regions, fulfilling the Charter's Article 2 promise of "sovereign equality of all Members" in practice, not merely principle.
The veto's corruption of the Council's moral authority stems from its transformation from a conflict-prevention mechanism into a license for complicity in atrocity. As the UN's own documentation reveals, 324 vetoes in less than eighty years, averaging four annually, have created what amounts to feudal sovereignty over global conscience. The year 2023 witnessed consensus proving elusive, with veto-casting permanent members primarily the United States and the Russian Federation impeding swift, effective action to address deteriorating situations worldwide. The humanitarian cost is staggering: American vetoes shielding Israeli actions in Gaza despite mass civilian casualties, Russian vetoes blocking Ukraine resolutions while cities burn. Dr. Wang's supermajority override requiring two-thirds of both an expanded Council and the General Assembly represents a crucial step, yet it remains insufficient. The reform must include automatic veto suspension during declared humanitarian emergencies involving crimes against humanity or genocide, as determined by the International Court of Justice, not by the Security Council itself. Article 24 charges the Council with acting on behalf of all members in maintaining peace, but this delegated authority should be revocable when weaponized against the Charter's Article 1 purpose: "to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace."
The reason why Veto power were given in the first place is to avoid war among major powers which could escalate into World War III, something that the UN is created to help prevent from happening. And I think it serves that purpose well over the last 80 years. Let’s keep that.
I am opened to add more permanent members, but with no Veto power. It makes sense that India, Brazil, South Africa and Japan would always have the seats at the UNSC, given their population size and economic leverage. But Veto power should be kept with the existing five for now. UK or France may withdraw itself afterward and give the seat to EU if they think it is more appropriate.
Thank you ,
I hope Governments can be open minded to Creative Negotiations for Peace and Prosperity.
Dan Keiner 10/1/25
What a horrible idea to expand the number of countries with permanent seats. I would give permanent seats to “regions” (eg Africa, Middle East, Central America, South America, Central Asia, etc) and have countries of each region take turns to represent the region.