As the 81st annual session of the UN General Assembly draws to a close—with various participants complaining about the Organization's inaction regarding its political update—I offer this reflection.
The United Nations (UN) was born in 1945, in the
aftermath of the most devastating war the world had ever known. The Charter was
signed in San Francisco on June 26 and entered into force on October 24 of that
year. The Security Council was consequently conceived in the image of the
post-war world: five powers—the United States, the United Kingdom, France, the
Soviet Union, and China (then represented by the Nationalist Republic of China,
whose seat would later be occupied by the People's Republic of China in
1971)—were granted permanent member status and, with it, the power of veto.
Eighty-one years have passed. The world has changed
profoundly. The Security Council, much less so.
It is upon this paradox that the title of this text
rests: “UN, 56 Years Late!”. The 56 years symbolically mark the time elapsed
since approximately 1970—by which point the vast majority of African and Asian
countries had already achieved independence—without this profound
transformation in the world's political composition finding any corresponding
reflection at the core of UN power.
Only four African States—Egypt, Ethiopia, Liberia, and
the Union of South Africa—were independent at the time and participated in the
San Francisco Conference. In 1960, the so-called “Year of Africa,” seventeen
African territories attained independence; by the early 1970s, independent
African States already numbered 41. In the following decades, the process
continued. In Asia, the wave of independence had begun even earlier and
accelerated throughout the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. Dozens of new States became
part of the international community.
The UN mirrored this movement in the growth of its
membership, expanding from 51 founding States to 193. Yet the center of power
remained virtually untouched.
It is true that the Security Council was enlarged in
1965, moving from 11 to 15 members. However, the five permanent seats remained
exactly where they were. The Soviet Union disappeared and was replaced by the
Russian Federation. China changed its representation. The configuration of the
world has shifted. The core principle, nevertheless, remained intact.
And there is an even more difficult issue: the “right
of veto.”
I do not argue that the solution is simply to add new
countries to the group of those holding this privilege. That would ultimately
mean preserving the exact same model while merely increasing the number of its
beneficiaries. The more radical question to be raised is this: does it still
make sense for a single State to be able to block a decision supported by the
majority of the remaining members of the Security Council?
Indeed, the veto arose from a very specific historical
circumstance. In 1945, world peace depended largely on an understanding among
the victorious major powers of the war. The United States, the Soviet Union,
the United Kingdom, France, and China were not merely five countries among
others: they were the powers whose military scale and political weight required
their inclusion in any decisions capable of affecting international order. The
veto power was thus designed as a guarantee that none of these powers would
face a collective decision directly contradicting its vital interests. Yet what
may have been comprehensible in the world of 1945 is not necessarily suited to
the world of today. Eighty-one years later, five States continue to wield a
power that the other 188 do not possess, constituting one of the greatest
limitations on the collective decision-making capacity of the United Nations.
Why should the political force of decision-making not
be returned to the General Assembly?
All Member States are represented in the General
Assembly. It is there that the universality of the UN finds its most direct and
democratic expression: one State, one vote. If an issue is sufficiently
important to concern the international community, that community—acting through
the General Assembly—should have the final word. Nor is this merely a
theoretical construct. Throughout the history of the United Nations, the
General Assembly has assumed, on various occasions, a central role in defining
fundamental principles of international order and expressing collective will,
such as:
- The “Partition Plan for Palestine”: One
of the earliest examples is Resolution 181 (II), adopted on November 29,
1947, concerning the future of Palestine under British Mandate. The
General Assembly approved the “Partition Plan”, which provided for
the creation of an Arab State and a Jewish State, with a special
international regime for Jerusalem. Formally a recommendation of the
General Assembly rather than an automatic creation of the two States, the
resolution nevertheless became one of the foundational documents in the
subsequent history of the region.
- Decolonization and Resolution 1514 (XV): Thirteen
years later, on December 14, 1960, the General Assembly took a step of
enormous historical significance by approving Resolution 1514 (XV), the “Declaration
on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples”.
The resolution affirmed people’s right to self-determination and declared
that the subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination, and
colonial exploitation constituted a denial of fundamental human rights. It
served as one of the central political instruments of the decolonization
process that profoundly transformed the composition of the UN itself. The
resolution was adopted by 89 votes in favor, none against, and 9
abstentions.
- The definition of fundamental principles of international law: In 1970, the General Assembly adopted without a vote (“Adopted
without vote” or by consensus) Resolution 2625 (XXV) of October 24, 1970,
entitled the “Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning
Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States”. Among the
principles consecrated was that of equal rights and self-determination of
peoples. The declaration sought to systematize and develop the principles
of the United Nations Charter and affirmed them as fundamental to
relations among States. This is a particularly important example because
it demonstrates the General Assembly not merely ruling on a specific
situation, but participating in the formulation of the principles by which
the international community must govern its relations.
- The status of Palestine: Finally,
on November 29, 2012, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 67/19,
granting Palestine the status of “non-member observer State” at the United
Nations. The resolution was adopted by 138 votes in favor, 9 against, and
41 abstentions. It is important to note that this resolution did not grant
Palestine full UN membership status, but it upgraded its status within the
Organization to that of a non-member observer State and reaffirmed the
Palestinian people's right to self-determination and independence.
These four moments differ in their legal and political
nature, but they share a common element: in each instance, the General Assembly
served as the space where the international community, represented in its
universal composition, sought to formulate a collective position on fundamental
issues—the political organization of a territory, the self-determination of
peoples, the principles of international law, and the international status of
Palestine.
It must be noted: this is not about denying the
political, economic, or military weight of the major powers. It is about
questioning whether that weight should translate into a permanent right to veto
collective will.
True UN reform should therefore not be limited to
asking who should join the Security Council. It should ask whether the model of
power conceived in 1945 still corresponds to the world of today.
Africa and Asia have achieved independence. Dozens of
new States have emerged. The economic, demographic, and political balance of
the planet has shifted. The UN itself has grown from 51 to 193 members. Yet...
five States continue to hold the power of veto.
The UN was born to build a new international order.
The paradox is that one of its foundational structures continues to reflect the
international order that existed at the end of the Second World War, namely the
post-war period of 1946–1959.
Perhaps the true delay lies here: not in the age of
the UN, but in the age of its architecture of power. And in that sense, “UN, 56
Years Late!” ceases to be merely a provocative title. It turns into an
inevitable question: how many more years must the world wait for the
political representation of the Organization to finally match the world it
represents?
* Original Portuguese version also published on the blog
Pululu (https://pululu.blogspot.com/2026/09/onu-56-anos-atrasada.html)
