By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Alexander Stubb of Finland addressed the UN General Assembly, advocating for significant reforms to the UN, including the elimination of veto power for permanent Security Council members due to the current fragmented and violent global order. He condemned Russia’s actions in Ukraine and Israel’s violations of international law, while also calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and the release of hostages. Stubb welcomed statements from former US President Donald Trump regarding NATO’s stance on Russian airspace violations. Furthermore, he emphasized the importance of European coordination against Russia and acknowledged the increasing influence of non-Western nations in global governance.
Read the original article here
Alexander Stubb, President of Finland, urged sweeping reform of the UN, specifically advocating for the abolition of the veto power held by permanent members of the Security Council. His proposal, delivered with the conviction of a seasoned diplomat, reflects a deep-seated frustration with the UN’s current limitations, particularly its inability to effectively address global crises.
The core of Stubb’s argument, as it seems, lies in the inherent imbalance of power within the UN structure. The organization, in its current form, relies on the cooperation of its member states, yet its enforcement capabilities are often stymied by political gridlock. Veto powers, held by a select few, effectively paralyze the Security Council, rendering it unable to take decisive action on critical issues when those with veto power disagree. This is where Stubb sees the UN as becoming more of a symbolic framework than a true enforcement body, a platform for debate and posturing rather than a force for concrete change.
The implications of his suggestions are far-reaching. Removing the veto, as the President suggests, would fundamentally alter the dynamics of the Security Council, potentially allowing for more decisive action in situations where the veto-wielding states currently block progress. It’s a bold move, as it challenges the existing power structure, and it is a sentiment that resonates with many who feel the UN is often unable to act on matters of extreme international importance. However, some fear that if these reforms were enacted, the most powerful nations might simply choose to leave, forming their own alliances, essentially creating new global power structures.
Stubb’s vision, however, appears to be that this is a necessary step toward making the UN more relevant and effective in the modern world. He appears to see the Security Council as intended to avoid military force, and he appears to believe that the veto system is a key issue with this goal. He seems to understand that the UN cannot be everything to everyone, and acknowledges that bad actors will always attempt to undermine the good efforts of the organization. He seems to understand the necessity of addressing corruption and waste within the UN system.
The President’s perspective isn’t just about removing the veto; it also involves a broader overhaul of the organization. Suggestions have been made to reform some of the corrupt, useless organizations that either don’t solve problems, or are actually creating new ones. This indicates a recognition that the UN’s effectiveness is not solely dependent on its structure, but also on the efficiency and integrity of its various components. This viewpoint suggests that the UN would be better served by reducing corruption and financial abuse, and making the organization more effective.
The challenge, as many recognize, lies in the practical implementation of Stubb’s reforms. The UN is a complex entity, and changing the voting system and the structure of the Security Council is no simple task. As long as the UN is a negotiation table, there is a strong argument to keep the veto, as it exists to give room to talk. Many wonder how such reforms could be implemented, given that those with veto power would likely resist any attempts to diminish their influence. The UN was also founded on the enforcement guarantee by the US. This reality also makes it difficult.
Still, Stubb’s call for reform highlights the need for a critical reassessment of the UN’s role in the 21st century. He’s speaking with a clear understanding of the reality of global politics, recognizing that the UN must evolve to stay relevant. This includes the removal of the veto power, but also includes a recognition that the UN needs to be much more effective.
His proposal underscores the need to adapt to the complexities of the modern world. This is in line with the idea that UN is more symbolic and could be made more fit for the reality of modern times, where it’s not so obvious that the “good” nations will behave good under any leader they might have. It will be a difficult process, but one that may well be necessary if the UN is to maintain its relevance and effectiveness in the years to come.