Can the UN Really Reform After 79 Years?

Seventy-nine years. That's how long the UN Security Council's permanent membership has remained unchanged since the organization's founding. Now, the UN General Assembly President is directly challenging this status quo, declaring that "reform can no longer be delayed."

Philémon Yang, the current UN General Assembly President, has been unusually vocal about Security Council reform and veto limitations. Watching the UN become paralyzed during the Ukraine war and Gaza conflict due to veto abuse, he's calling it "an unavoidable task that we can no longer postpone."

The Veto Problem That Won't Go Away

The veto power held by the five permanent Security Council members (US, Russia, China, UK, France) has become the UN's Achilles' heel. Russia has exercised its veto 17 times on Ukraine-related resolutions, while the US has consistently blocked Israel-Palestine resolutions.

Yang proposes concrete reform mechanisms: requiring countries to publicly justify their veto use before the General Assembly, and rebalancing power through new permanent members. "We need transparency in veto exercises and mechanisms to prevent abuse," he argues.

But here's the catch: amending the UN Charter requires unanimous consent from all five permanent members. Would any nation voluntarily surrender its privileged position?

Why Africa's Voice Matters Now

Yang's Cameroonian background isn't incidental to this push. Africa's 54 nations represent roughly 28% of UN membership, yet have zero permanent Security Council seats. This glaring representation gap exemplifies how outdated the current UN structure has become.

The African Union has long championed candidates like Nigeria or South Africa for permanent membership. Meanwhile, the "G4 group" – India, Brazil, Germany, and Japan – continues pushing for their own seats. Their argument is compelling: "We cannot govern the world of 2026 with the power structure of 1945."

The economic argument is particularly stark. Japan's GDP of $4.9 trillion dwarfs both the UK ($3.1 trillion) and France ($2.9 trillion), yet it remains outside the permanent circle.

The Reality Check on Reform

So can UN reform actually happen? History suggests skepticism is warranted. Over the past two decades, multiple reform initiatives have crashed against permanent member opposition.

The primary obstacle isn't procedural – it's geopolitical. The US doesn't want unfriendly nations gaining permanent status, while Russia and China resist Western expansion. In this strategic competition, genuine reform becomes nearly impossible.

There's also a practical concern: more permanent members could mean more veto holders, potentially creating even greater decision-making paralysis. If five countries already struggle to agree, what happens with ten or more?

Signs of Change in a Fractured World

Yet change isn't entirely impossible. The Ukraine war has pushed European nations toward supporting UN reform. Germany particularly has intensified its "responsible power" campaign for permanent membership.

The current dysfunction is becoming harder to ignore. When the Security Council can't even condemn clear aggression or prevent humanitarian disasters, its legitimacy erodes. Some experts argue that external pressure – from middle powers, civil society, and public opinion – might eventually force the permanent five to act.

Interesting developments are emerging at the regional level too. The African Union's "Ezulwini Consensus" demands two permanent seats for Africa, while ASEAN nations increasingly coordinate their positions on global issues.

The Uncomfortable Questions

But reform advocates face uncomfortable realities. Would India and Pakistan both deserve permanent seats? How about Nigeria versus Egypt for African representation? And crucially – would new permanent members behave differently than current ones, or simply create more gridlock?

The veto itself presents a fundamental dilemma. Abolishing it entirely might make the UN more democratic but could drive major powers away from the institution altogether. Limiting it might be more palatable, but enforcement remains unclear.