Global Opinions and United Nations Reform

As the carnage of World War II ended in 1945, a sigh of relief spread through the world. The United Nations (UN) formed shortly after, intended to preserve the peace. Its two main bodies were the General Assembly (UNGA), including all 50 UN member states, and the Security Council (UNSC) of 15 members—of which five were permanent members (the P5, comprising the United States, Britain, France, the Soviet Union, and nationalist China). But the P5 countries refused to form the UN unless they had veto power—the power to reject any Security Council motion they wish. This demand has proven consequential over the last 75 years.

Since its inception, the UN has accepted 140 new members, most of them ruled previously by empires. For example, based on the principles introduced in the British Mandate for Palestine (created after World War I), the UNGA in 1947 proposed a partition, mapping it into a Jewish and an Arab state. Israel gained UN membership in 1948, while Palestine’s accession was postponed repeatedly. Thus, the conflict of Palestine and Israel became similar to other protracted conflicts: Algeria and France; Vietnam and France; Kenya and Britain; Angola (and Mozambique) and Portugal; and Namibia and South Africa. Increasingly, the U.S. and Britain aligned with Israel and vetoed resolutions of nationhood for Palestine.

Global Public Opinion
Thanks to television and digital communication, global public opinion has expressed itself in massive demonstrations calling for social change. Those great demonstrations may be largely forgotten now, but they were important in building ideas of multiculturalism, in which previously isolated groups turn toward gender equality, ethnic equality, and religious equality. They also helped bring an end to empires and colonies.

The following examples demonstrate how people in different nations—and with differing political views—have come together to make a statement about human values.

1989 – 1992. In February of 1989, Nelson Mandela was released from prison in South Africa. He traveled through Africa, then Europe and America, and returned home to campaign for change; he became president of South Africa in 1994. (Notably, the U.S. had vetoed resolutions on nationhood for Palestine, Namibia, and South Africa between 1986 and 1989). Meanwhile, the Tiananmen demonstrations in China began in April 1989, but on June 4 of that year, they were crushed by the Chinese government and its military. Worldwide demonstrations, however, returned, supporting not only democratic reform in China and government change in South Africa, but also East European regime change, francophone African national conferences, and new nations in place of the Soviet Union.

I was able to explore some of these democratization movements in a tour around the Atlantic. During three months in 1991, I visited three countries each in the Americas, Africa, and Europe, interviewing participants in social movements. After my tour, the Soviet Union collapsed in late 1991. But the U.S. and other P5 powers refused to reform the Security Council by admitting other major nations and expanding the membership of the UNSC.

I saw the demonstrations as expressions of democracy: a public rejection of government restriction on people’s ability to go to school, to work in fields that they wanted to work in, and so forth. I argued about it with my father, a trade union activist in Prague. He believed such changes would lead to large global powers and firms gaining even more economic control. Indeed, he was right: During the 1990s, the G-7 powers formed the World Trade Organization to formally extend free trade to all the big economies. But I was also right: Governments became more democratic in several countries, especially in Europe and Africa, and people gained the experience of speaking their mind and to holding public demonstrations.

2003 – 2005. The U.S. again sought to direct world affairs during this period. From 2001, the U.S. claimed that Iraq had “weapons of mass destruction,” WMDs, or atomic weapons. (Americans pressed the UNSC to agree and support an invasion, and while the UNSC never really agreed, it did not oppose the U.S. plan.) Demonstrations of millions spread across six continents on February 15, 2003, opposing the planned U.S. invasion of Iraq. The range of protest was far wider than initially reported by major media, which focused on only London and Sydney. The U.S. pressed ahead and invaded on March 20, despite public opinion, with its fallacious claim of Iraqi WMDs. Although demonstrations died down as the war continued, they expanded again as postwar abuses at Abu Ghraib became known. After many Iraqi casualties, no WMDs were ever found.

2011 – 2022. During this decade, global public opinion was evident in citizens’ responses to a few key events. For example, the Arab Spring—national uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, and other Arab lands that called for democracy—gained support all around the world. And after the police killing of African American George Floyd in Minneapolis on May 25, 2020, protests spread throughout the U.S. and then to countries worldwide, eventually leading to a global conference of the UN Human Rights Commission. Finally, in 2014, global protests arose to denounce the Russian seizure of Crimean lands from Ukraine—and even more so eight years later, with Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

2023 – 2024. The biggest and most coordinated demonstrations in recent history have been those in opposition to the Gaza War, beginning Oct 7, 2023, following Hamas’s surprise attacks against Israel. According to research by the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project, from October 7, 2023, to November 24, 2023, there were more than 7,000 pro-Palestinian protests and nearly 850 pro-Israel protests around the world.

People worldwide expressed respect for the legitimacy of the Palestinian nation, as equivalent to the independence of 140 other ex-colonies among the 193 UN members. It’s a global call for independence, nationhood, and peace among nations.

While the level of global activism may rise and fall with specific events, the prevailing opinion in support of Palestinian independence will persist until it is achieved.

A New Global Dynamic: The United Nations and Coming Reform
It is entirely possible that there will be an end to the UNSC vetoes that have given the P5 nations—particularly the U.S.—outsized influence in global affairs. France has favored an end to vetoes since 2016, in alliance with Mexico. China and Russia, though they benefit from vetoes in some areas, might benefit even more in other areas from an end to vetoes.

The overwhelming majority of UN members, in fact, favor an end to P5 veto power, as well as the creation of several new permanent seats on the Security Council for major countries of each continent. This might involve a simple edit to the UN Charter, with the General Assembly asserting its power to make such a change.

Only the U.S. and Britain continue to defend the veto. Within the last year, the U.S. cast three vetoes of UN resolutions for an end to the war in Gaza; it then vetoed the admission of Palestine to the UN in March 2024. This stance runs counter to growing diplomatic recognition of Palestine, which has climbed to 80 percent of all nations. Most recently, European nations such as Ireland, Belgium, Spain, Luxembourg, Iceland, Sweden, and Slovenia, have moved to recognize Palestine.

So, after almost a year of war, the U.S. government (including both of its political parties) continues to arm and support Israel’s war in Gaza, refusing to acknowledge the genocide taking place, with endless “negotiations” but no serious pressure for a cease-fire. Israel has shown few signs of backing down. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s July 2024 visit to the U.S. was followed immediately by assassinations of Palestinian and Lebanese leaders. Further, repeated bombings of hospitals and schools, and the cutting off of food and water in Gaza, have only reaffirmed Israel’s determination to continue war.

It’s worth noting that the ongoing genocidal war in Gaza—prosecuted by Israel but protected by U.S. vetoes and supplied by U.S. arms—is already being evaluated in the World Court. This is based on widely supported charges brought by South Africa to the International Court of Justice.

In my opinion, the global public (and those in the U.S. in particular) should get used to the idea of a UN in which majority rules, with an end to big-power vetoes that override consensus. In the post-veto world, the U.S. will remain significant but will no longer impose its government’s will at the UN despite broader global opinion. In the post-veto UN, decisions will be made by alliances of nations, large and small. World government may become more complex, but it will also become more democratic.

The issue of reform may come to a head at the United Nations Summit of the Future, set to take place September 22–23, 2024, in New York City. Secretary-General António Guterres of Portugal, organizer of the summit, is a strong supporter of Security Council reform. If it succeeds, what other nations might step up as leaders in world affairs? (Skilled diplomats from several countries have offered important initiatives over the years but have been marginalized by vetoes.) Will the U.S. have to build alliances with countries throughout the world, no longer just in Europe? And, ultimately, will the U.S. have to accept defeat on some points—rather than governing by UN veto?