Korea should take the lead in UNSC reform

The war in Ukraine and the Middle East conflict between the United States and Iran have raised fundamental questions about the existence and role of the United Nations as the central institution for managing international conflicts. Whenever I appeared on television to comment on the U.S.-Iran war, one question was impossible to avoid: Where is the United Nations and what is it doing?

In the past, whenever a major armed conflict broke out between states, the international community naturally looked to the U.N. Security Council (UNSC). However, in the latest crisis, the United Nations has been virtually invisible. Although Pakistan and several other countries have undertaken limited mediation efforts, they have not been able to exert enough influence to stop the fighting. China and Russia have even used their vetoes to block a Security Council resolution calling for the protection of commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and a coordinated international response.

The U.S.-Iran war has become yet another example of the growing impotence of the United Nations, which is supposed to stand at the center of international conflict resolution.

After World War II, the international community sought to establish a collective security system capable of preventing another catastrophic war. At the heart of that system was the UNSC.

During the Korean War, Security Council resolutions authorizing the dispatch of U.N. forces made a decisive contribution to defending the freedom of the Republic of Korea. The council later played an important role in responding to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait and supporting peacekeeping operations around the world. These achievements demonstrate that for much of the past eight decades, the Security Council has served as a key institution for maintaining international peace and security.

Today, however, the council is trapped in a structural contradiction that its founders did not fully anticipate. When a permanent member becomes a party to a war, it can use its veto to block any resolution seeking to condemn or sanction its own military conduct. The referee is also a player — and can reject any ruling it finds unfavorable.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine offers the clearest example. Russia, a permanent member entrusted under the U.N. Charter with special responsibility for maintaining international peace and security, invaded another U.N. member state and then vetoed UNSC resolutions condemning its actions. At that moment, the council ceased to function as an institution capable of deterring war and became an institution paralyzed by the veto of the very country waging it. Russia has repeatedly exercised its veto over resolutions concerning its military actions against Ukraine, including those related to conflicts that began in 2014 and 2022.

The underlying problem in the U.S.-Iran war is the same. The United States is both a permanent member of the Security Council and a direct party to the conflict. China and Russia oppose resolutions led by Washington, while the United States cannot be separated from its own military actions and strategic interests.

As the interests of the permanent members collide, the Security Council has been unable to produce even a minimum common response on such urgent matters as a ceasefire, mediation, civilian protection and freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. If the United Nations can speak out only in conflicts that do not directly involve major powers but becomes silent or divided whenever a major power itself goes to war, international confidence in the collective security system will inevitably collapse.

The same paralysis has been repeated in the civil war in Syria, the conflict in Gaza and North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs. Most notably, Russia’s veto brought an end to the mandate of the U.N. Panel of Experts that monitored the implementation of sanctions against North Korea. The veto is increasingly being used not as a final safeguard for international peace but as a shield protecting the strategic interests of permanent members and their allies.

It is time to acknowledge that a power structure designed around the victors of World War II can no longer adequately manage the multipolar international order of the 21st century.

What is needed is not another declaration of reform but structural change.

First, the international community should consider restricting the rights of permanent members to exercise vetos when that country is directly involved in the act of aggression or an armed conflict under consideration. International norms calling for voluntary restraint in the use of the veto should also be strengthened in cases involving clear acts of aggression or mass civilian casualties.

Institutional measures are also needed to enable the U.N. General Assembly to respond more rapidly through emergency special sessions when the Security Council is paralyzed by a veto. The council’s failure to act must not be allowed to result in the paralysis of the United Nations as a whole.

Expansion of the Security Council’s permanent membership can no longer be postponed, either. Proposals focusing primarily on Germany and Japan have some merit in terms of economic strength and financial contributions to the United Nations. Nevertheless, both countries face the historical burden of having been aggressor states during World War II, in addition to limits to regional acceptance. In particular, Japan’s bid for permanent membership could create new tensions in Northeast Asia, where historical disputes remain unresolved.

Security Council reform should therefore move beyond simply adding more major powers or former wartime aggressors. It should instead expand the participation of “responsible middle powers.”

Countries such as South Korea, Canada, Australia and India have respected international norms and made sustained contributions to peacekeeping, humanitarian assistance, maritime security and broader international security cooperation. Their participation as permanent or long-term members could improve regional representation, strengthen the council’s democratic legitimacy and help mediate confrontation among the major powers.

South Korea is one of the world’s leading economies, a critical link in global supply chains and a divided nation confronting North Korea’s nuclear and missile threats directly. Having defended its freedom during the Korean War with the help of the United Nations, Korea must now assume greater responsibility for rebuilding the international collective security system.

Through its contributions to U.N. peacekeeping operations, development cooperation, maritime security and defense cooperation, South Korea has already emerged as an important contributor to international security. It must now go one step further, from being a country that contributes to the existing order to one that proposes how that order should be reformed.

President Lee Jae-myung is scheduled to use his keynote address to the U.N. General Assembly on Sept. 22 to present Korea’s vision for U.N. reform, its future contributions to the international community and a blueprint for peaceful coexistence on the Korean Peninsula.

The address should not be limited to ceremonial language about multilateral diplomacy. President Lee should clearly identify the structural paralysis exposed by the wars in Ukraine and between the United States and Iran. He should also propose restrictions on vetoes exercised by parties to armed conflicts and call for greater representation of responsible middle powers.

South Korea should work with like-minded countries such as Canada, Australia and India to establish a coalition and develop a joint proposal for Security Council reform. Such an initiative should not be presented as a competition among individual countries for permanent seats. It should instead be framed as an international effort to revive a United Nations paralyzed by great-power rivalry and to increase the voice and peacekeeping role of responsible middle powers.

This approach would help reduce resistance from the existing permanent members and attract support from a broader range of U.N. member states.

The wars in Ukraine and between the United States and Iran have delivered a final warning that Security Council reform can no longer be delayed. A system in which major powers can become parties to wars, violate the principles of international law and the U.N. Charter and then use their vetoes to tie the hands of the United Nations is not sustainable.

The international community no longer needs a United Nations that merely repeats declarations. It needs a United Nations that works — one capable of preventing war, brokering ceasefires and protecting civilians.

South Korea should put forward a bold proposal for UNSC reform and greater representation for middle powers, commensurate with Korea’s national strength and international responsibilities.

It is time for South Korea to work with responsible middle powers to fill the vacuum created by a great power-centered international order and emerge as a new mediator for global peace and a leading advocate of U.N. reform. The restoration of a strong, fair and effective United Nations is not a matter of choice. It is an urgent task if the international community is to prevent the further erosion of the global order.

Ret. Navy Capt. Moon Keun-sik is adjunct professor of the Graduate School of Public Policy at Hanyang University in Seoul.