{
  "id": 11071331,
  "title": "Hampir mustahil mansuh kuasa veto",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/10/01/hampir-mustahil-mansuh-kuasa-veto-11071331",
  "topic": "world",
  "section": "World",
  "published": "2026-10-01T00:00:00.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "Free Malaysia Today",
    "slug": "free-malaysia-today",
    "url": "https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/bahasa/pandangan/2026/10/01/hampir-mustahil-mansuh-kuasa-veto"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "The Indonesian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, led by Mohamad Hasan, reignited one of the most long-standing and challenging issues within the United Nations Framework (UN): why are only five countries granted the power to veto decisions in the UN Security Council? His argument was that the veto power needs to be challenged and ultimately abolished, and that expanding the membership of the Security Council alone will not resolve its core weakness. Adding more countries to the debate table is not meaningful if the five permanent members—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States—continue to enjoy this unprecedented power. However, acknowledging the problem and resolving it are two very different matters. Abolishing the veto power might be reasonable as a goal, but it is nearly impossible to achieve within the current international system. The reason is straightforward: the veto power was not inserted into the UN Charter by chance. It was part of a political compromise that became the foundation of the UN's establishment after World War II. The major powers of that time agreed to join the new organization on condition that they could block Security Council decisions in matters conflicting with their interests. This arrangement has remained strong to this day. In fact, any amendment to the UN Charter requires a two-thirds majority of member states, including all five permanent members of the Security Council. This creates a paradox: the countries with veto power also indirectly have the power to block attempts to abolish their own veto power. Why would they voluntarily surrender it? Washington views the permanent membership and veto as crucial instruments of American influence. Beijing and Moscow have nearly identical views on their power. London and Paris are unlikely to easily relinquish one of the main institution's exclusive privileges that maintain their status as permanent powers in the Security Council. The major powers rarely give up privileges they have long enjoyed simply because others consider them unfair. However, Mohamad is right to question this principle. The world in 2026 is vastly different from the world in 1945. India is now among the world's most important powers. Africa, despite having more than 50 UN member states, still does not have a permanent seat in the Security Council. Latin America and East Asia also lack permanent seats. This means the Security Council's structure still reflects the world order immediately after World War II. Expanding its membership may improve representation, but if the veto issue is not addressed, additional members may only result in a larger council that still maintains the same fundamental inequality. This is where Malaysia and other middle powers should focus their diplomatic efforts. If the abolition of the veto power is nearly impossible, efforts to limit its use based on political considerations are still possible. The UN General Assembly has established a mechanism to review the use of a permanent member's veto power. Such mechanisms should be strengthened, especially when the Security Council considers issues such as genocide, crimes against humanity, or serious violations of international humanitarian law. Every veto use should have a political cost. Permanent members who use it should openly explain why blocking a collective decision is considered consistent with international security and safety concerns. The General Assembly should also play a more assertive role every time the Security Council fails to act. For ASEAN, an important lesson from this situation is that Asia cannot compete militarily with major powers. Instead, ASEAN's influence has traditionally relied on discussion, institution persistence, consensus, and moral argument. Small and middle powers can survive in an unbalanced international system not by pretending that power differences do not exist, but by forming rules and norms that constrain how power is used. The same principle should be applied within the UN. At the same time, there is a warning for the five permanent members themselves. While the veto power protects their national interests, excessive use can gradually weaken the institution that gave them their exclusive status. If the Security Council repeatedly fails to act when international security is most threatened, more countries will seek alternative combinations, institutions, and mechanisms to resolve problems. In other words, the veto can protect power but at the same time undermine its legitimacy. Malaysia should continue to question the system while acknowledging that formal abolition remains extremely difficult. International norms rarely disappear overnight. They weaken when practices that have gone unquestioned for a long time become harder to maintain. Abolishing the veto power, which emerged from geopolitical reality in 1945, may now be nearly impossible. However, allowing an entrenched privilege to remain unchallenged is worse. It not only keeps the UN tied to the power politics of 1945 but also risks making the organization more trapped by it. ASEAN should continue to voice its opposition to a system that grants permanent privileges to major powers without limit.",
  "summary": "Usaha menghapuskan sesuatu keistimewaan hampir pasti menemui jalan buntu apabila ia memerlukan persetujuan pihak yang selama ini menikmatinya.",
  "key_points": [],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 2,
    "also_reported_by": [
      {
        "outlet": "Free Malaysia Today",
        "title": "Hampir mustahil mansuh kuasa veto",
        "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/10/01/hampir-mustahil-mansuh-kuasa-veto",
        "published": "2026-10-01T00:00:00.000Z"
      }
    ]
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}