Current Geopolitical Shifts Require the Transformation of the United Nations (Part I) - Center for Geopolitic and Geostrategic Studies

The world is entering a new chapter in its geopolitical history. Competition among major powers is intensifying once again, armed conflicts continue to emerge across various regions, cyber threats are becoming increasingly difficult to contain, climate change is fueling humanitarian crises, and the race for strategic natural resources and advanced technologies has become the new face of international competition. Consequently, the international security architecture established after the end of World War II now faces challenges far more complex than those envisioned when the United Nations (UN) was founded in 1945.

The United Nations was established out of humanity’s profound hope that the tragedies of world war would never be repeated. When the organization was officially founded on October 24, 1945, it had only 51 member states. At that time, much of Asia and Africa remained under colonial rule and had not yet gained the opportunity to determine their own destinies. The structure of the UN Security Council was therefore designed according to the post-World War II balance of power, with five permanent members granted veto power: the United States, the Soviet Union (later succeeded by Russia), the United Kingdom, France, and China. At the time, this arrangement was considered a realistic mechanism for maintaining global strategic stability.

History, however, never stands still. Barely a decade after the establishment of the United Nations, the world witnessed a defining moment that reshaped international politics through the Asian-African Conference (Bandung Conference) held in Bandung, Indonesia, in April 1955. Twenty-nine Asian and African nations gathered not only to strengthen solidarity but also to deliver a powerful moral message to the world that colonialism, in any form, must be eradicated. Representing more than half of the world’s population at the time, the conference became a symbol of the awakening of nations that had endured centuries of colonial domination.

By the time the Asian-African Conference took place, UN membership had grown to approximately 76 countries. This increase reflected the early impact of the global decolonization movement, which continued throughout the 1960s and into the early twenty-first century. Today, the United Nations comprises 193 member states representing diverse political systems, economic conditions, cultures, and levels of development from every region of the world.

Despite these remarkable changes, the structure of the Security Council has remained largely unchanged. The same five countries that were granted veto power more than eighty years ago continue to retain that privilege. This represents one of the greatest paradoxes in global governance. Although UN membership has nearly quadrupled since the organization’s founding, the distribution of decision-making authority remains concentrated within a structure shaped by the geopolitical realities of 1945.

This situation raises fundamental questions regarding the legitimacy, representativeness, and effectiveness of the Security Council in addressing the challenges of the twenty-first century. An increasingly multipolar world requires a decision-making system that is more inclusive and better reflects the contemporary balance of global power. The veto power granted to the five permanent members was originally intended to prevent direct confrontation among the world’s major powers.

In practice, however, the veto has frequently become an obstacle whenever the international community requires swift decisions to halt armed conflicts, deliver humanitarian assistance, or impose sanctions against violations of international law. Numerous resolutions have failed to pass because the political interests of major powers have taken precedence over humanitarian considerations. As a result, the credibility of the United Nations is often questioned, particularly by developing countries that believe they remain inadequately represented within the organization’s most influential body.

Transforming the Security Council does not mean dismantling the existing balance of global power. Rather, it means updating that balance to reflect contemporary realities. Expanding permanent membership to include greater representation from Asia, Africa, and Latin America, together with meaningful discussions on reforming the veto mechanism, are proposals that deserve serious consideration. The institutional structure of the United Nations should therefore reflect today’s geopolitical realities rather than merely preserve the historical legacy of 1945.

In this context, Indonesia possesses strong historical legitimacy to advocate for meaningful reform. The nation was not only born out of the struggle against colonialism but also became a pioneer in fostering solidarity among developing countries through the Asian-African Conference. Indonesia’s first President, Sukarno, believed that true independence meant more than liberation from military occupation. It also required freedom from every form of political, economic, and cultural domination.

Accordingly, Sukarno’s famous declaration that “colonialism must be abolished from the face of the earth” carries a much broader significance than simply ending classical colonialism. In the evolution of modern geopolitics, colonialism itself has undergone profound transformation. Control over natural resources through economic dependency, dominance in digital technologies, manipulation of global supply chains, financial coercion, and the exploitation of data have emerged as the new forms of twenty-first century colonialism.

The enduring relevance of Sukarno’s vision became even more evident when he delivered his historic address, To Build the World Anew, before the United Nations General Assembly in 1960. In that speech, Sukarno criticized an international order dominated by the interests of major powers and called for the creation of a new world order founded upon justice, equality, and respect for the independence of every nation.

This vision was later reinforced through Sukarno’s concept of Trisakti. The doctrine teaches that Indonesia must be politically sovereign, economically self-reliant, and culturally self-confident. These three principles not only provide the foundation for Indonesia’s national development but also offer an alternative paradigm for building a more equitable international order.

Political sovereignty affirms that every nation possesses the equal right to determine its own future free from external coercion. Economic self-reliance emphasizes that natural resources must be managed for the greatest prosperity of the people rather than becoming objects of global exploitation. Cultural self-confidence reminds us that modernization must never come at the expense of a nation’s identity and cultural heritage.

If the principles of Trisakti were translated into the framework of global governance, the transformation of the United Nations should aim to establish an international system that respects the equality of all nations, strengthens the sovereignty of developing countries, and ensures that international law is applied fairly and without discrimination. In this sense, reforming the United Nations is not merely an administrative or institutional exercise. It is part of humanity’s broader and enduring pursuit of a world order that is more just, democratic, and civilized.

Prof. Dr. Drs. Ermaya Suradinata, SH, MH, MS is an Indonesian scholar and observer of geopolitics, geostrategy, and public governance.