The Global South: the 21st century’s great utopia

Engelsberg Ideas | Stephen Kotkin

Finnish President Alexander Stubb proposes expanding the United Nations Security Council with five new permanent seats for Africa, Asia, and Latin America to bridge the Global West and Global South. This reform initiative aims to counter geopolitical fragmentation between democratic western nations and illiberal eastern powers like China and Russia.

The structural proposal addresses a historical evolution wherein the former Third World concept re-emerged as the Global South, shifting global diplomatic alignments away from rigid Cold War divisions. Stubb advocates abolishing veto powers and suspending voting rights for states committing aggression, yet such UN reforms face systemic hurdles under Article 109 due to required permanent-member consensus. Historical precedents like the 1980 Brandt Line demonstrate that top-down wealth redistribution failed to foster development, whereas open market access and security architecture driven by the United States ultimately elevated over one billion people into the global middle class.

Comment

The structural amendment provisions outlined in Article 109 of the UN Charter create an insurmountable legal barrier to institutional restructuring during periods of major power competition. Because any Charter revision requires ratification by all five permanent Security Council members under Article 108, institutional reform remains contingent on the unanimous consent of the very powers whose privileges would be diluted. This consensus requirement effectively locks in the post-1945 distribution of institutional authority, preventing legislative adaptation to modern geopolitical realities.

A similar structural deadlock crippled the 1980 Brandt Commission recommendations, which sought to reform international economic governance through multilateral consensus. Without an external crisis capable of overriding the veto mechanism established at the 1945 San Francisco Conference, procedural avenues within the United Nations system remain legally incapable of rebalancing authority toward non-aligned states.

Strategic Question for Discussion

If the amendment constraints of Article 109 permanently prevent formal institutional expansion, will emerging middle powers choose to build alternative multilateral frameworks outside the United Nations system, or will they continue operating through transactional bilateral bargaining?

The historical trajectory suggests that emerging powers will increasingly prioritize informal, coalition-based institutions alongside transactional bilateral deals rather than abandoning the United Nations entirely. While formal Charter revision under Article 109 remains legally blocked, these states continue to leverage UN forums for normative legitimacy while conducting substantive strategic balancing through parallel regional frameworks.

Share your assessment in the comments below.

To read in details click here