The United Nations has proven irreplaceable as a platform for global cooperation, but it must adapt to reflect today's world, according to Professor Jia Lieying, head of China's first university-based U.N. research institute.

In this episode of "Diplomacy Talk," Jia recalls the organization's remarkable track record over eight decades, from Secretary-General U Thant's successful mediation during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis to more than 70 peacekeeping missions that have saved countless lives.

Yet for all its accomplishments, the U.N. faces a critical representation gap. Developing countries remain severely underrepresented on the Security Council, with Africa and Latin America lacking any permanent seats despite their growing influence.

On its 80th anniversary, Jia argues the organization's future effectiveness hinges on whether major countries can set aside divisions, find common ground and cooperate on shared challenges. Only through renewed consensus among the five permanent members of the Security Council can the U.N. fulfill its promise for the next generation.

Following is the transcript of the interview.

Diplomacy Talk: How do you assess the U.N.'s role in shaping the global landscape and international order over the past 80 years?

Jia Lieying: The U.N. has actually been part of the postwar international order. Established in the aftermath of World War II, it was created through cooperation among the major anti-fascist nations, which also shaped the postwar world order. 

How does the U.N. maintain this international order? First, the U.N. Charter represents a cornerstone of international law. It sets the rules of the game that nations must follow when interacting with each other. Second, the U.N. provides a vital institutional platform where countries can engage with one another.

People have often had unrealistic expectations of the U.N. or have voiced harsh criticism. These views usually stem from looking at certain aspects rather than understanding the organization's full scope. 

The U.N. has six main bodies: the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, the International Court of Justice, the Trusteeship Council and the Secretariat. The U.N. system also includes 15 specialized agencies, such as UNESCO and the Food and Agriculture Organization. The U.N. also works with numerous NGOs, businesses and individuals who participate as observers. So the U.N. is a multidimensional network.

The Security Council has the primary responsibility for international peace and security within the organization. However, major countries frequently use their veto power, creating deadlocks that hinder action. Does this mean the U.N. has become ineffective? Not quite so. The U.N. still employs a range of measures to promote peace and security. 

Many people don't realize the significant role of the secretary-general. During the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, the United States and the Soviet Union came to the brink of nuclear war. U.N. Secretary-General U Thant's mediation facilitated negotiations between the two sides, averting a catastrophic disaster for humanity.

Another example is the Iraq-Iran war. Iran and Iraq fought for eight years, with devastating casualties on both sides. By the end, both nations were exhausted from the prolonged conflict. The U.N. provided a platform for negotiation. Both sides accepted U.N. mediation and ultimately agreed to a ceasefire.

Yet another example is the U.N. peacekeeping operations. Since deploying the first peacekeeping force in the Middle East, the U.N. has launched more than 70 missions and many are still active today. The U.N. peacekeeping troops are deployed to volatile regions, where they separate conflicting parties and establish buffer zones. This helps deescalate tensions and limit conflicts.

Diplomacy Talk: The U.N. is often criticized for being unable to fulfill its responsibilities effectively, and some argue that the five permanent members of the Security Council no longer adequately represent evolving global power dynamics. Given this, do you believe Security Council reform is inevitable? And what do you think is the biggest obstacle to the reform?

Jia Lieying: The U.N. must undergo reform, and it's urgent. The issue of U.N. reform is not new. It began long ago. In the 1960s, the Security Council was expanded from 11 to 15 member states, including the five permanent members and 10 non-permanent members.

As the U.N. approaches its 80th anniversary, the question arises: Does it reflect the current power structure? The answer is no.

The five permanent members remain the same, but the United Kingdom and France have noticeably declined in strength. Meanwhile, countries such as Germany, Japan, India and South Africa, as well as other emerging nations and regional organizations like the African Union and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, have risen significantly. Yet they have no permanent representation on the Security Council. 

Developing countries are underrepresented. Of the permanent members, only China represents the developing world. Africa and Latin America have no permanent representation at all.

Any amendment to the U.N. Charter requires meeting two rigid thresholds. First, the five permanent members must all agree. Second, two-thirds of all U.N. member states must approve. These thresholds are exceptionally high. So, I'm not optimistic about the prospects for U.N. reform. As long as one permanent member exercises its veto, substantive changes cannot be made.

Diplomacy Talk: How do you see the problem of underrepresentation within the U.N.? What role can China play in addressing it?

Jia Lieying: The underrepresentation of developing countries isn't only reflected in the Security Council but also in U.N. specialized agencies. For instance, despite extensive efforts, countries like China and India have only marginally increased their voting power in institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

Why is such reform so difficult? I believe it largely stems from the vested interests of major countries which are unwilling to dilute their own influence. A clear example is the unwillingness of some permanent members to relinquish any power. No matter how diplomatically they phrase their stance, when it comes to substantive reforms, the reality is often quite different.

In addition to its severely inadequate representation within the overall U.N. system, China is badly underrepresented in the U.N. Secretariat. According to data published by UNESCO at the end of 2022, China ranks only 17th in terms of staff representation in the U.N. Secretariat, far behind countries like Sudan, Kenya and India. Given the proportion of the assessed contributions China pays to the U.N., this level of representation is clearly even more disproportionate. While this imbalance is a reality, meaningful reform will take more than a short period to achieve.

Diplomacy Talk: When I was a child and first encountered the term "United Nations," I thought it sounded more than cool and carried a strong sense of authority. However, as I grew older, I have come to understand that many resolutions passed by the U.N. are not legally binding. Nowadays, some people argue that multilateral diplomacy is merely performative — something staged for the world to see — and that it achieves little in practice. They believe that only the U.S. can act as it pleases. How do you respond to such skepticism about the effectiveness of multilateralism?

Jia Lieying: Many young people harbor idealistic views of the U.N., imagining how wonderful it must be to work for multilateral diplomacy in tailored suits under the spotlight. They place excessively high hopes on the U.N., often evaluating it through an overly idealized lens. On the other hand, some view it as merely a tool of certain major powers. That's another extreme.

So what exactly is the U.N.? Perhaps few have engaged in deep reflection on its essence. The U.N. has three faces, so to speak.

The first is the U.N. represented by the General Assembly, where all sovereign states gather. All sovereign states are equal. Each has one vote, and they hold lengthy sessions every autumn.

The second is the U.N. of major countries, represented by the Security Council. Here, major countries clearly dominate. The five victorious nations that made immense sacrifices during WWII enjoy privileges, including veto power. When the Council fails to act, it faces widespread criticism.

The third is the U.N. represented by international civil servants. The U.N. system employs more than 80,000 personnel. Upon appointment, they take an oath by placing their hand on the U.N. Charter, pledging loyalty to the U.N. They commit to acting independently of their home countries or third-party influences and to avoiding the pursuit of private interests outside the U.N. framework. This embodies the idealistic U.N., the one that, as you mentioned, sounds cool.

These three facets collectively represent the entirety of the U.N. The first reflects public opinion. The second embodies political maneuvering. And the third is dedicated to idealism, which is exemplified by figures like the U.N. secretary-general, who devote themselves to higher principles. The example is Dag Hammarskjold, the second U.N. secretary-general, who lost his life when his plane was struck by a missile during his mission to mediate the Congo crisis. He remains the highest-ranking international civil servant to have sacrificed his life for the U.N. cause.

But does having more privileges mean that the five permanent members can completely control the U.N. and use it as a stage to showcase their influence to their domestic publics? That's not the case. 

Take the U.S. as an example. Its approach to the U.N. is pragmatic. It uses the organization when convenient, but when it cannot, it bypasses the U.N. and acts unilaterally. The U.S. is eager to seek legitimacy for its actions, as doing so reduces operational costs and enhances its appeal, making it easier for allied nations to follow it. 

However, this doesn't mean the U.N. endorses everything Washington does. For instance, in 2003, when the U.S. launched its second invasion of Iraq, it did so without U.N. authorization, opting instead to lead a coalition of allied nations to carry out the operation.

From a power politics perspective, such an action might have seemed feasible, but its consequences were severe. Even U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, when pressed by journalists, acknowledged that the U.S. had invaded Iraq illegally. This unilateral move severely damaged America's international reputation and tarnished its image. Moreover, after occupying Iraq, the U.S. still had to return to the U.N. framework to seek legitimacy for Iraq's reconstruction. 

This demonstrates that the U.N. is not a tool to be manipulated by any major power but rather the foremost platform for multilateral diplomacy.

Diplomacy Talk: As a permanent member of the Security Council, has China adjusted its understanding of the U.N.'s role over the past few decades?

Jia Lieying: China's understanding of multilateral diplomacy can be traced back to the Qing dynasty, exemplified by Li Hongzhang's approach to multilateral engagements. A particularly symbolic memory for China dates back to the invasion of Beijing by the Eight-Nation Alliance, and representatives of these aggressor nations sat down with Chinese delegates for negotiations. This memory remains profoundly painful for the Chinese people. For a long time thereafter, China was highly unaccustomed to multilateral diplomacy, viewing it as largely coercive.

After the founding of the People's Republic of China, the country fought for more than two decades to restore its lawful seat in the U.N., finally achieving this in 1971. Since then, its perception of the U.N. and multilateralism has evolved through several distinct phases.

The first phase, spanning the 1970s following the restoration of China's lawful seat, can be described as an observational phase. At that time, China was largely unfamiliar with how the U.N. operated — whether on human rights issues or peacekeeping missions — and was uncertain about possible implications for its national sovereignty. As a result, China often attended meetings but either abstained from voting or chose not to vote at all. Throughout the 1970s, China rarely participated in voting at the U.N.

Following China's start of reform and opening up in 1978, its relationship with the U.N. grew increasingly closer. In the early 1980s, China established connections with the vast majority of specialized agencies within the U.N. system and allowed them to set up offices in Beijing. China was particularly eager to leverage multilateral engagement to acquire much-needed technology, management expertise and funding. For instance, the World Bank provided China with substantial low-interest loans and even grants to support education, desertification control, water conservancy projects and other critical areas. During this period, China began learning from the management practices of international organizations and gradually increased its active participation. This proactive approach continued through the mid-1990s.

Following Deng Xiaoping's talks during his "southern tour" in 1992 and the nationwide advancement of the market economy, China's national strength grew rapidly. As a result, China began placing greater importance on the U.N. In 1995, then-President Jiang Zemin attended the General Assembly and presented a bronze ding — an ancient Chinese cauldron — to the U.N., symbolizing China's expectations for the U.N.'s work in promoting peace. The fact that China's head of state personally attended the General Assembly showed that the country's attitude had become even more proactive.

Since Xi Jinping was elected general secretary of the CPC Central Committee in 2012, China's diplomacy has entered a new era. At this stage, it was no longer just about understanding the U.N. or actively participating in its work. China began taking a more proactive approach, contributing more to the U.N. — whether in terms of manpower, resources or technology — thus supporting the organization in return.

For example, China's contributions to both U.N. peacekeeping funding and the organization's regular budget now rank second in the world, behind only the U.S. Among the five permanent members, China also sends the largest number of peacekeepers.

Moreover, China's engagement has gone beyond material contributions. It has been providing its own solutions. Prominent examples include the Belt and Road Initiative, as well as President Xi's proposals of building a community with a shared future for humanity and a new type of international relations. These ideas align with the U.N. Charter. In recent years, President Xi has proposed four major initiatives: the Global Development Initiative, the Global Security Initiative, the Global Civilization Initiative and, most recently, on Sept. 1 of this year, the Global Governance Initiative. All of these are public goods that China provides to the world.

So China is now taking the lead in certain U.N. agendas and making greater contributions to the organization. By examining these distinct phases, one can clearly observe the evolution of China's perception of the U.N.

Diplomacy Talk: We know that China has made significant contributions to U.N. peacekeeping, climate governance and other areas. However, some Western media outlets frame this as China using the U.N. to expand its influence. What's your take on that criticism?

Jia Lieying: I find this accusation quite far-fetched. China has deployed more than 50,000 peacekeepers, mostly in African countries such as Mali and South Sudan. In these nations, China doesn't have any special national interests, military bases, or particularly significant investments. To claim that China is using the U.N. platform to seek private gains in Mali or South Sudan is therefore a strained and unconvincing criticism.

Moreover, China's contributions to addressing climate issues are evident to all. As President Xi Jinping emphasized, "Clear waters and green mountains are as valuable as mountains of gold and silver." As living standards for the Chinese people have improved, the environment has become increasingly crucial to their lives. Therefore, they are willing to prioritize quality over speed. Even without relevant U.N. resolutions, China would still proactively reduce emissions, decrease energy consumption and improve air quality domestically.

Technologically, China has made remarkable progress in environmental protection. Its advancements in photovoltaics, solar energy and wind power have played a significant role in environmental improvement. After benefiting from these developments at home, China has actively shared its experiences, funding and technologies with the international community. Many such cases have been well documented within the U.N. system. To accuse China of exploiting the U.N. platform for private gains in environmental matters is logically untenable. China's actions within the U.N. can stand the test of time and scrutiny. 

Diplomacy Talk: Today, the U.N. has been perceived as relatively ineffective, or even absent, in addressing major security challenges such as the Ukraine crisis and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Do you think this reflects an institutional failure, or is it simply an inevitable result of great power competition?

Jia Lieying: In fact, both factors play a role. When the U.N. was established, it was designed with a built-in "fuse mechanism" — the veto power held by the five permanent members. If any one of them votes against a proposal, the proposal cannot proceed. This explains, for example, why the Security Council has been unable to act effectively on the Ukraine crisis. The issue directly involves the interests of certain permanent members, leading them to exercise their veto power. 

This mechanism functions much like an electrical fuse in a building. When the fuse blows, the building is protected from greater damage. Similarly, when a major country uses its veto, it prevents actions that could threaten the stability of the international system. While this may appear to paralyze the Security Council in the short term, it ultimately helps ensure the survival of the U.N. itself.

Major-power competition within the U.N. is entirely normal. It would be highly unrealistic to expect complete harmony and consensus among the five permanent members over the past 80 years. Diverging national interests and the resulting disagreements are part of the institution's reality, and such dynamics will continue well into the future.

Diplomacy Talk: Over recent years, the U.S. has repeatedly bypassed the U.N. to take unilateral actions, such as waging wars and imposing sanctions. Has this fundamentally undermined the authority of the U.N.?

Jia Lieying: My answer is that it has not fundamentally undermined the U.N.'s authority. This is due to the resilience of the U.N. system. It remains the most representative multilateral organization, enjoying unmatched legitimacy and universality. With 193 member states engaging in intensive interactions on global issues, no other international organization comes close. Therefore, it remains both irreplaceable and indispensable.

Furthermore, the U.N. system is designed with interlocking and mutually reinforcing components. The General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, the Secretariat and the International Court of Justice all complement one another. A deadlock in the Security Council doesn't mean the entire organization becomes paralyzed. The U.N. remains highly resilient.

The U.S., as the most powerful hegemonic state today, has increasingly resorted to unilateralism. From a power politics perspective, it may act this way, but ultimately, it still cannot circumvent the U.N. Many issues must eventually return to the U.N. for resolution. Therefore, its unilateral actions primarily undermine its own soft power rather than fundamentally damaging the U.N.

Diplomacy Talk: If the U.N. is to remain indispensable over the next 80 years, where do you believe the most critical breakthrough for reform should be?

Jia Lieying: You've asked a crucial question. Regarding the future of the U.N., and its ability to meet the expectations placed upon it, I believe the most fundamental task is to build consensus within the Security Council. The root of many current problems largely lies in divisions within the Council, especially among the five permanent members, which can severely undermine the U.N.'s effectiveness. 

During the Cold War, it was precisely the U.S.-Soviet rivalry that made it difficult for the Security Council to function normally. Today, when we focus on issues like the Ukraine crisis or Gaza, attention inevitably returns to the Security Council, particularly to consensus among the five permanent members. 

Therefore, I still hope that major countries, especially the five permanent members, can find common ground, set aside disputes and cooperate wherever possible. Only in this way can humanity have hope.

Diplomacy Talk: As a scholar, are you concerned that the U.N. is being marginalized? Or do you remain optimistic about its future development?

Jia Lieying: I am an optimist. From the very beginning, my understanding of the U.N. has been realistic and grounded. I have neither idealized it nor dismissed it entirely. The challenges the U.N. faces today stem primarily from divisions among major countries. However, the resilience of the U.N. ensures its continued vitality. It's not so fragile as to dissolve.

Moreover, I believe the U.N. is both indispensable and irreplaceable. Today, there are numerous global issues that must be addressed, and they require collective deliberation and cooperation. No single major country can unilaterally dominate these processes. Therefore, all sovereign states need this platform for multilateral diplomacy. From this perspective, I am confident the U.N. will continue to thrive for the long term.

Presenter: Wang Xiaohui

Production supervisor: Xue Lisheng

Co-production supervisor: Li Xiaohua

Executive producer: Zhang Liying

Producer: Zhang Ruomeng

Editors: Zhang Heling, Jiao Yuan, Lyu Yiyi, Xia Fangting

Produced by chinadiplomacy.org.cn