, The United Nations faces mounting criticism, primarily over the way its Security Council works. But experts and former diplomats say incremental reforms could make the body work and preserve what many see as an indispensable institution. At its latest General Assembly in New York, the United Nations (UN) came under sharp criticism, as world leaders questioned whether the institution â€" once seen as the cornerstone of global cooperation â€" has grown too outdated and divided to meet today's challenges. "It's empty words, and empty words don't solve war. The only thing that solves war and wars is action," he said. "All I got from the United Nations was an escalator that, on the way up, stopped right in the middle." At September's assembly, other world leaders similarly took aim at the organisation. India's Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar asked: "How has the UN lived up to expectations? And just look at the state of the world. Where has the UN actually made a difference?" Meanwhile, Malaysia's Foreign Minister Mohamad Hasan demanded the Security Council be freed from its "humiliating paralysis", while Botswana President Duma Boko voiced frustration that African nations have for years been treated with "affable indifference" at the UN. While less cutting, Singapore's Foreign Affairs Minister Vivian Balakrishnan urged the UN to rein in the growing use of veto powers by the Security Council's five permanent members and called for reforms to make the organisation more inclusive and representative. While acknowledging that the multilateral system has enabled small states including Singapore to flourish, Dr Balakrishnan added: "We need a more representative and a more inclusive UN that reflects current realities." These pointed rebukes underscore global leaders' growing frustration with the UN's inability to effectively tackle major international crises, from climate change and Russia's invasion of Ukraine to the war in Gaza. While criticisms of the UN's sprawling bureaucracy and inefficiency are longstanding, the tone at this year's assembly was notably harsher, driven in part by heightened perceptions that the Security Council â€" the institution's most prominent and powerful organ â€" no longer reflects today's geopolitical realities. The UN Security Council comprises five permanent members â€" China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the US â€" and 10 non-permanent members elected for two-year terms. Each of the 15 Council members has one vote, but the Permanent Five (P5) nations exclusively hold veto power. This allows any one of them to block substantive resolutions, even if all other members vote in its favour. Rising isolationist and nationalist sentiments among the P5 have often led to frequent vetoes and deadlocks on critical issues. In June, the US vetoed a resolution for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza despite unanimous support from the Council's other 14 members. Similarly, Russia and China in March 2024 vetoed an immediate ceasefire resolution in Gaza, despite widespread backing from other Council members. These episodes underscore a familiar pattern in which nations turn to the UN for help in times of crisis, only to see efforts stall or resolutions fall short.
Experts and former diplomats spoken to were nearly unanimous that the widespread decline in perceptions of the UN's reputation and effectiveness stems largely from its Security Council, and how the P5 increasingly use their veto powers to pursue their own national interests. While the UN has six principal organs â€" the General Assembly, Security Council, Economic and Social Council, Trusteeship Council, International Court of Justice, and the UN Secretariat â€" the Security Council wields the greatest authority. It leads in identifying acts of aggression, pushing for peaceful resolutions and recommending settlement terms, with all other UN member states obligated to comply with its decisions. Dr Ilango Karuppannan, who was formerly Malaysian High Commissioner to Singapore and Deputy Chief of Mission in Washington DC, observed that the veto power has become "a symbol of paralysis". Since 1945, it has been used nearly 300 times â€" often to block action on the Middle East, he noted. "This selective use has created a sense that the UN is neither impartial nor fair." He added that powerful states have ignored UN norms when it does not suit them. "The Iraq war in 2003 and the intervention in Libya in 2011 are clear examples. Both were carried out without full Security Council consensus," said Dr Karuppannan, who is currently an adjunct senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS) in Singapore. "When the most powerful countries show they can bypass the UN whenever convenient, it undermines the organisation's authority and makes others question its relevance." While experts recognise that the P5's veto power has proven far from ideal in recent times, they note that without it, countries such as the US and China would otherwise have little reason to join or stay engaged in the UN. This compromise was baked into the UN's structure when it was founded in 1945 post-World War II. The aim was to keep major powers at the table following the failure of the UN's predecessor, the League of Nations, which collapsed partly because the US lacked a veto and therefore saw little consequence in walking away. Ambassador-at-large Tommy Koh described the veto as a "birth defect which cannot be cured". "There's no point criticising the Security Council for using the veto power," said Prof Koh. "It's in the Charter. It was the price we had to pay to have the UN at all." "The five permanent members will never give up their seats, and they will never give up their veto power," he added. Former Singapore diplomat and permanent secretary of foreign affairs Bilahari Kausikan agreed, calling the UN "dysfunctional by design". "The veto means that the UN is powerless whenever the interests of one of the P5 are involved," he said. Today, this means that only the Security Council's resolutions are legally binding, while those passed by the General Assembly are mostly "performative", akin to mere "exhortations or aspirations", he added. "Think of the veto as a fuse-box that trips whenever the system is threatened with an overload because the interests of the UN organisation conflict with the interests of one or more of the major powers. "This prevents action on a particular issue but saves the system â€" a temporary blackout when the fuse-box trips, but not an electrical fire from a system overload that burns the house down."
Dear furnessvale.nbalton102@blogger.com,
On behalf of our refinery, KAZATOMPROMOIL ENTERPRISES a fully legal responsibility under penalty of perjury hereby issues this Soft Corporate Offer with given terms and conditions as stated in this offer to confirm our readiness and to execute a sales and purchase agreement with the End Buyer.
With the ability to supply the following commodities such as follows: JetA1, EN590 10ppm, AGO, Petcoke, LNG, Mazut, D2, D6, Urea , etc.
If the procedure is accepted by End Buyer after checking, kindly revert back to us with ICPO.
KAZATOMPROMOIL ENTERPRISES
Mr. Nazer Yerbolatov
Export Director
Email: export@kazatompromoil.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is being sent by KAZATOMPROMOIL ENTERPRISES for the exclusive use of its intended recipient. It may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, discard any paper copies and delete all electronic files of the message.
