The refusal of Saudi Arabia to the seat in the Security Council is also a demand to reform the most important organ of the UN

The decision of Saudi Arabia, to give up a seat as a non-permanent member in the UN Security Council , has no previous complaint and the profound malaise for the regulation that determines the operation of the highest organ of the United Nations and , more importantly, for its ineffectiveness , repeatedly demonstrated in international crises . Although the resounding decision , at least in part, is a consequence of the relationship with the United States , which seems to have cracked, both for the lack of intervention in Syria, which the Saudi approach to the historic enemy : Iran , the reasons for Riyadh contain motifs that recognize the profound inadequacy in the current times , for an institution created at the end of World War II and was never renewed . The refusal Arabia has created and is creating obvious embarrassment among the diplomatic community , because it had been prepared carefully by both parties with joint efforts, that invested arguments also difficult for the Sunni monarchy , such as the empowerment of women . The involvement of Saudi Arabia in the direct government of the world crises , could be the means to come out of isolation , dictated by customs influenced by religious morality , even other states and would have brought to the fore the political point of view of a country often reluctant to enter into dynamics outside of those regional , naturally excluding the economy . If it is true that the inaction of the Council about the Syrian issue , which was followed closely by the Saudis , was the cause of rejection, one must also remember that this immobility is now a constant that is repeated regularly for other crisis , that are not resolved due to conflicting interests that generate vetoes , striking demonstration of the inability to find a synthesis able to avoid substantial bloodshed. Only the Libyan crisis had cracked this practice , causing almost immediate repentance of China and Russia for their abstention , which had kicked off the fall of the Gaddafi regime . That episode , instead of bringing a change in the practice of vetoes , resulted in an even greater tightening of Moscow and Beijing , who did not hesitate to use their anachronistic power to block any initiative that, in fact , could go against their geopolitical interests . In fact, Washington has also used the vote against several times, even unreasonably , to protect Israeli interests , even when they violated existing treaties , as well as common sense. The infinite power of veto , which then prevents to reach unanimity about the decisions of the Council , a necessary condition for the approval of the measures , it is a rule that has no reason to exist in a world where there is globalization (used , however, only when it suits ) , where they have made ​​their way new world powers and where the technological means have distorted relationships , not only between people but also between states. The need for a reform of the Security Council is perceived by the majority of nations, but in spite of often raise voices, even authoritative , like that of Merkel, in this sense , the five were keepers of the veto power does not seem to want to give it up any way. But so far , in fact , it was only the proposals made in a diplomatic way , the protest of Saudi Arabia, in a sense , the prestige of the disqualification , asserting explicitly impotence because of the injustice of the law which reserves the right of veto to the same five countries since the end of World War II . In fact, the decision to Riyadh sparked the controversy Russian , who accused Saudi Arabia does not want to cooperate in maintaining security and peace in the world, but highlighting a concern that there might be a ripple effect that would result in strength to a revision of the existing rules . If the U.S. does not have , beyond discounted ritual declarations , made ​​their voices heard , France has acknowledged the validity of the reasons Saudi and proposed a small exception to the exercise of the right of veto , in the presence of massacres , presenting it as a reform era to the Security Council . But this proposal, which is better than nothing , it is clear how the fear to lose a great deal of power on the international scene , can make only small adjustments arise , not even shared by all five holders of the right of veto. The victims, which, unfortunately, civilians are always the largest percentage, wars can be ascribed also to the responsibility of standing Security Council , which has caused the loss of credibility of the UN , an institution which, on the contrary , should also be a decisive role in the resolution of military and humanitarian crisis in the world.