In fact, with the wisdom of Li Erwen, it is possible to understand why a backward China would be so important at this time. It's just that sometimes the traditional British thinking inherent in her still limits her horizons.

In this respect, the politicians of that era were still better than the average person. Look at who advocated improving China's international status in history? Roosevelt. In a sense, the post-war international order can be said to have been brought about by Roosevelt's full efforts. Why, then, did Roosevelt choose to elevate China's international status and advocate giving China a permanent seat in the United Nations?

To put it bluntly, it is the reason for the national interest. To explain this point, we have to start at the beginning. With the outbreak of World War II as a watershed, the international order underwent tremendous and far-reaching changes around this juncture. The international order before World War II was actually dominated by Western European countries with Britain and France as the core, and even the United States did not belong to the mainstream power, otherwise the United States would not have returned to isolationism after the end of World War I. The post-World War II international order, on the other hand, was dominated by five permanent members. And the core of them is the two superpowers -- the United States and the Soviet Union.

In other words, after the end of World War II, the international power rod was handed over, and the core position of Britain and France was replaced by the United States and the Soviet Union. And this handover is definitely not an easy one. In the process of this handover, there is undoubtedly a lot of open and secret fighting.

In fact, this kind of open and covert struggle has already been reflected in World War II. Let's take Roosevelt as an example, a man who elevated China's international status in World War II, but tried his best to contain France's international status, and once did not want France to become one of the five permanent members of the Security Council.

Why is that? The reason is very simple, Britain and France are, after all, the rulers of the old international order. Since World War I, the two countries have formed a close alliance. The principle of unity of pace has been adopted in international affairs. And it was the joint suppression of the United States by Britain and France after World War I. It forced the United States to continue to play isolationism.

As the defender of US national interests, Roosevelt probably had to consider a possibility -- After the end of World War II, Britain and France continued to act in cahoots and squeezed US national interests again.

It is impossible for the United States to go back to being an ostrich again, and it is no longer willing to be an ostrich, so there is only one inevitable choice -- to suppress France. Whoever let the French not fight has already been taken down by Germany, and the defeated country has no human rights!

After the suppression of France. The Anglo-French alliance is, of course, a very nonsense thing. Britain will not be afraid at that time. Therefore, it can be seen in history that Roosevelt has always been cold, and even disgusted, towards de Gaulle. Was it simply because of de Gaulle's French pride that Roosevelt was not used to? Definitely not, Lao Luo is not so extreme, everything he does is profound.

For example, the same Roosevelt did not like President Chiang, and once authorized that Chiang could be killed, but he always insisted on giving China the status of a great power. Why? It is not because Huaxia is very weak and has been following the baton of the United States, that improving Huaxia's status is tantamount to recruiting a strong little brother who will fight against Britain and France.

Again, look at Winston Churchill, who was also a politician. His political choices were equally wise. Churchill was also not very fond of de Gaulle, but he was always helping the French. Why? In the final analysis, it is about safeguarding the national interests of the United Kingdom. Because Qiu Fatzi knew very well that after the war, Britain alone could not withstand the impact of the United States and the Soviet Union.

Moreover, Qiu Fatzi is still very insidious, in order to achieve his goal, he has used American public opinion more than once to put pressure on Roosevelt and force the Americans to make concessions. Note that at the time of the initial partition occupation of Germany, the Americans did not leave France territory at all, which was tantamount to an indirect denial of recognition of France's status as a victorious power. This is still Qiu Fatzi secretly helping France.

In the same way, why did Qiu Fatzi disdain Principal Jiang and Huaxia? Think it is not necessary to give China permanent status? It's very simple! He naturally knew that Huaxia would definitely be more inclined to the United States. And this is not good for the national interests of Britain, according to Qiu Fatzi's assumption, it is better to have a triumvirate or a quadrupole model (without bald heads).

If it is the Big Four, then Britain and France still dominate and can suppress the United States and the Soviet Union, which swelled up in World War II. And even if it is the Big Three, with the urine sex of the fat man, they will definitely strike a balance between the United States and the Soviet Union, and come to sit on the mountain and watch the tiger fight.

Speaking of which, I have to sigh once again that Roosevelt was indeed very good, and the "UN Charter" that he single-handedly led and determined was truly a stroke of genius. Let's put it this way, the Charter of the United Nations basically established the international order in the post-war decades, and laid a reasonable and legitimate foundation for the five hooligans to rule the world reasonably and legitimately, and this foundation is so strong that no other rogue state (such as Japan) has ever been given the right to regain a reasonable and legal seat for the "big hooligans".

Even Li Xiaofeng had to applaud this old man with a crippled will, this hand was playing too beautifully. What's a pretty way? Let's talk about it.

What to say first? Let's start with the issue of voting under the Charter of the United Nations. Let's start with democracy.

To tell the truth, democracy at the United Nations is really a democracy with "order", or a "democracy" for a few. When the United Nations was founded, it was stated that all countries are sovereignly equal, and that everyone in the United Nations General Assembly has one vote. The five hooligans thought, they are all absolutely equal, we have sacrificed so much blood and fire to fight the new international order, you just spend money to buy a few small countries and directly vote to push us, then you still have an eggplant?

Therefore, the big hooligans naturally want to do everything possible to protect their legitimate rights and interests, but at the same time, they must not be too "undemocratic" and not as unfair as the League of Nations in those years. There is a difficulty here, how to control the majority of votes with a small number of votes?

The most inconspicuous way to do it is to engage in absolute privileges, such as stipulating that one vote held by the five permanent members is equal to N votes. In any case, there are less than 200 countries in the world (even fewer when the United Nations was founded, and not all of them joined the United Nations), and if there is a rule that one vote of the permanent members is equal to dozens of votes (not more than 50), then even if the rest of the world is against the five hooligans. That's not going to work.

It's not impossible to do this. But the appearance is too ugly. After all, when the United Nations was founded, the five hooligans were silent. It is necessary to establish a truly fair and rational leading organ for state affairs. At this time, it is too ugly to slap yourself in the face before the words fall.

Therefore, this method of one vote equals N votes will not work. Therefore, the dog-headed military division of the big hooligan's family will find a way, why don't we make a special ticket, this kind of ticket cannot say how many ordinary votes are equivalent to, but he has some special effect, such as equivalent to direct pass or direct veto.

The direct pass ticket is the plural vote of 1=N above, but it is not clear what N is, there are 200 ordinary votes, and N may be 201. This kind of ticket is awesome. Ancient emperors and dictators of the modern world can be considered to have such votes. But at the United Nations, you can't do it. So there is only one way to go - the veto, the so-called principle of unanimity among the great powers.

The fact that the United Nations grants such votes only to the permanent members means that the permanent members have the exclusive right to use such votes (which no other country has), which naturally becomes an inherent right - the right of veto. This does not violate the slogan of sovereign equality (the Big Five: we only have one vote), but also guarantees the right of the great powers to decide on major issues.

It looks simple, but in the environment at that time, the wisdom of the founder of the system can really brighten our eyes.

Of course, the veto should be described in a more elegant way, and the vote on substantive issues "should be voted on by the concurring votes of the nine members, including the concurring votes of all the permanent members." Seeing no, it's so tactful. Good fairness, good sovereign equality.

But there are still loopholes in this, first of all, what the hell is the substantive problem? To make this clear, it is necessary to continue with the vernacular.

Many people may think that the most powerful power of the permanent members of the Security Council is the right of veto, but Lao Ma wants to tell you that in fact, the most powerful power is the "double veto". This is because in addition to the substantive issues that the Security Council votes on, there is also a question called a procedural question, and this procedural issue does not apply to the veto!

So how to distinguish between substantive and procedural issues?

Significant crises that could threaten world peace (such as whether Iraq should be slapped against Kuwait and whether Iraq needs to establish a "bird-proof zone" there) are substantive issues, on which the permanent members have veto power.

Other inconsequential matters (e.g., agendas, outposts, admission of Member States) are classified as procedural matters. As for procedural issues, any nine of the 15 members of the UN Security Council can agree to adopt, and the permanent members do not have the right of veto.

However, everything is still afraid of this but. Because whether it is a procedural issue or a substantive issue is really difficult to distinguish now, so which side to draw is completely artificial. If the non-permanent members lean on procedural issues and then the non-permanent members unite, wouldn't that threaten the status of the big hooligans?

Note that the big hooligan is not SB, so there is the magic of the double veto, and the challenger is killed in minutes. Specifically, what if there is a disagreement on whether an issue is procedural or substantive? It's simple, vote!

The point is that in this category of voting, the permanent members have the right of veto, that is, as long as one permanent member vetoes it, it becomes a matter of substance. This is the first veto.

The question was then discussed in the same way as a substantive question, and if the permanent person objected to its content and exercised the veto again, the question would be dismissed. This is the second veto (of course, after some major powers have convulsions, there are also cases of reversal, such as the previous Syrian issue, which is obviously a substantive issue, but the United States and Britain insist on leaning on procedural issues, trying to bypass rabbits and polar bears, but ...... Do you think you're the only one who will use the double veto, so everyone knows about it).

In this way, no issue can escape the palm of the permanent members. The loopholes in substantive and procedural issues have been filled in a down-to-earth manner. Some comrades may want to say, aren't the nine non-permanent members just playing soy sauce and have no power at all?

Well, that's not the case, the non-permanent members are certainly a move by the five hooligans to save the discipline and put a fig leaf on it, but the role of the non-permanent members is not limited to that. In order to show their fairness, the big hooligans only choose to have the right of veto. But the Security Council can't always veto when it meets, right? You have to show your presence and authority through a point resolution, right?

This is where non-permanent members come into play, and Security Council resolutions must be approved by nine members (and the big hooligans do not use their veto) before they can be passed. And even a certain resolution unanimously agreed by the five big hooligans. Procedurally, non-permanent members can also be overthrown. This is the so-called collective veto of non-permanent members. As long as those few are unanimously opposed to a resolution. The five hooligans don't count.

Of course, we know that this is almost impossible to happen, because the non-permanent members are generally the younger brothers of the permanent members. The five eldest brothers all agreed, and they would not object unless they died. And who would dare to oppose the matters agreed to by the five rogue groups? Isn't that a provocation to the world's vested interests?

But there are also comrades who want to say, the Security Council is a hairy one! What if the Security Council disagrees when US imperialism teaches Saddam Hussein a lesson? It's not like it's just right! This fully shows that the Security Council is a fart! As long as the strength is enough. Improper permanent members are just as awesome!

It is true that the United States did not have the authorization of the Security Council to attack Iraq, but the reason why several other hooligans in the Security Council (such as rabbits and bears) could not do anything with US imperialism is not entirely because US imperialism is dominant. A very important reason is that US imperialism is one of the five hooligans and holds the right of veto.

Let's recall that the US imperialists were originally ready to get the authorization of the United Nations, but the Security Council did not buy it, precisely because it could not go it alone. It seems that this is indeed illegal, but the United Nations cannot condemn US imperialism. Why. Because any proposal condemning US imperialism will be ruthlessly vetoed by US imperialism in the Security Council. Therefore, the rabbit and the bear at most morally attack the US imperialists for not respecting the rules. But in legal terms, the US imperialists cannot do anything about it.

Make an assumption, what if the US imperialists and John Bull are not the big hooligans of the Security Council? I'm afraid it's not so good, at least one condemnation is indispensable. Therefore, the seat of the big hooligan in the Security Council cannot guarantee that all your intentions can be implemented through the United Nations, but it will certainly ensure that no force can reasonably and legitimately attack you under the framework of the United Nations.

Moreover, two hidden powers of the Council rogues can be deduced from the above cases - first, the permanent members are the only entities other than the Security Council that have the power to wage (or authorize allies to wag) legitimate wars. Because the Security Council cannot declare this war illegal, nor can it prevent it (US imperialism fought Iraq, NATO air strikes against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia are the best examples)!

Second, the permanent members of the Security Council have the right to recruit younger brothers. The permanent members can use the right of veto to protect the little brother from the attacks of international law. To put it bluntly, the younger brother is responsible for being the thug, and the eldest brother is responsible for vetoing unfavorable proposals.

And so the proxy war arose. For example, the Middle East war, the Iran-Iraq war, and now Saudi Arabia's fight against the Houthis are like this, behind which is the game between the United States and the Soviet Union and the United States and Russia.

Of course, the younger brother should also understand that the eldest brother can protect you, but your object cannot be another big hooligan, because he can use his fists to tell you who is more legitimate! So everyone saw the tragedy of Georgia being swiped.

Having said all this, in addition to letting the comrades understand the benefits of being a hooligan, the most important thing is to throw bricks and lead the way, and the focus is still on the awesomeness of the "UN Charter", because the power of the hooligan to be a permanent member of the UN Security Council is determined by this charter!

In this charter, the big hooligan did three things: one was to write his name directly into the charter, and you can see the names of rabbits, eagles, bears, cows, and high slave chickens in the charter. Second, there is no way for other countries to become big hooligans, and there is no provision in the Charter on how to increase the number of permanent members. Thirdly, the hooligans have the right of veto when it comes to amending the Charter of the United Nations.

Needless to say, the first two are the most awesome, and the most awesome is the third. According to the procedure for amending the constitution of ordinary democracies, it is generally passed by the overwhelming majority of parliamentarians (or representatives).

However, the amendment method of the UN Charter is completely different from the above, so let's take a look at the provisions of the UN Charter on amending the Charter:

Article 108. Amendments to the present Charter shall enter into force for all Members of the United Nations when they have been voted on by a two-thirds majority of the Members of the General Assembly and ratified by two thirds of the Members of the United Nations, including all permanent members of the Security Council, in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.

Article 109. For the purpose of reviewing the present Charter, the Members of the United Nations may, by a vote of two-thirds of the members of the General Assembly, by a vote of any nine members of the Security Council, fix a date and place for the holding of plenary meetings. Each Member of the United Nations shall have one vote in the plenary. Any changes to the Charter recommended by a two-thirds vote of the plenary shall enter into force after approval by two thirds of the Members of the United Nations, including all the permanent members of the Security Council, in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.

Comrades, please read these two articles carefully, because these two rules are really sinkholes, or these bright rules are purely used to tease those little hooligans who are ready to become big hooligans. Let's put it this way, in fact, the two-thirds of the member states mentioned in the above two articles, and any nine members, are all regarded as modifiers, which can be completely ignored. There is only one real focus, and that is the permanent membership of the Council...... (To be continued......)

PS: Bow and thank you to the submarine in the deep sea and Comrade Juventus!