## Evolving Vision from Demolition to Construction
Between the sharp criticism of the United Nations Security Council during his presidency and the proposal to form a "Security and Peace Council" in his current discourse in 2026, Donald Trump's intellectual journey represents a shift from destructive criticism to constructive proposal—albeit not without controversy. This transformation suggests an evolution in dealing with international institutions, from a desire to "delete" to a pursuit of "formation," opening an important door for debate on the future of global governance.
## Phase One: Critiquing the Existing System (2017-2021)
### Nature of the Criticism:
- **Discourse of "Nonsense" and "Mocking Minds"**: Trump described the Security Council with such phrases during his presidency
- **Focus on Defects**: Bureaucracy, ineffectiveness, financial cost
- **"America First" Logic**: Viewing U.S. contributions as not matched by equivalent influence
### Stated Goals:
1. **Exposing Imbalances**: In the veto system and geographic representation
2. **Pressure for Reform**: Through threats of withdrawal or funding cuts
3. **Pleasing the Populist Base**: Discourse criticizing international elites
## Phase Two: Toward an Alternative Proposal (2026)
### Evolution in Approach:
- **From Rejection to Proposal**: Shift from criticizing the Security Council to proposing an alternative
- **From General to Specific**: Proposal of a specific structure, albeit theoretical
- **From Negative to Positive**: Discourse offering solutions rather than focusing solely on problems
### Features of the Proposed "Security and Peace Council":
- **Flexible Membership**: Overcoming the rigid system of permanent membership
- **Decision-Making Efficiency**: Mechanism faster than the current veto system
- **Results-Oriented**: Less focus on procedures and formalities
## Comparative Analysis: Continuity and Evolution
### Points of Continuity:
1. **Unilateral Perspective**: Both visions stem from prioritizing U.S. interests
2. **Skepticism Toward Multilateralism**: Doubting the value of inclusive global institutions
3. **Shock Tactics**: Using controversial discourse to attract attention
### Points of Evolution:
1. **From Deconstruction to Construction**: Shift from critiquing the existing system to proposing a new one
2. **From Emotional to (Relatively) Practical**: The 2026 proposal attempts to offer an alternative, even if theoretical
3. **From Isolationism to Leadership**: Attempting to lead a new global system rather than withdrawing from the current one
## The Changing Role: From President to Proposed Reformer
### In the White House (2017-2021):
- **Executive Power**: Ability to withdraw funding or from agreements
- **Direct Responsibility**: Bearing the consequences of international decisions
- **Leading an Existing System**: Operating within an established institutional framework
### In the Post-Presidency Phase (2026):
- **Intellectual Influence**: Impact through discourse and proposals without executive power
- **Greater Freedom**: Ability to propose ideas unconstrained by governance responsibilities
- **Reformer Role**: Presenting out-of-the-box visions without bearing implementation consequences
## Problematics of the Trumpian Vision: A Critical Reading
### Fundamental Contradiction:
- Seeks to undermine the multilateral system while proposing a multilateral alternative!
- Criticizes the dominance of major powers while wanting a system dominated by the U.S. and its allies
### Core Problem:
- **Institutional Narcissism**: Believing a global system can be built from a narrow national perspective
- **Excessive Simplification**: Addressing complexities of the international system with simple solutions
- **Historical Neglect**: Ignoring that the current system is the product of decades of negotiation and balances
## Realistic Alternatives: Between Reform and Renewal
### Internal Reform (Most Realistic):
- Expanding permanent membership to represent the 21st century
- Restricting veto use in genocide cases
- Developing decision implementation mechanisms
### Partial Renewal (Most Practical):
- Specialized regional security alliances
- Strengthening the General Assembly's role in certain issues
- Flexible partnerships between willing nations
### Complete Revolution (Least Likely):
- Replacing the Security Council with an entirely new institution
- Requires global consensus unavailable in the current international climate
## The Future: Toward a Deeper Understanding of International Change Dynamics
### Lessons from Trump's Journey:
1. **Critique is Useful but Construction is Harder**: Criticism can highlight problems but solutions require consensus
2. **Unilateral Vision is Limited**: The global system needs genuine partnership, not unilateral dominance
3. **Gradual Evolution is More Successful**: Radical change of international institutions rarely succeeds
### Balanced Vision:
- **Reform is Necessary**: The current Security Council needs genuine reform
- **Conditionality is Constructive**: Linking funding and member commitment to reform can be an effective tool
- **Plurality is Inevitable**: Any new global system must reflect the multiplicity of powers in the 21st century
## Between the Dream of Renewal and the Reality of Reform
Trump's journey with the Security Council—from sharp criticism to proposing an alternative—represents an important case study in international change dynamics. It reminds us that:
1. **Criticism is Easier than Construction**: The current system can be easily criticized, but building a legitimate and effective alternative is a monumental task
2. **Abstraction Differs from Implementation**: Proposals seem attractive in discourse, but facing real-world complexities is different
3. **Legitimacy is Fundamental**: Any global security system needs broad international legitimacy to be effective
Most likely, the future of the Security Council lies in gradual reform rather than complete revolution. The real contribution of Trumpian discourse may be in serving as a shock that sparked debate about reforming international institutions, more than being a practical plan for change.
Ultimately, the international system is like a living organism: it evolves and adapts but rarely dies to be reborn. The most realistic hope lies in transforming critical energy into reformist energy, making the Security Council more representative and effective in a world radically different from the 1945 world in which it was born.# The UN Security Council Between Critique and Renewal: Trump's Journey from Criticism to Proposal
## Evolving Vision from Demolition to Construction
Between the sharp criticism of the United Nations Security Council during his presidency and the proposal to form a "Security and Peace Council" in his current discourse in 2026, Donald Trump's intellectual journey represents a shift from destructive criticism to constructive proposal—albeit not without controversy. This transformation suggests an evolution in dealing with international institutions, from a desire to "delete" to a pursuit of "formation," opening an important door for debate on the future of global governance.
## Phase One: Critiquing the Existing System (2017-2021)
### Nature of the Criticism:
- **Discourse of "Nonsense" and "Mocking Minds"**: Trump described the Security Council with such phrases during his presidency
- **Focus on Defects**: Bureaucracy, ineffectiveness, financial cost
- **"America First" Logic**: Viewing U.S. contributions as not matched by equivalent influence
### Stated Goals:
1. **Exposing Imbalances**: In the veto system and geographic representation
2. **Pressure for Reform**: Through threats of withdrawal or funding cuts
3. **Pleasing the Populist Base**: Discourse criticizing international elites
## Phase Two: Toward an Alternative Proposal (2026)
### Evolution in Approach:
- **From Rejection to Proposal**: Shift from criticizing the Security Council to proposing an alternative
- **From General to Specific**: Proposal of a specific structure, albeit theoretical
- **From Negative to Positive**: Discourse offering solutions rather than focusing solely on problems
### Features of the Proposed "Security and Peace Council":
- **Flexible Membership**: Overcoming the rigid system of permanent membership
- **Decision-Making Efficiency**: Mechanism faster than the current veto system
- **Results-Oriented**: Less focus on procedures and formalities
## Comparative Analysis: Continuity and Evolution
### Points of Continuity:
1. **Unilateral Perspective**: Both visions stem from prioritizing U.S. interests
2. **Skepticism Toward Multilateralism**: Doubting the value of inclusive global institutions
3. **Shock Tactics**: Using controversial discourse to attract attention
### Points of Evolution:
1. **From Deconstruction to Construction**: Shift from critiquing the existing system to proposing a new one
2. **From Emotional to (Relatively) Practical**: The 2026 proposal attempts to offer an alternative, even if theoretical
3. **From Isolationism to Leadership**: Attempting to lead a new global system rather than withdrawing from the current one
## The Changing Role: From President to Proposed Reformer
### In the White House (2017-2021):
- **Executive Power**: Ability to withdraw funding or from agreements
- **Direct Responsibility**: Bearing the consequences of international decisions
- **Leading an Existing System**: Operating within an established institutional framework
### In the Post-Presidency Phase (2026):
- **Intellectual Influence**: Impact through discourse and proposals without executive power
- **Greater Freedom**: Ability to propose ideas unconstrained by governance responsibilities
- **Reformer Role**: Presenting out-of-the-box visions without bearing implementation consequences
## Problematics of the Trumpian Vision: A Critical Reading
### Fundamental Contradiction:
- Seeks to undermine the multilateral system while proposing a multilateral alternative!
- Criticizes the dominance of major powers while wanting a system dominated by the U.S. and its allies
### Core Problem:
- **Institutional Narcissism**: Believing a global system can be built from a narrow national perspective
- **Excessive Simplification**: Addressing complexities of the international system with simple solutions
- **Historical Neglect**: Ignoring that the current system is the product of decades of negotiation and balances
## Realistic Alternatives: Between Reform and Renewal
### Internal Reform (Most Realistic):
- Expanding permanent membership to represent the 21st century
- Restricting veto use in genocide cases
- Developing decision implementation mechanisms
### Partial Renewal (Most Practical):
- Specialized regional security alliances
- Strengthening the General Assembly's role in certain issues
- Flexible partnerships between willing nations
### Complete Revolution (Least Likely):
- Replacing the Security Council with an entirely new institution
- Requires global consensus unavailable in the current international climate
## The Future: Toward a Deeper Understanding of International Change Dynamics
### Lessons from Trump's Journey:
1. **Critique is Useful but Construction is Harder**: Criticism can highlight problems but solutions require consensus
2. **Unilateral Vision is Limited**: The global system needs genuine partnership, not unilateral dominance
3. **Gradual Evolution is More Successful**: Radical change of international institutions rarely succeeds
### Balanced Vision:
- **Reform is Necessary**: The current Security Council needs genuine reform
- **Conditionality is Constructive**: Linking funding and member commitment to reform can be an effective tool
- **Plurality is Inevitable**: Any new global system must reflect the multiplicity of powers in the 21st century
## Conclusion: Between the Dream of Renewal and the Reality of Reform
Trump's journey with the Security Council—from sharp criticism to proposing an alternative—represents an important case study in international change dynamics. It reminds us that:
1. **Criticism is Easier than Construction**: The current system can be easily criticized, but building a legitimate and effective alternative is a monumental task
2. **Abstraction Differs from Implementation**: Proposals seem attractive in discourse, but facing real-world complexities is different
3. **Legitimacy is Fundamental**: Any global security system needs broad international legitimacy to be effective
Most likely, the future of the Security Council lies in gradual reform rather than complete revolution. The real contribution of Trumpian discourse may be in serving as a shock that sparked debate about reforming international institutions, more than being a practical plan for change.
Ultimately, the international system is like a living organism: it evolves and adapts but rarely dies to be reborn. The most realistic hope lies in transforming critical energy into reformist energy, making the Security Council more representative and effective in a world radically different from the 1945 world in which it was born.