[ad_1]
In early April before the Security Council in New York was shown a video from the war in Ukraine. The video showed “horrific images” of civilian casualties in Buca, a suburb of Kiev, said Barbara Woodward, the British representative to the UN. “Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in his speech to members of the Security Council blamed Russia for war crimes.”
Yet, no matter what the allegations are, those in this influential UN forum have no consequences for Russia as one of the five permanent members and the other ten non-permanent members. The reason is that Russia, as a permanent member, has the right to veto. That is, if only one in five members – the US, Russia, China, the UK and France – vetoes any decision blocked. This was done by Russia a day after the attack on Ukraine on February 24: the Security Council issued a resolution under discussion with the aim of Russia immediately stopping the Russian attack. Russia rejected the resolution with its veto.
The Security Council’s “main responsibility” for world peace
According to Article 24 of the UN Charter, the UN member states – there are currently 193 – have delegated to the council “the primary responsibility for maintaining world peace and international security”. But what about when one of the permanent members starts an offensive war on his own?
“Then what is the security that this council should take care of?” Ukrainian President Zelensky asked the forum rhetorically. Representatives of the council must take care to “remove Russia as an aggressor and a cause of war, so that it does not continue to block decisions on its aggression.” Without a deep reform, the Security Council has no value, and the UN can also be “locked in”.
How ineffective the Security Council is in the Ukraine war was acknowledged last week by UN Secretary-General António Guterres himself. During his visit to Kiev Guterres said that the council has not done everything in its power to prevent war. “This is a source of great disappointment and indignation,” he said, without naming Russia. Guterres had previously been to Moscow, but as expected he achieved nothing for a peace. Guterres was “shocked” that two rockets hit him during his visit to Kiev.
Russia is no longer on the Human Rights Council – just as the United States was temporarily absent.
While expulsion from the Security Council is virtually impossible, Russia has been expelled from, or even withdrawn from, other international forums: Like the Council of Europe, Russia has recently been expelled from membership in the Human Rights Council. of the UN. However, there was no unanimous stance among the members: 93 members voted in favor, but 24 against, including Algeria, Bolivia, China, Cuba, North Korea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iran and Syria – countries in which Russia has influence or countries like China, which for strategic reasons tolerate Russia.
But the Human Rights Council does not care much for the Kremlin. “We do not care much about this forum,” former Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Andrei Fyodorov told DW. “For us, of course, the Security Council is the most important thing, to continue to be present and to express our views,” said Fyodorov. He acknowledged that “there is a danger of Russia’s isolation.”
The Security Council reflects on the world of 1945
“The Security Council is destined to have no effect if a veto violates the rules,” said Johannes Varwick, a political scientist at Halle University. “I note the inability of the Security Council to act for many years and the loss of weight of the UN.” But this is not a new thing. By the end of the East-West conflict in 1989/90 “we had a similar situation: vetoes or reciprocal threats with vetoes paralyzing one side or the other”.
Zelenskyj in a passionate speech called for a profound reform. For example, “All regions of the world” must be “correctly represented”. His request is as old as the Security Council itself. While the ten non-permanent members are not selected according to regional groups, the permanent members are always the same. This, also related to the right of veto, gives them a bad influence.
The composition of this inner circle reflects the geopolitical situation of 80 years ago: here are gathered the most important victorious states of the Second World War. At that time many countries of the world, e.g. almost all of Africa, were still in colonial dependence.
All reform efforts have failed
There have been constant efforts to reform the Security Council. Among other countries such as Brazil, India, Japan and Germany in 2004 declared that they would support each other for a permanent place. Even the idea that the European Union has a special place is raised from time to time. Another proposal is to remove the veto. But so far nothing has been done in this regard.
“A Security Council reform is a hopeless undertaking,” said Johannes Varwick. “This applies to the abolition of the veto, as well as to the recomposition of membership, ie the acceptance of new seats, whether with or without a veto. “There is simply no formula that the five powers would veto and then have a two-thirds majority in the General Assembly.”
However Varwick does not completely underestimate the Security Council. “It has always been achieved, for issues when interests are harmonized, that this forum plays a role: this will happen one day in the case of Ukraine as well. One option is to establish an “alliance of democracies,” as the United States has repeatedly called for. “Such an alliance would be another organization against the UN, but if that succeeds it is uncertain.” / DW
top channel
[ad_2]
Source link