In his first address to the UN Security Council since the Russian invasion, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky this week called on the 15-member body to reform itself or face dissolution. That may be easier said than done. But the response to reports of Russian atrocities in Bucha, near Kyiv, highlights how the broader UN system, if not the Security Council, is doing its job in responding to Moscow’s actions.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was not mincing his words when he addressed the UN Security Council via video link on Tuesday, April 5.
Scowling into the camera, in his now trademark military green gear, Zelensky focused on the failure of the premier global body to fulfill its mission to maintain international peace and security.
“You could do two things: Either remove Russia as an aggressor and a source of war so it cannot block decisions about its own aggression,” said the TV actor-turned wartime president. “Or, if there’s no alternative, then the other option is for the Security Council to dissolve itself altogether.”
Zelensky’s address came a day after his much-publicised visit to Bucha, where he once again accused Russian troops of committing war crimes and genocide while they occupied the Kyiv satellite city.
In his first address to the UN Security Council since his country was invaded, Zelensky informed the 15-member body that, “We are dealing with a state that is turning the veto of the United Nations Security Council into the right to die,” before warning: “If it continues, countries will rely not on international law or global institutions to ensure security, but rather, on the power of their own arms.”
The war in Ukraine has once again highlighted the imperfections and imbalances of the world’s pre-eminent security forum, where five permanent members – the US, UK, France, Russia and China – have the power to veto resolutions in the 15-member body that also includes 10 non-permanent members are elected for two-year terms by the General Assembly.
Proposals to reform what is sometimes called “the broken” UN system – from ditching the veto power to enlarging the elite club of permanent members – clog academic libraries across the world.
But by calling for reform of the existing UN system, Zelensky may be asking for more than he bargained for. The international response to the war in Ukraine may have sparked unity among Western powers and their allies. But it has also highlighted the failure of major emerging powers to jettison economic interests and patronage links that may not align with what Zelensky called Ukraine’s “moral right to propose a reform of the world security system”.
Expanding the elite club
The veto power, which is the source of much of the UN Security Council’s difficulties, dates back to the 1945 San Francisco conference that laid the basis for the formation of the successor to the League of Nations, which had failed to prevent World War II.
In his discussions with Soviet leader, Joseph Stalin, US wartime president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, argued for a veto to be restricted to a limited number of countries with the manpower for expeditionary military forces. Consensus among a smaller group of nations, Roosevelt believed, would enable the new international body to overcome the problems the League of Nations faced due to the lack of unanimity among members. “But two years after the setting up of the UN, the Cold War began – that was the end of the consensus that Roosevelt was trying to set up with Stalin at that time,” explained Yves Doutriaux, a former French deputy ambassador to the UN.
The end of the Cold War was supposed to unfreeze the deadlock, but that did not happen. In recent times, the Security Council’s voting list shows Russia – often in conjunction with China – dominating the “No” votes with 23 vetoes since 2010, primarily over the Syrian conflict. The US comes next, with four vetoes over the same period, mostly over “the Palestinian question”. The UK and France have not used their veto since 1989.
Meanwhile emerging powers, such as India, Brazil and South Africa, argue that the wartime restrictions of five permanent members in the 15-member Security Council does not reflect the world’s changing balance of power.
The limitation, which harks back to the 19th century Concert of Europe, does not represent the world’s population either. As former US ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power, argued in a 2009 column, the permanent five once spoke for 40 percent of the world’s population. These days, they speak for only 29 percent.
The obvious solution would be to include the world’s most populous nations, including India, Brazil and Indonesia. Reform proposals have also called for the inclusion of one or more African nations such as Nigeria, Ethiopia as well as Egypt.
“It’s a prestige issue: India feels it has more credible power than the UK, which it believes is now a diminished power. The primary driver for India is the prestige and power of the veto,” explained Avinash Paliwal of London University’s School of Oriental and African Studies.
Arms, anti-colonial struggles block ‘global alliance’ in ‘free world’
The Ukraine war though has shown that many of the top Security Council aspirants have failed to join what Michael Beckley and Hal Brands in a Foreign Affairs article called a “global alliance that unites democracies” that “secures the free world” against autocrats with expansionist plans.
But many of the world’s emerging and biggest democracies have not joined the condemnations of Russia’s aggression and breach of Ukraine’s sovereignty. Nor have they signed up for US and EU-led calls to sanction Moscow for its actions.
In a March 3 UN General Assembly vote condemning the Ukraine invasion, 35 countries – including India and South Africa – abstained. While the resolution passed with an overwhelming 141 votes in the 193-member General Assembly, the abstentions included 16 African countries that have close links to Russia.
A reliance on cheap Russian military hardware combined with a sympathy for Moscow during anti-colonial and anti-apartheid struggles accounts, in some measure, for many of the abstentions.
>> Read more: India tries diplomatic dance on Ukraine, but Russia is awkward partner
Russia has also exploited anti-West sentiment in several African, South Asian and Latin American nations, targeting countries such as India, Pakistan, Mali and the Central African Republic with disinformation campaigns.
Patrons in permanent member ranks
Over the past few weeks, there has been much media focus, for instance, on India’s abstentions over the Ukraine invasion. But New Delhi’s discomfort over Russia’s actions is evident in its strongly worded statements in the UN calling for the “respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states” – albeit without naming Russia.
For countries such as India, the balancing act hinges not just on a dependence on Russian arms, but also on a diplomatic debt for Moscow’s past support in the Security Council on issues related to New Delhi’s regional and foreign policy interests.
It is a well-known fact in UN circles that most countries find a “patron” among Security Council permanent members that will veto any resolutions directed against them in return for diplomatic, economic, or security benefits.
Paliwal argues that enlarging the Security Council’s permanent members “might enable India to take much more autonomous decisions particularly since it relies on the Russian veto on issues relating to India’s national interests”.
While most permanent members officially state their support for an enlargement, in practice, the move is blocked by behind-the-scenes opposition from current veto holders as well as geopolitical rivals of countries that have been proposed for a permanent seat.
“The UN Security Council is by design stymied because the UN is set up that way,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. “Security Council reform has been on the agenda for a long time, but it can’t go anyplace unless the five permanent members agree and there’s no consensus on this.”
Broken, but not defeated
But Roth cautions against dismissing the UN system as broken.
“The Security Council may be stymied, but the other UN bodies are acting within what they can do,” Roth said, noting the General Assembly vote condemning the Ukraine invasion, as well as the activities of treaty bodies such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC). “The ICC is very actively collecting evidence of war crimes in Ukraine, which are very likely to lead to charges being filed,” he added.
Just days after Zelensky’s address, the UN General Assembly on Thursday voted to suspend Russia from the UN Human Rights Council. Of the 193 members of the assembly, 93 voted in favour of suspension while 24 voted against and 58 abstained – including Brazil, India and South Africa.
Ahead of Thursday’s vote, Moscow had warned select General Assembly members that abstentions or “yes” votes on the resolution to suspend Russia from the UNHRC will be viewed as an "unfriendly gesture" with consequences for bilateral ties, according to a note sent to some countries that was seen by news organisations.
Thursday’s General Assembly vote record of 58 abstentions and 24 members voting against Russia’s suspension signals a weakening international unity against Moscow.
Nevertheless, the General Assembly did succeed in pushing through the second ever suspension of a country from the UN Human Rights Council. Libya was the first, in 2011.
Russia may have a lock on the Security Council, but the actions of most UN member states, as well as individual governments, are ensuring that while all members may not be equal in the UN system, they still uphold the principles of equality and justice.
