Associate Professor for History of Socio-Political Teachings of the Department for Political Science of the Moscow State University, Kirill Anderson, shared his views with Pravda.Ru on whether Russia could be excluded from the United Nations in the foreseeable future.
"History repeats itself, and judging by how the United Nations listens to Russia's arguments, one may recall the exclusion of the Soviet Union from the League of Nations in December 1939. Will there be a large war in two years?"
"I still hope that the situation will not go down to 1939, and they will have time to stop. The current state of affairs is different from that in 1939, when the Soviet Union was excluded from the League of Nations. Today, we have a different balance of power and different driving forces. That's why I still hope it will be possible to slow down, although the current situation is unpleasant. Indeed, Russia is walking on the fine line."
"Today, the UN Security Council largely belongs, in fact, to the United States and the countries representing its colonies. The rest of the world is beyond the framework of the organization. Is it fair that on behalf of the European Union, there are several votes involved in the decisions of the Security Council?"
"The Security Council is based on the principle of veto. If one country in the Security Council votes against, a decision will not be made. Our diplomacy uses it quite successfully. If we talk about justice or injustice of the fact that there are small countries playing on behalf of Europe, we can recall another case. In the post-war UN Security Council, there was the Soviet Union, Ukraine and Belarus. They were all full members of the United Nations, members of the Security Council, although it was clear that Ukraine and Belarus were a part of the Soviet Union, whose sovereignty was quite mythical. So there were such precedents in the past.
"When today, we once again hear the US State Department saying that Washington does not need permission from the UN Security Council for bombing Syria, does it mean that the United Nations, in fact, no longer exist?"
"The organization exists and persists in some cases, but not always and not everywhere. With regard to imperial ambitions of the United States, this also happened in world history before. As a rule, it ended badly for those, who thought they could rule other people's fate like God. When there is a question of war and peace, any tools are possible. The Security Council, albeit more or less effective, needs to know what is happening."
"What role does this organization play in the world now? Is there a need to reform the system of international relations?"
"The nature of international relations can not be changed like that, under the influence of time or the emergence of new factors, for example, the Internet. This was one of the factors that showed influence on both domestic and foreign policy of most countries. When there are new challenges, new demands of time, this is when new answers appear. I think that the current crisis, which is a large crisis, almost a global one, geopolitical, will push towards the emergence of new tools, new principles of international politics. Although, I hope, it will not lead to a drastic change in international law, because international law is the basis for the development of world politics."
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Chief Researcher of the Institute of the USA and Canada, Alexander Panov, also shared his views with Pravda.Ru on whether the UN is an acting or a defunct organization.
"At the UN Security Council, there are five permanent members of the Security Council that created the organization: the United States, the Soviet Union - now Russia - Britain, France and China - the allies in World War II. Other countries act as non-permanent members of the Security Council on a rotation basis, from each geographical group, for two years. It can be any country, and any sort of relationships with the United States has nothing to do with it.
"The question of the reform of the UN Security Council has been around for a long time. There are discussions about including several countries as members - Japan, India, Brazil and Germany. This is just a discussion, and, for the time being, it is impossible to agree on how to expand the Security Council and which countries should enter the council as permanent members, but without the right of veto. After all, at the Security Council, there are only five countries that have the veto right - and the rest do not have this right. If we add five more countries, will the new members have a veto or not? It is believed that they won't, for it will be all non-working body otherwise.
"In general, the UN exists, sessions take place and decisions are made. Yet, principles of international law are violated - it happened years ago, when they bombed Yugoslavia, and when the United States intervened in Iraq. These are blatant violations of international law, and Russia constantly brings this subject to everyone's attention. Yet, one can not say that the UN does not work anymore. In many respects, very important decisions are made that work in line with resolutions adopted by the Security Council."