USA's Trojan horse shatters UN Security Council

USA's Trojan horse shatters UN Security Council. 53623.jpeg

World leaders gather for the 69th UN General Assembly, which Russian President Vladimir Putin is not going to attend. The Russian leader knows that real politics does not happen at UN sessions, not even on the sidelines of the UN Security Council. However, this elite club attracts more and more countries, and they insist on the expansion of the UN Security Council and abolition of the veto right.

The meetings of the General Assembly started on September 16. During open debate, officials will discuss, among other issues, the conflict in Ukraine (Poroshenko will deliver his speech on September 25), the offensive of Islamists in Iraq and the spread of Ebola virus.

"Such large and external democratic events lead to predictable results of the voting at the Security Council, - Vitaly Tretyakov, editor-in-chief of Political Class magazine told Pravda.Ru. - Inside the UN, there are permanent lobby groups, and participation at a session like that, with an official speech, does not make sense - no one will notice that. If Putin had something to say out loud, at this particular moment, he would use the tribune. Although, he could say it anywhere - in Tmutarakan, at the North Pole, in New York - no matter where, he would be heard."

However, several countries hope to launch a program to reform the UN Security Council. The reforms are not going to be in Russia's favor. A touchstone has already been thrown through the "Trojan horse" of the USA - Poland. Polish President Bronislaw Komorowski told The New York Times, that he was going to call on the UN to revise the rules of the work of the Security Council to deprive Moscow of the veto right during the discussion of the crisis in Ukraine. "I think that blocking the decisions of the Security Council on Ukraine is a sign, a symptom of weakness of the United Nations," Komorowski told the publication.

"This is an attempt of the countries that act as camp followers, and it is very unlikely to succeed, Boris Kalyagin, international journalist, professor of the Higher School of Economics, told Pravda.Ru. - Many savvy countries will not agree to it, because it will mean the gradual destruction of the United Nations as the main international body. We believe that no decision related to such major international questions as the struggle against aggressors, particularly terrorist regimes, can be taken without a UN resolution. The United States has repeatedly demonstrated that it takes actions bypassing UN decisions, that's why they want to deprive us of our voice, to feel like masters at the Security Council."

However, the Department of State, relying on Komorowski, easily fits into the existing trend of dissatisfaction with the UN Security Council on the part of  representatives of many other countries. "New Zealand, as well as many smaller countries, believes that the United Nations was on the side of events in Gaza, Iraq, Ukraine, and it is time the UN should function much better, - an expert on international relations at the University of Otago, Robert Patman, said in an interview with Firstline. - Many pressing problems are being ignored, because someone in the Security Council has the right of veto. If veto is limited, the organization could function much better."

"We must not be celebrating the 70th anniversary of the organization in such a numbed state, because 70 percent of questions submitted to the Security Council are our questions, so they can not be solved without us," Minister of Foreign Affairs of South Africa, Maite Nkoana-Mashabane said.

The right of veto is a privilege of five permanent members  (out of 15 member countries of the UN Security Council), including Russia, China, USA, UK and France. The concerns of others are understandable, but one must understand that depriving a permanent member of the Security Council of the veto right is almost impossible. According to Article 109 of the Charter of the Security Council, in order to enact such a decision, it must be approved by at least two-thirds of the UN General Assembly, as well as by two thirds of members of the organization, including permanent members of the Security Council. In a nutshell, to deprive Russia of the right of veto, Russia will need to vote for that herself. Against the backdrop of the anti-Russian propaganda, it is hardly expedient to do so.

It is not only Russia that will be against either the abolition of the veto or the expansion of the list of permanent members of the Security Council. Let us consider the example of India. Russia and the United States do not mind India's Security Council membership - Obama upheld India's bid in 2010. China is against it due to unresolved territorial disputes with India and unwillingness to share privileged position in the region.

It is hard for the organization to navigate in the international legal framework. The principle of the inviolability of borders, approved at a conference in Helsinki in 1975, ceased to exist after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the reunification of Germany, the split of Yugoslavia, the recognition of Kosovo and Russia's reunification with the Crimea. Therefore, only one postulate of the UN remained inviolate - the right of nations to self-determination. Yet, it is believed, behind the scenes, that it can be used only when the United States needs to. American leaders are convinced that their country is the only superpower in the world. During the 1990s, with no counterbalance in sight, the Americans remade the world at their own and sole discretion, regardless of all agreements and international law.

Therefore, Russia's permanent representative to the UN, Vitaly Churkin, has to do a lot of work to persuade "partners" that they need to take Russia into account. Even potential allies mumble incoherently about preventing Russia's interference in the internal affairs of Ukraine, while Russia tries to solve its own problems there, not Ukraine's. Let's assume that Russian missiles reappear in Cuba - what would the USA do in this case?

"A number of countries do not express direct support, but in fact they support us - the People's Republic of China, for example, - Andrei Klimov, deputy chairman of the Federation Council for international affairs told Pravda.Ru. - The UN needs to be reformed. But this is a very subtle process, because the Russian Federation has its own interests here. This reform must not reduce the power of Russian political positioning and political weight. Western powers dominate the Security Council, while other countries that play a very important role, such as India, do not hold membership  - this is a serious aspect. Nevertheless, the right of veto enjoyed by permanent members of the Council is a guarantee for our country."

It appears that today, all most serious issues are resolved between the leaders of great powers, rather than at the UN Security Council. For example, it may very well be, that Putin agreed with Obama on Ukraine. They agreed, because Obama needs to switch to another threat on the horizon (not Ebola - this is another "bird flu" type of distraction) - the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. Russia can move mountains through the UN Security Council. Russia can strongly condemn the bombing of  Syria by the Western coalition and ask for resolutions of the UN Security Council for that. This will tie the hands of Americans and complicate their struggle with ISIS, while Russia will have time to get ready for a restart of Ukraine.
As for the future of the UN and its agencies, they may fall apart, but only as a result of Third World War. Until now, it was only a world war that could establish a new world order. And it does not look like mankind learned the lesson.

Lyuba Lulko
Pravda.Ru

Read the original in Russian