As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, Russia can prevent any resolution condemning its actions in Ukraine. What is the advice worth then, asks Ukrainian President Zelenskyy.
President Zelenskyy on April 5 in front of the UN Security Council
A video from the war in Ukraine was played in front of the UN Security Council in New York at the beginning of April. According to British UN representative Barbara Woodward, it showed “terrible pictures” of civilian deaths in Bucha, a suburb of Kyiv. In a speech to members of the Security Council, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy blamed Russia for “war crimes”.
Bodies in Bucha: Zelenskyy speaks of Russian war crimes
But no matter what the allegations are, they have no consequences for Russia in this most influential UN body with its five permanent and another ten non-permanent members. The reason: Russia, as one of the permanent members, has a right of veto. This means that if just one of these states – the US, Russia, China, Great Britain and France – vetoes it, it can block any decision. That's what Russia did just one day after the February 24 attack on Ukraine: the council put a resolution up for discussion that was supposed to end the Russian attack immediately. Russia vetoed the resolution.
The Council bears “primary responsibility” for world peace
According to Article 24 of the Charter of the United Nations, the UN member states – there are currently 193 – transfer “the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and international security” to the Council. But what if one of the permanent members wages a war of aggression himself?
The five permanent members face ten non-permanent ones members representing different world regions
“Where is the security that the Security Council is supposed to provide?” asked Ukrainian President Zelenskyy rhetorically. Council officials should ensure “removing Russia as an aggressor and a catalyst for war, so that it can no longer block decisions about its own aggression.” Without far-reaching reforms, the Security Council could “dissolve itself” and the United Nations could be “shut down”.
At the end of April, UN Secretary-General António Guterres himself had to admit how toothless the Security Council was in the Ukraine war. Visiting Kyiv, Guterres said the council had not done everything in its power to prevent the war. “This is a source of great disappointment, frustration and anger,” said the UN's highest official, without naming Russia. Guterres had previously been in Moscow but, as expected, could do nothing to bring about peace there. Guterres was “shocked” in Kyiv that two rockets fell while he was there.
Russia is no longer on the Human Rights Council – like the USA at one point
While expelling Russia from the Security Council is virtually impossible, Russia has in fact been removed from other international bodies or has itself resigned: as with the Council of Europe before it, Russia's membership of the UN Human Rights Council was recently suspended. However, opinion was by no means clear: 93 members voted in favor, but also 24 against, including Algeria, Bolivia, China, Cuba, North Korea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iran and Syria – countries in which Russia has influence or which, like China, have influence , allowed Russia to do so for strategic reasons.
The USA under Donald Trump has shown that an absence from the Human Rights Council is not a Russian specialty: in 2018 they suspended membership, but returned in 2021 under Trump's successor Joe Biden .
But the Human Rights Council doesn't count for much in the Kremlin. “We don't care too much about this body,” former Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Andrei Fyodorov told DW. “For us, of course, the most important thing is the Security Council and our ability to continue to be present there and put forward our views,” Fyodorov said. However, he conceded: “There is a risk of Russia's growing isolation, I agree.”
The Council reflects the world of 1945
“The Security Council is doomed to insignificance if a veto state violates the rules,” says political scientist Johannes Varwick from the University of Halle. “I expect the Security Council to be unable to act for years, and with it a loss of importance for the United Nations.” But that's nothing new. Until the end of the East-West conflict in 1989/90, “we had the same situation: mutual vetoes or threats of vetoes from one side or the other and thus complete paralysis”.
In his incendiary speech, Selenskyj demanded a far-reaching reform. For example, “all regions of the world” would have to be “fairly represented” in the Security Council. Its demand is as old as the Security Council itself. The ten changing, non-permanent members are chosen according to regional groups; the permanent ones, as the name suggests, always remain the same. And that, coupled with their veto power, gives them tremendous leverage.
The current structure of the Security Council is due to the victorious powers of World War II: (from left) Joseph Stalin (Soviet Union), Franklin D. Roosevelt (USA), Winston Churchill (Great Britain)
The composition of this inner circle reflects the geopolitical situation of almost 80 years ago: the most important victorious states of the Second World War are gathered here. At that time, many countries in the world, for example almost all of Africa, were still dependent on colonialism.
All reform efforts have failed
Time and again there have been attempts to reform the UN Security Council. Among others, Brazil, India, Japan and Germany declared in 2004 that they wanted to support each other for a permanent seat. The idea of the European Union getting a seat is also repeatedly voiced. Another proposal is to abolish the right of veto. But so far nothing has come of it.
“Reforming the Security Council is a hopeless undertaking,” believes Johannes Varwick. “This applies to both the abolition of the right of veto and a new composition of the membership, i.e. the admission of new states, be it with or without the right of veto. There is simply no formula with which all five veto powers would agree and which then still achieve the necessary two-thirds majority in the General Assembly would take place.”
Futile reform efforts: The late German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle (here 2010) called for a permanent seat for Germany
But Varwick does not want to write off the Council entirely. He had “repeatedly managed to play a role in issues where interests coincided; this will probably be the case again at some point after the Ukraine war.” It is also conceivable that “the establishment of a kind of 'alliance of the democracies'”, as the USA had repeatedly demanded, “which should then be something like a counter-event to the United Nations. It is very questionable whether that would be successful.”
For the War in Ukraine, however, all reform considerations play no role, and President Zelenskyjs as well as UN Secretary General Guterres' complaints about an untrustworthy Security Council will not change the fact that Russia can block any resolution against itself.
This article was first published on April 12, 2022 and was updated on May 2, 2022.