Russian veto in the Security Council, goodbye?
In July, 2017, the speaker of the Ukrainian Verkhovna Rada, Andrei Paruby, at a meeting with UN Secretary General António Guterres (Guterres), demanded that the Russian Federation be deprived of its veto right in the Security Council.
“He called on the UN to deprive Russia of its veto in the UN Security Council. The aggressor has no right to decide in the UN a question regarding the state he attacked ", - wrote Paruby on Twitter.
After meeting with the Secretary General, Mr. Paruby said that "Ukraine is in dire need of a strong and effective UN." According to Parubiy, Russia should be “deprived of the right of veto on matters that concern Ukraine.”
Earlier, in February, the head of the Foreign Ministry of Ukraine, Pavel Klimkin, spoke about the same thing. According to him, Russia should be deprived of the right of veto in the Security Council when making decisions related to Ukraine. He called for a “stop abusing the veto”.
From the Russian State Duma received a comment. Kazbek Taysaev, a member of the State Duma Committee on CIS Affairs, regarded Andrei Parubiy’s appeal as nonsense.
“Nobody will listen to the government, especially the Parliament of Ukraine, today. This is the most stupid statement that could be made "- said Taisayev.
The forecast, apparently, did not come true, because about a hundred states supported the call to restrict the veto in the UN Security Council. True, the case so far comes down to the propaganda of the so-called voluntary refusal of the permanent members of the UN Security Council of the right of veto when considering actions in response to genocide and other crimes.
The initiative of France and Mexico, supported by almost a hundred countries, includes a provision on the voluntary refusal of the permanent members of the UN Security Council to use the veto when considering actions in response to genocide and other large-scale crimes. This was announced by Jean-Baptiste Lemoyne, Secretary of State at the Minister of European and Foreign Affairs of France at a special meeting at the UN headquarters on the issue of the right of veto. “Nearly 100 countries support this initiative,” he quotes. TASS. “This means that more than half of the UN member states understand how profitable it is.”
France’s proposal, according to Lemoine, is “extremely relevant”, since “there are no guarantees that we will not encounter new tragedies similar to those we recently saw during the long years of the war in Syria”.
The Secretary of State also reminded that with the support of Paris in the Security Council several resolutions on Syria were put to vote, but they all failed because of the “veto series” imposed by Russia and China.
In addition, Monsieur Lemoine recalled that for four years Paris and Mexico had been promoting an initiative to restrict the veto in the event of genocide, crimes against humanity and large-scale war crimes. Such a restriction could be achieved through an “informal, voluntary and collective agreement of the five permanent members of the Security Council,” that is, the charter should not be changed.
Permanent members are only voluntarily self-limited in situations where it will concern mass atrocities.
The idea of France and Mexico, the initiator emphasized, is based on "deep conviction that a veto is not a right or a privilege, but a responsibility."
The idea of J.-B. Lemoine got a sequel this time. As noted by TASS, at the same meeting, Aurelia Frick, who heads the Foreign Ministry of Liechtenstein, reported that 114 countries signed a "set of rules" for members of the Security Council. Countries should be guided by this “code”. responding to "mass atrocities."
This initiative was developed by the “Panel for Accountability, Consistency and Openness of the UN”. According to the “Group,” states that are elected as temporary members of the Security Council undertake a voluntary commitment not to vote against resolutions regarding actions in response to genocide and other crimes. According to Frick, the “vault” complements the French-Mexican initiative.
According to Ms. Frick, such initiatives are topical in situations when massive crimes are being committed in Syria, Yemen, South Sudan, Myanmar “without adequate action from the Security Council.”
There was another initiative to reform the UN Security Council. It came from the so-called four.
The composition and functions of the UN Security Council are inherited since the Second World War, recalls the French portal Ferloo.com with reference to the agency France Press.
This situation has been the subject of sharp criticism for many years. The Security Council consists of 15 members, including five permanent members: the United States, Russia, China, France, and the United Kingdom. 10 non-permanent members are elected for a two-year term.
In order to maintain international security, the Security Council may impose sanctions and authorize the use of force. Its decisions are binding on 193 Members of the United Nations. Resolutions adopted must be approved by at least nine members of the Security Council and must not be prohibited through the imposition of a veto.
In its operation, the report notes, the Council is still “heavily influenced by the five major nuclear powers, which often hold informal meetings” to build a “consensus”, subsequently endorsed by the rest of the Council.
Last week, on Thursday, the G4 group, consisting of Germany, Japan, India and Brazil, declared the need to reform the Security Council regarding permanent membership as soon as possible.
The highest UN body "does not reflect the evolution of world reality," it is noted in their joint statement. It "must reflect the current world in order to be able to respond to complex problems." The reform is overdue, it can no longer be postponed. Transformations should include changes in the “methods of work”.
G4, like other members of the UN, advocates permanent seats for Arab and African countries.
The veto, we add, has been discussed in the context of the topic of reforming the UN Security Council for a long time, and current initiatives supported by many UN member countries will therefore definitely not lead to “voluntary” refusal of some countries from the right of veto and especially to the passing away of such a right.
And it's not just in Russia, which annoys the "international community" with the use of the veto on the Syrian issue. China and the United States also oppose changes to the rules. France has few chances to insist on its, and especially just in relation to “goodwill”. Paris will not defeat Washington, Beijing and Moscow, and the latter will not “voluntarily” give power to the Security Council. Rather, it will be carried out a reform of Sobvoz on the prescription G4, than the members of the Security Council will begin to fulfill the will of Paris and Mexico. That Monsieur Lemoine promotes his idea already 4 of the year, speaks in favor of this assumption.
- especially for topwar.ru
Information