President Zelensky's Speech at the UN Security Council
Dears,
The Swiss TV news did not have President Zelensky's full speech, so I googled it ... This is a link to the President of Ukraine's Internet site. It contains the full text in English and a video with the live speech in Ukrainian, including at the end photographs of death and destruction in several cities of that unfortunate country.
One of the good things about Zelensky is that he is not servile towards the governments or institutions from which is trying to get help. He gives them the facts and opinions from an Ukrainian point of view and does not hesitate to call a spade a spade. He also adapts his speeches to the audience ... references to Pearl Harbor and 9-11 for the US, Guernica for Spain, etc.
Bucha
Concerning the events in Bucha, the well-known quote applies "This is worse than a crime, it is a mistake."
There still has to be a full investigation, but from what I have seen, heard and read in the Western media, the evidence of executions of civilians is overwhelming.
Russia just lost the propaganda war (which was not winning anyway) and the alleged massacres have given a new and even more powerful argument to those who advocate fuller support for Kyiv?and stronger sanctions against Moscow.
Furthermore, the Russian soldiers behind these atrocities have just given the Ukraine another nation-building myth ... It is things like this what consolidate a nation's identity. Sadly, nothing strengthens a cause better than martyrs.
I sincerely hope that those who committed these atrocities are brought to justice. Did the troops get out of control ... or if given orders how high did these orders come from? This needs to be established, but whatever the details Russia's reputation is likely to be tarnished forever.
Very rightly, Zelensky says that Bucha is not an exception, and that more atrocities will be discovered when other areas of his country are liberated. I would cautiously use "might" instead of "will" ... but I fear "will" is more likely and have little doubt that Zelensky will be proven right.
Some are now arguing that Russia is bent on the destruction of the Ukrainian people and are accusing Moscow of genocide. Others are saying that indiscriminate terror is being used to break their will. Cooler heads advance that Russian soldiers might have "simply" got out of control, driven by frustration, losses in the battlefield and the fact that the Ukrainians did not welcome them as liberators but as invaders. It is not impossible that Russian troops might have been fired upon by civilians ... or might have mistakenly believed they were ... President Zelensky was recently advocating a people's war and asking his people to prepare Molotov cocktails.
The massacre at My Lai in Vietnam, in 1968, is a good example of such a disaster ... American troops frustrated by losses in the battlefield broke down and executed civilians they believed supported the enemy. Bloody Sunday in Belfast in 1972 is a case where British soldiers perceived they were under attack and fired upon unarmed civilians.
Whatever the details, events such as these cannot be excused, must be thoroughly investigated and those responsible must be judged for their actions.
Ignazio Cassis, both President of Switzerland and its Foreign Minister, was severely criticised when he told the press yesterday that in diplomacy it is important to keep a ‘cool head’, that an independent investigation is needed to find out who is responsible for the atrocities, and that only an international tribunal can determine whether these are indeed ‘war crimes’.
He is indeed correct. In these emotionally charged times, it is essential for governments to avoid hysteria. It is equally important that thorough investigations are launched at once.
Inevitably, both Sergei Lavrov, Russia's Foreign Minister, and Moscow's representative at the UN Security Council accused the Ukrainians of fabricating the massacres. There is very little doubt that these massacres are not fabrications, that they took place during Russia's occupation of Bucha, and that they were perpetrated by Russian troops.
The UN Security Council and the Veto of its Permanent Members
President Zelensky also takes on the Security Council (and the UN in general) to task for its impotence ... and not only in the Ukraine but in many other wars.
He rightly says that a reason for this is the veto power enjoyed by the permanent members (the United States, Rusia, China, Britain and France).
He suggests expelling the Russians ... the UN could then act, as Russia could not use her veto.
He also suggests that the veto rights should be removed, and the Council reformed to be more representative of the international community.
Expelling Russia is, of course, a new idea, but the elimination of veto rights and the re-composition of the Security Council have been suggested before. At different times, there has been talk of permanent membership for countries such as Brazil, Japan and Germany and even a permanent seat for the EU.
Or, if the two alternatives above fail, President Zelensky suggests, perhaps rhetorically, that the UN should dissolve itself as useless ...
Point taken. De Gaulle, for one, did not like the UN and used to refer to it as "Le Machin" ("The Thing").
Indeed, in its primary purpose of preventing or stopping war, the UN has failed, as did the League of Nations before it. This applies not only to the current war in the Ukraine, but to scores of other conflicts.
First of all, there is never (or seldom) the political will of the member states to empower the UN to be the world's policeman.
The existence of the veto power means that collective action is only possible when none of the permanent members of the Security Council use their veto.
领英推荐
Removing the veto is, however, unthinkable. Never mind Russia ... Do you think the US or China would stay in the organisation if their veto were taken out?
Even if there were no veto ... collective action would almost certainly be restricted to resolutions of symbolic importance with no practical consequences ... or, at best, to sanctions.
If the UN were to say ... "Sanctions will be imposed" ... this could only be a moral statement since the organisation could do little to force individual member states to impose those sanctions. The UN is not a world government.
The UN and the Use of Military Force
According to Article 1 of the UN Charter, collective action can also mean "military action", but here one must be aware that the United Nations does not have an army and is not an alliance such as NATO, capable of waging war.
The "Blue Helmets", troops serving under the UN flag, are drawn from the armies of the member states and are not a permanent force. The contingents sent by the UN to the different conflict areas are created "ad hoc" by individual contributions ... Some states provide military units, others help to finance the operations. Furthermore, the mandate of the "Blue Helmets" is peace-keeping, not peace-making. They are deployed to supervise a truce, not to fight to impose a cease-fire ... and unfortunately not to fight to protect civilians. Major embarrassment occurred in places such as Rwanda, Yugoslavia and the Lebanon, where the UN Peacekeepers stood aside when atrocities took place.?They did not have the political mandate to interfere ... and in some cases not even the fire-power to face the men of war.
In spite of these limitations, the "Blue Helmets" play an important role and were awarded the 1988 Nobel Prize. As the Committee rightly said, "the peacekeeping forces of the United Nations have, under extremely difficult conditions, contributed to reducing tensions where an armistice has been negotiated but a peace treaty has yet to be established."
The UN went fighting only twice: in Korea (1950-1953) and in Katanga (1963).
In Korea, troops from 16 countries (many of them NATO members) were sent to the Peninsula to repel the North Korean invasion. This was a conventional war, not a peace-keeping operation. There was a Commonwealth Division (consisting of two British and one Canadian brigades), battalions from countries as diverse as France, Ethiopia and Colombia, and a Turkish brigade which fought with great distinction, but the overwhelming majority of the UN forces were the Americans and the South Koreans. The troops went to fight under a resolution of the Security Council, but they were de facto under US command. For all practical purposes, US President Truman ran the war, not the United Nations' Secretary General. The Americans and the South Koreans did most of the fighting and although the other allies also shed blood to stop Communist agression, the importance of their participation was more symbolic and political than military.
The resolution to use force in Korea was possible because the Soviet Union was boycotting the Security Council and thus did not attend the meeting ... and hence did not use her veto. Obviously, since then Moscow has never missed a meeting.
In 1950, China was represented at the UN (and the Security Council) by Taiwan ("Nationalist China") who still claimed to be and was recognised as the government of the whole of China. An American ally and an anti-Communist country, Taiwan obviously approved the resolution.
Katanga was a province of the Congo (later Zaire, later Congo again), which tried to secede from the country immediately after independence in 1960. The province has rich mineral resources, and some European interests (mainly Belgian, because Belgium was the former colonial power) supported this. Alas, the US backed the Congo's central government, and Russia was not friendly to Katanga ... so in the end UN troops who had initially been deployed as peacekeepers were given the order to stop the secession.
The world was then witness to a brief and strange war in which UN troops fought Katangese "Gendarmes" (often under the command of European mercenaries). The secession was brought to an end and Katanga remained part of the Congo. Ironically, two years later the defeated Katangese leader, Moise Tshombe, returned from exile and briefly became prime minister of the entire country. The Congo then fell in the hands of the autocratic, but safely pro-Western Marshal Mobutu Sese Seko, who was president between 1965 and 1997.
The fact that the UN Secretary General, Dag Hammarskj?ld, was killed in an airplane crash in the Congo helped in the decision to use force. It is rumoured that there was a bomb in the plane, or that it was shot down by a Katangan fighter.
The legality, and the wisdom of this military operation, are still debated by scholars.
Some Conclusions
The UN has not been particularly effective in preventing or stopping war ...?not only because of the veto of the permanent Security Council members, but because the international community has never granted it the authority or the resources.
I doubt this will ever change, even if Russia is suspended or expelled.
The West, united in NATO, is not sending troops to fight the Russians in the Ukraine.
The West, even if there were a UN Resolution to wage war, would still not send troops to fight the Russians in the Ukraine.
The West does not send troops to fight the Russians in the Ukraine, because the West does not want to start a Third World War ... and not because of lack of a UN resolution.
Veto or no veto, what the Security Council can or will do is not relevant. What is relevant is the political will of the national governments. It is those governments who will decide what to do to assist the Ukraine, including the use of military force. "Le Machin", as De Gaulle called it, can only provide legal (or cosmetic?) justification.
Having said this ... and even if the UN has failed and will almost inevitably continue failing in its primary purpose (prevent or stop war), the organisation is far from useless.
Having peacekeeping forces monitoring cease-fires is extremely important. Moreover, in other fields, such as humanitarian work, the environment, education, science, etc., the UN has made and is making a remarkable contribution. The organisation is also an essential forum to de-escalate conflicts and is a useful face-saving device ... One must never forget the paramount importance that saving face has for political leaders, democratically elected or not.
The UN might be flawed, but it is the only tool we have.
I hope Volodimir Zelensky keeps standing up for his country, challenging its enemies, embarrassing its fair-weather friends, and inspiring us all with his courage and determination.
Слава Укра?н?! (Slava Ukraini!)