The answer to the question I pose above is that it probably does question the sanity of the UN as an organisation but the reality is that is hardly matters a jot for the simple reason that with each member of the Security Council having a veto nothing is about to change.
One may also reasonably question why it was that, following dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, that when the group of remaining Soviet republics or satellite states wrote to the UN requesting that the name USSR be substituted to that of the Russian Federation nobody within the UN batted an eyelid and seemingly just waved the request through. On December 8th 1991, in Minsk, the Republic of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine signed the Treaty establishing the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and two weeks later, on December 21st, eight other former Federated Soviet Republics also signed the Treaty of Minsk in Alma-Ata, Kazakhstan, thus joining the founding members of the CIS
One thing that one recognises in doing what I do professionally is that you never stop learning. Back in 1991 we in the West had allowed ourselves to become somewhat besotted with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the bringing down of various Soviet era dictators and that perhaps culminated with the collapse of the Berlin Wall.
We hailed the prospect of the so-called peace dividend and indeed, there was now a strong feeling that at long last the ‘Cold War’ was drawing to a close. We were wrong of course because although we ourselves let our guard down believing that such was the weakened state of Russia that the so-called arms race was bound to end, our mistake was to allow ourselves to forget the mistakes of the past and ignore the Russian political psyche of how and why Russia had for so long harboured a hatred of the West and which I might well describe as our ignorance that in 1991 and having been invaded twice by Germany and once by Japan in the previous ninety years, while the dissolution of the Soviet Union under Mikhail Gorbachev was absolutely to be welcomed, we allowed ourselves a false sense of security in believing that the era of hard line leaders in Russia had gone for ever with the demise of the Soviet Union.
Rotating as it does on the first day of every month, on Saturday it was the turn of Russia to take on the presidency of the of the 15-member United Nations Security Council. You might well be thinking that surely this is a belated April fool’s joke but rest assured that it isn’t. The role of president is mainly procedural meaning that to a point Russia will get to decide what is discussed and when and to perhaps lead in several debates.
For the record, the last time that Russia took on the month long presidency of the United Nations Security Council was back in February 2022 – the very same month that Russia chose to start its illegal invasion of Ukraine and which unsurprisingly, led to Russia blocking (vetoing) the resolution that was put forward in the same month and that had as its aim, bringing the invasion to an end. Russia subsequently used its veto to block a Security Council resolution condemning its illegal referendum in eastern Ukraine following the annexation of some 90,000 square km’s of what had until then been Ukrainian sovereign territory and what as far as I am aware had been the largest forcible annexation attempt since WW2.
The UN Security Council is the designated body within the United Nations whose primary duty is that of being delegated to make peace. Established in 1945 as part of the United Nations Charter, it comprises of fifteen members. Ten rotating non-permanent countries are elected by the UN General Assembly to do a two-year term on the Security Council. Five members, Russia, the Peoples Republic of China, the USA, UK and France enjoy permanent member status and thus have a veto on any vote before the council.
While there is a process to remove a member country from the United Nations – this requiring a vote of the UN General Assembly based on the recommendation of the UN Security Council, this has never been done. Put simply, if an attempt was made to apply this to ending Russian membership of the United Nations Security Council Russia could simply veto it. Sadly, there is, as far as I am aware, no mechanism within the UN Charter in regard of the Security Council that allows for a member to be removed without the specific agreement of that member.
Not surprisingly, even though Ukraine signed the original Alma-Ata Protocol document, it has now has raised objections as to its legitimacy. Naturally this will fall on deaf ears at the UN as quite simply, there is nothing that can be done.
One may argue that the UN Security Council is a law unto itself and it needs radical change. You may argue that what may have been appropriate in 1945 is no longer appropriate now. You may also ask why it is that the UK today, a nation that has lost so much of its past respect in regard of the role it played within international diplomacy and relations, should even still have a place as a member of the UN Security Council.
To all the above questions all that I can say is that nothing is about to change and I proffer the reason for that as being nothing more than history.
China forms another interesting area of United Nations Security Council membership and I am particularly grateful to Andrew MacLeod, Visiting Professor at the Department of War Studies, Kings College London for filing in some of my own gaps as to how this came about. In February 2022 Andrew MacLeod wrote a fascinating article in ‘The Conversation’ in which he said:
“From the formation of the United Nations in 1945 right up until 1971, the Chinese membership of the United Nations was held by the Republic of China (ROC) – the Taiwan-based government that still claimed to represent all of China.
However, in 1971, the UN membership by China switched to the People’s Republic of China (PRC) – the Beijing-based Communist government that also claimed to govern “all of China” and of course, that still holds it”.
“While it is often said that it was Richard Nixon who recognised China in 1971, the truth is that the then US president did not go as far as to formally recognising China – well not in so many words. What Richard Nixon did do however was to change the recognition of who governs China – in other words moving this from Taipei to Beijing. The result was that this changed which of the two China’s that would sit on the Security Council”.
Macleod went on to emphasise the important of this by exampling the Korean War which ran from1950 to 1953 – a war that pitted North Korea and China (Beijing) against a South Korea, supported by US and UN forces. He noted that “The deployment of UN forces had to be approved by the Security Council – including China (Taipei) – to fight against China (Beijing)”. “These days” he adds “few people would argue that Taiwan and mainland China are separate, sovereign nations and not even Taiwan claims independence. From Beijing’s perspective, which claims Taiwan as a renegade province, a takeover of Taiwan by force would not be an “invasion”, because a country can’t “invade” its own territory”.
He finished by implying that “China certainly won’t want to start a discussion about Russia’s seat on the Security Council, partly because it wouldn’t want its own membership questioned, should it go into Taiwan”. I can hardly disagree and although China has set a target date to achieve repatriation of Taiwan of 2049 – the 100th anniversary of the Mao Revolution, I and others do not believe that China considers that it has sufficient military capability to make a move on Taiwan yet.
Separately, you may also ask why Canada lost out in its latest bid for a seat on the UN Security Council to Norway and, yes this is absolutely true, the Republic of Ireland, a country that has very little to offer in the way of military capability when it comes to providing UN peacekeeping requirement.
While argued by some as a mere technicality, Russian or should I say Soviet Russia membership of the UN Security Council had come about by virtue of events emanating from WW2. Churchill, already given the order of the boot by voters in the UK, was yet to make his infamous ‘Iron Curtain’ speech and the US was to an extent still coming to terms with a new Truman era following the death of Franklin D Roosevelt.
Technically, even if it no longer exists, in respect of the UN Charter it is the USSR rather than Russia itself which stands as the permanent member of the UN Security Council. Nevertheless, it is Russia that is today regarded as being the accepted permanent member of the UN Security Council making this officially or unofficially, one of only two accepted changes in UN Security Council membership since it was founded.
The United Nations has and continues to serve a purpose and does much good work. But it has also been usurped by events that could hardly have been foreseen. My own view is perhaps that rather than attempt to change the existing structure of the United Nations Security Council we need to start considering how it should be completely replaced.
CHW (London 3rd April 2023)
Howard Wheeldon FRAeS
Wheeldon Strategic Advisory Ltd,
M: +44 7710 779785
Skype: chwheeldon
@AirSeaRescue