Politic?: Expelling Violent Aggressor-Nations from the United Nations

"The choice of an aggressor country for the leadership of the UN Security Council has been met with reflections on whether the UN can fulfill its fundamental principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter."
"It forces us to face the bitter truth. The rules born from post-World War II trauma have less and less meaning."
Paulina Piasecka, national security expert,Warsaw

"We urge you to initiate a process to replace Russia on the UN Security Council as the fifth permanent member."
"Russia is not a responsible international actor and is unbecoming of a seat on the UN Security Council."
"Moreover, it has no right to this seat. Rather, it was provided to Russia in a deal after the dissolution of the Soviet Union."
" Ukraine could and should be recognized to fill the USSR seat rather than Russia."
Reps. Steve Cohen and Joe Wilson, a co-chair and the ranking member on the Helsinki Commission

UN Photo/Manuel Elías

UN General Assembly votes to suspend the rights of the membership of the Russian Federation in the Human Rights Council during an Emergency Special Session on Ukraine.

The globe's most infamous aggressor-state has a well-worn veto as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. Imagine this, that a nation committed to territorial expansion -- that has over the last decade, attempted to reimpose on its neighbours the control that Russia exerted on its near-abroad in the interests of USSR solidarity and Russian power politics, ramping up its military excursions in Georgia then turning its sights on Ukraine with a full invasion -- is able to control sanctions against human-rights-abusing nations through its veto, including Russia's own.

Both Russia and China, and often in tandem, have deadlocked the UN's Security Council's resolutions and sanctions and neither, opposed to Western regimes and democracy, is likely to sway from their antagonistic positions. The very absurdity of a warring nation marching into a neighbour's sovereign territory, destroying its infrastructure, its civilian enclaves, murdering thousands both combatants and civilians, sitting in the world body as an arbiter of human rights and global peace gives absurdity a bad name.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has been charged with war crimes at the International Criminal Court in the Hague. The General Assembly of the United Nations condemned its invasion of Ukraine, calling for Russia to "immediately, completely and unconditionally withdraw". An order snubbed by Moscow of course, and though there are international obligations on the part of those nations which signed on to the ICC, it seems highly unlikely that should Mr. Putin appear in a foreign country he would be arrested and turned over to the ICC.

There are those calling the situation absurd beyond a vestige of reason, and although the general body of the UN is far from clamouring for Russia's expulsion in reflection of its threat to world peace and its obvious territorial aggression in Eastern Europe, it isn't as simple as it might appear. Expulsion from the world body would require the general consensus of the Security Council to enable the General Assembly to act.

The result of which is that the Security Council, tasked with identifying threats to peace or to respond to acts of aggression is unable to do either. Russia's veto has put a stopper in the Council's capacity to ask conflict parties to settle differences peaceably. Terms of settlement can b recommended, or the UN can send in its "blue berets" peacekeepers. However, because of Russia's veto, everything is at a standstill.

It's difficult to fathom that when the United States, France, Britain, China and Russia were authorized by the world body as permanent Security Council members, no one in authority had the sagacity to foresee such an event, where the very cause of a violent conflict is able to readily sidestep absorbing criticism and evade ordered withdrawal by dint of its veto action.

Among the 15 members of the Security Council (the permanent members plus other nations voted to a multi-year term on the non-permanent membership of the Security Council) there is a revolving presidency on a monthly basis. In February of 2022, when Russia invaded Ukraine, it held the presidency of the Security Council, a mouth-agape hypocrisy of classic dimensions, if not a belligerent thumb in the eye of the Council.