Excluding Russia from the UN Security Council, as requested by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the UN on Tuesday 5 April, is “unimaginable”, said on franceinfo Frédéric Encel, lecturer at Sciences-Po, doctor in geopolitics. He recalls that “political regimes that have committed real genocides have not even been expelled from the United Nations General Assembly”. If Russia were excluded, “many other states will create a kind of UN bis” which would bring us, according to him, into “an extraordinarily dangerous era.”
>> War in Ukraine: follow the latest information in our live
franceinfo: What can the UN do in the face of the atrocities of which Russia is accused?
Frederic Encel: Russia is a permanent member of the Security Council, it has a right of veto. She actually used it several weeks ago. And therefore, not much can be done when it comes to international criminal tribunals. Or more precisely, for the International Criminal Court to act, it must be mandated. And in any case, this work must not be blocked by the Security Council. So there, from that point of view, for the moment we can’t do anything. Moreover, Volodymyr Zelensky knows this very well since in his speech he indicated that this body had to be modified so that there could no longer be a right of veto, that is to say a right of impunity.
Can Russia be excluded from the Security Council as requested by the Ukrainian President?
It is unimaginable for a very empirical reason. It has never been done since 1945. And not only has it never been done. But even political regimes that have engaged in real genocides – I am obviously thinking of the Rwandan Hutu regime in 1994 – have not even been excluded from the United Nations General Assembly. So, all the more reason, Russia cannot be excluded, otherwise the table will be upset. And I think that at that time, Russia, China and many other states will create a kind of UN bis. And there, we are entering a totally new era which, it seems to me, would be extraordinarily dangerous.
Is this therefore an admission of impotence by this organization of the United Nations?
Yes, it was thought of as such, moreover, in 1945. Because the victors of the Second World War obviously did not want to be reduced to the rank of “simple powers” of a state like any other. So they have always constituted this framework which has allowed them real impunity. And regarding these issues related to crimes against humanity and genocide, think that between 1975 and 1979 there was in Cambodia a real genocide perpetrated by the Khmer Rouge. But it was never recognized as such. Why ? Because China had always vetoed it.
“From this point of view, as long as we cannot reach an agreement between the big five, unfortunately there is no possible progress in terms of the fight against the main crimes against humanity. “
Frédéric Encel, doctor in geopoliticsat franceinfo
Can we reform the UN? And is its functioning outdated?
It’s been outdated for a long time. Because crimes against humanity, unfortunately after 1945 there were many. Rwanda, Cambodia, but there have been others. Recently there was Burma. And Burma against the Rohingyas was defended by China. So reforming the UN was attempted in 2005-2006. And then it failed. Why ? Because the representativeness of the UN was obviously challenged by states that are not permanent members. But the permanent members obviously do not want to relinquish their veto rights, which is a kind of sesame, as we can clearly see today. And therefore, the blockage is really inherent in the existence of this operation of the United Nations since 1945.