Do you have questions about our editorials? Questions about hot topics in the news? Each week, the editorial team responds to readers of The Press.
Russia recently assumed the presidency of the UN Security Council. How is this compatible with its peacekeeping mission?
Jacques Shawls
Since the outbreak of war in Ukraine, calls for reform of the UN Security Council have been numerous.
The international figure whose comments on this subject have had the greatest impact this year is the Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky.
“It is difficult to imagine anything that proves [davantage] the complete bankruptcy of such institutions,” he said of the awarding of the Security Council presidency to Russia last April.
As expected, Moscow used this presidency in a cavalier way, to defend its theses. For example, the country organized a meeting on the theme “Effective multilateralism through the defense of the principles of the United Nations Charter”. You can not make that up.
In short, the presence of Russia at the presidency of the UN Security Council was not, in fact, compatible with the mission of this body.
But “the problem is much deeper than the simple presidency of the Security Council,” said Fannie Lafontaine, holder of the Canada Research Chair in International Criminal Justice and Fundamental Rights at Laval University.
After all, the period – one month – during which a country occupies the presidency of this body is very short, she underlines. Especially if we compare it to the presidency of the G7, which is for a period of one year, which offers more considerable room for maneuver and power of influence.
However, Russia is also one of the five permanent members of the Security Council. Its impact, as such, is greater.
As a reminder, the Security Council has 15 members, five of which are permanent: Russia, China, the United States, France and the United Kingdom. And these permanent members have a right of veto which they can use to block the adoption of resolutions.
Look at what happened immediately after the start of the war in Ukraine at the end of February 2022: the majority of the members of the UN Security Council wanted to adopt a resolution to condemn this “aggression” and summon Moscow to withdraw its troops from the country. But Russia vetoed it.
Yes, the credibility of the UN Security Council is undermined by this kind of aberration. That said, however imperfect the UN and its Security Council may be, if they did not exist, we would probably try to invent them.
You could say about this much the same thing that Winston Churchill said about democracy. The current system is the worst…to the exclusion of all the others.
If we didn’t have the multilateral diplomatic system we have there, if we didn’t have Russia and even China alongside other global powers in the same room, we wouldn’t have a forum. It would be worse.
Fannie Lafontaine, holder of the Canada Research Chair in International Criminal Justice and Fundamental Rights, Université Laval
However, the expert thinks that “the future will certainly go through reforms”. In particular to make more room for the countries of the African continent.
One thing is certain, the idea of a reform of the Security Council is gaining ground. Last fall, during the United Nations General Assembly, several heads of state called for changes. Including US President Joe Biden.
“The time has come when this institution must become more inclusive in order to better meet the needs of today’s world,” he said.
It remains to be seen whether a reform will take place during his lifetime, because such a highly complex project is easier to wish for than to achieve.