Russia takes over the one-month presidency of the UN Security Council on Saturday. This body has the primary responsibility of maintaining “international peace and security”.
“A Bad Joke”, was offended by Ukraine when Russia took over the head of the UN Security Council for a month, under the rule of the rotating presidency. For the general secretary of Cevipof, “there is something paradoxical in this appointment” which comes ten days from a discussion on the “military support to Ukraine” in the UN Security Council. “There will be no boycott but the countries will try to put the importance of the Russian presidency into perspective”stresses Florent Parmentier who believes that Ukraine’s supporters might not send a Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Security Council to “attribute less attention to Russia”.
>> War in Ukraine – Follow our live
franceinfo: It seems quite paradoxical that a country at war and aggressor finds itself at the presidency of the Security Council. Is it surprising?
Florent Parmentier: The Ukrainian Foreign Minister took advantage of this rotating presidency to criticize the functioning of the UN. Especially since on April 10, there will be a discussion on military support for Ukraine. There is indeed something extremely paradoxical about the calendar, but ultimately very unsurprising insofar as it must be remembered that the rotating presidencies of the UN Security Council are ultimately each of the fifteen members of this council which is represented by rotation.
What concrete consequences can this Russian presidency have?
I think that the first concrete consequences that there could be are quite simply, on the part of the States which support Ukraine, a form of deterioration in the level of representation of the countries concerned.
“Rather than sending foreign ministers, countries will no doubt send lesser people to sit on this body.”
Florent Parmentier, General Secretary of Cevipofat franceinfo
There will be no boycott, but the countries will try to put the importance of the Russian presidency into perspective. The boycott would be truly amazing in this period. We haven’t had an equivalent so far. There was in the past the suspension of South Africa in 1974 and of the UN institutions, but that was in a very different context. He was also a member who was not a permanent member of the Security Council. The idea of a suspension or a total boycott seems complicated. On the other hand, the idea of allocating less attention seems possible with this desire, in a way, to put Russia in a minority during the month in which it takes care of this rotating presidency. This will probably be the strategy chosen by the supporters of Ukraine.
The United States believes that Russia should not be a member of this United Nations Security Council, at least not a permanent member. Does the question arise, in your opinion, in this multilateral body?
It is a statement that is political rather than institutionally effective. It is quite normal for Antony Blinken to take this position, even though one of his compatriots, a journalist at the wall street journal, has just been arrested by the FSB. It is obvious that the United States questions the presence of Russia in a very particular moment when it is at war with Ukraine.