Former US president Bill Clinton has expressed regret about his role in persuading Ukraine to give up its nuclear weapons in 1994. Mr Clinton suggested that Russia would not have invaded Ukraine if Kyiv still had its nuclear deterrent.
Something interesting to point out is that Russia was not originally granted a permanent UN seat. That seat was granted to the USSR. The USSR was dissolved in 1991 and the Russian Federation basically just announced that they would take the permanent seat granted to the USSR. Most countries in the UN accepted it without issue, but there was something important about this announcement that people may not know.
The Russian Federation being granted the former USSR’s permanent seat was conditional: the Russian Federation was required and expected to uphold the responsibilites that the USSR had, as well as the USSRs treaties and agreements. Failure to uphold those commitments would mean the Russian Federation was in breach of their agreement with the UN and should lose the seat formerly granted to the USSR.
The USSR, interestingly enough, had signed many treaties recognizing the borders of its successor states before it was dissolved, one of which being Georgia. Thus the actions of the Russian Federation in Georgia in 2008 violated one of these USSR agreements they are required to uphold. This was a direct violation and one that is technically grounds for removal of the UN, at least removal from a permanent seat.
However, its not that easy. The UN doesn’t actually have a protocol for removing a permanent seat member. It does, however, have a protocol for removing a member that repeatedly violates the UN charter, which does not specify that it does not apply to permanent members. This is a little more broad, and can extend to include the Russian Federation’s consistent abuse of its veto ability to shield itself and its allies from accountability, and its current actions in Ukraine that violate the Budapest Memorandum.
I mean, yeah, but in practice, the UN is structured the way it is, with the UNSC veto, to avoid creating World War III. That is, it’s aimed at avoiding great power conflict.
Taiwan was functionally removed and replaced by China, but that was really a recognition that Taiwan didn’t really de facto control China, which was who the seat belonged to.
Could Russia one day roll up to the UNSC and discover someone else sitting in their seat? Yeah, theoretically, but in practice, I don’t think that there’s a realistic chance that Russia would be removed from the UNSC seat as long as it’s running around with the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, absent some kind of hard counter showing up that renders that arsenal useless.
The Russian Federation being granted the former USSR’s permanent seat was conditional: the Russian Federation was required and expected to uphold the responsibilites that the USSR had, as well as the USSRs treaties and agreements. Failure to uphold those commitments would mean the Russian Federation was in breach of their agreement with the UN and should lose the seat formerly granted to the USSR.
Sure. But the mechanism by which the UN functions is such that the Security Council has extensive veto power over most actual policy set by the UN. Consequently, any effort to challenge Russia on its failed obligations or to penalize or remove them would be subject to… Russian veto of the action from the Security Council.
That’s because the UN doesn’t exist to set policy against its primary member states. The UN exists to allow member states a neutral(ish) space to negotiate international policy amongst themselves and to organize against non-members and non-state-actors. Even if you could kick a $1T/year economy and largest sovereign landmass on the planet out of the body… who would benefit? Its not like removing Russia from the UN makes the country not-a-state. It’s not like the BRICS wouldn’t continue to coordinate amongst themselves independent of the UN. All you’ve done is cut the cord to the Little Red Phone that helps a future Russian President and a future American President from hashing it out before they launch nukes at one another.
The USSR, interestingly enough, had signed many treaties recognizing the borders of its successor states before it was dissolved, one of which being Georgia. Thus the actions of the Russian Federation in Georgia in 2008 violated one of these USSR agreements they are required to uphold. This was a direct violation and one that is technically grounds for removal of the UN, at least removal from a permanent seat.
You can single out the USSR on this technicality and hold Russia to it. But then you could single out the US for its extensive violation of the Geneva Convensions or its withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accords or any number of other historical treaties and associated promises.
You could single out the US for the Hague Invasion Act if nothing else. But we won’t, for the same reason nobody’s seriously interested in ousting Russia (or China or the UK or France for that matter).
This isn’t the G7 (formerly G8) where “We’re embargoing you, why are you even here?” would be the response to any Russian delegation. This is the body that exists to negotiate member states out of nuclear war. If anything, the Security Council should have significantly more members, given how nuclear weapons have proliferated over the last 70 years.
Maybe getting Pakistan and India on the panel could avoid the last great Pyrrhic Victory of human civilization.
Something interesting to point out is that Russia was not originally granted a permanent UN seat. That seat was granted to the USSR. The USSR was dissolved in 1991 and the Russian Federation basically just announced that they would take the permanent seat granted to the USSR. Most countries in the UN accepted it without issue, but there was something important about this announcement that people may not know.
The Russian Federation being granted the former USSR’s permanent seat was conditional: the Russian Federation was required and expected to uphold the responsibilites that the USSR had, as well as the USSRs treaties and agreements. Failure to uphold those commitments would mean the Russian Federation was in breach of their agreement with the UN and should lose the seat formerly granted to the USSR.
The USSR, interestingly enough, had signed many treaties recognizing the borders of its successor states before it was dissolved, one of which being Georgia. Thus the actions of the Russian Federation in Georgia in 2008 violated one of these USSR agreements they are required to uphold. This was a direct violation and one that is technically grounds for removal of the UN, at least removal from a permanent seat.
However, its not that easy. The UN doesn’t actually have a protocol for removing a permanent seat member. It does, however, have a protocol for removing a member that repeatedly violates the UN charter, which does not specify that it does not apply to permanent members. This is a little more broad, and can extend to include the Russian Federation’s consistent abuse of its veto ability to shield itself and its allies from accountability, and its current actions in Ukraine that violate the Budapest Memorandum.
I mean, yeah, but in practice, the UN is structured the way it is, with the UNSC veto, to avoid creating World War III. That is, it’s aimed at avoiding great power conflict.
Taiwan was functionally removed and replaced by China, but that was really a recognition that Taiwan didn’t really de facto control China, which was who the seat belonged to.
Could Russia one day roll up to the UNSC and discover someone else sitting in their seat? Yeah, theoretically, but in practice, I don’t think that there’s a realistic chance that Russia would be removed from the UNSC seat as long as it’s running around with the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, absent some kind of hard counter showing up that renders that arsenal useless.
Sure. But the mechanism by which the UN functions is such that the Security Council has extensive veto power over most actual policy set by the UN. Consequently, any effort to challenge Russia on its failed obligations or to penalize or remove them would be subject to… Russian veto of the action from the Security Council.
That’s because the UN doesn’t exist to set policy against its primary member states. The UN exists to allow member states a neutral(ish) space to negotiate international policy amongst themselves and to organize against non-members and non-state-actors. Even if you could kick a $1T/year economy and largest sovereign landmass on the planet out of the body… who would benefit? Its not like removing Russia from the UN makes the country not-a-state. It’s not like the BRICS wouldn’t continue to coordinate amongst themselves independent of the UN. All you’ve done is cut the cord to the Little Red Phone that helps a future Russian President and a future American President from hashing it out before they launch nukes at one another.
You can single out the USSR on this technicality and hold Russia to it. But then you could single out the US for its extensive violation of the Geneva Convensions or its withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accords or any number of other historical treaties and associated promises.
You could single out the US for the Hague Invasion Act if nothing else. But we won’t, for the same reason nobody’s seriously interested in ousting Russia (or China or the UK or France for that matter).
This isn’t the G7 (formerly G8) where “We’re embargoing you, why are you even here?” would be the response to any Russian delegation. This is the body that exists to negotiate member states out of nuclear war. If anything, the Security Council should have significantly more members, given how nuclear weapons have proliferated over the last 70 years.
Maybe getting Pakistan and India on the panel could avoid the last great Pyrrhic Victory of human civilization.