UN security sham

The United Nations has once again posed an intricate question of morality as the leadership of the Security Council shifts once again this month: should an accused war criminal, presiding over a country unjustly invading another, be the face of global peace and international security? In a similar vein to the philosophy that a child kidnapper should not run a daycare, the Russian Federation should not run the Security Council. Yet still, the decision to once again bend at the will of brute force and economic advantage by the international community is certain to pose great dangers for the future.

The monthly rotation of the presidency to the Security Council has remained completely unaffected by the ongoing invasion of Ukraine. This leads us to where we are at now, with a nation who consistently violates every fundamental rule of international peace and security supervising the body whose sole mission is protecting that security. As a result, nations such as Ukraine, who are often called to speak in front of the Council, have made a pledge of silence for the month of April.

There is currently nothing much that can be done to remove Russia from this position and, with the agenda they have set forth for this month, their tensions with the rest of the council are only going to rise. The United States has made efforts to urge Russia to conduct themselves professionally, and along with Britain and France, they are expected to lower the level of representation at events hosted by Russia throughout the month. Russia has set out to have three sessions, one of which took place on April 10, covering the “risks stemming from the violations of the agreements regulating the export of weapons and military equipment.” They have been handed the opportunity to call out Western nations and increase tensions on a silver platter.

The main concern with this presidency is the idea that the nation presiding over the Council is supposed to stay neutral. However, professionalism can easily be confused with neutrality, and, as seen in February of 2022, Russia is able to effectively immobilize the Security Council through abuse of its procedural powers as president, all while remaining “professional.” In their last month presiding over the council, Russia abused the powers and rules of the UN to “force unprecedented institutional condemnation of economic sanctions.” They had been anticipating the possibility of a military invasion and had already laid the groundwork for their propaganda efforts to erode the legitimacy of the Western coalition in the eyes of developing nations. When the invasion eventually broke out, Russian propagandists were quick to use the earlier discussions to discredit the Western coalition and portray them as aggressors who were imposing unjust economic sanctions. Russia possessing this kind of leverage and power over the conversations that are had in the Council is the danger needing to be acknowledged.

Similar to how Russia’s misuse of the Presidency in February of last year rendered the Security Council ineffective during a critical moment, we are facing a comparable situation now. As there are indications that global support for Ukraine may be weakening, it is easy to see how Russia may once again exploit their possession of the gavel to spread disinformation and create divisions between member states of the UN.

We are now at one of the most uncertain points of the war in Ukraine given the increasingly tense geopolitical relations. However, it is unlikely that there are many tangible effects of Russia’s presidency regarding the functionality of the UN. For example, there is unlikely to be any change in the actual balance of power within the Security Council as a result. That being said, it does show an evident disconnect within the current international system. It speaks to an overall lack of credibility and trust for the body that is supposed to protect against conflict, and maintain a baseline level of peaceful efforts and diplomatic ties between nations. It is a situation not only of great uncertainty and possible danger, but of irony beyond belief.