Washington Wednesday - The power of Putin’s nyet

NICK EICHER, HOST: It’s Wednesday, April 27th and you’re listening to The WORLD and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. Good morning! I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard. It’s time for Washington Wednesday.

Today, the UN Security Council and Washington’s role in it.

The Security Council is an arm of the United Nations. Its job is to try to ensure international peace and security.

The council has five countries with permanent seats and veto power over security council decisions. Those countries are Britain, France, China, Russia, and the United States.

Ten other member nations are elected to two-year terms.

EICHER: After Russia invaded Ukraine in February, the vast majority of the Security Council’s 15 members voted to condemn the Russian aggression and demanded that it withdraw. But the vote didn’t really matter because Russia vetoed the resolution.

That hampered efforts by the UN to take a unified stand. In turn, that’s led to questions about the body’s effectiveness and what can be done to reform it.

Here now to talk about it is Ivana Stradner. She researches international law and security. She’s currently a research fellow with the American Enterprise Institute and with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

REICHARD: And she joins us now. Ivana, good morning!

IVANA STRADNER, GUEST: Good morning.

REICHARD: Let’s note at the start the UN General Assembly did vote to condemn Russia and demand withdrawal and did so by a two-thirds majority. But again because of the Security Council, does that really matter? What did that accomplish?

STRADNER: So, the United Nations General Assembly is tremendously important in forum for diplomatic talk, but the United Nations General Assembly resolutions are not actually legally binding. So even though for diplomacy, such resolution matters a lot, it's very difficult to enforce. And you just mentioned earlier, indeed, because Russia is a permanent member at the United Nations Security Council, it will be very, very difficult to enforce any such resolutions within the United Nations Security Council.

REICHARD: A new resolution co-sponsored by the United States would require any country that uses its veto power to explain itself to the General Assembly. It wouldn’t change the vote, just perhaps make it a little more uncomfortable for the country holding things up. Good idea or bad idea?

STRADNER: I mean, let me tell you one thing in terms of the United Nations General Assembly: words matter. And such talks are tremendously important. But one thing is we have to ask ourselves whether Russia cares about reputation on the global stage or not, especially when stakes are high. So this is precisely—I'm not very hopeful that such United Nations General Assembly resolutions can alter the behavior of Russia.

Let me clarify one thing. Many people claim Russia is a realist. Putin is a realist. He does not care about international institutions. It's a big power. Well, that's not that's not entirely true, because Russia never wanted to leave any of those international organizations. On the contrary, Russia has been working very, very hard to be very active inside international organizations, and along with China, to change them. I mean, you just really have to, for example, take a look at what Russia and China are doing in terms of regulating information security inside the United Nations and how they're actually organizing the coalition of the willing with their allies to change international organizations. That really matters a lot. And after all, I mean, you also have the United Nations Human Rights Council where Russia was sitting and that was also very important for Russia to have a seat over there so it can control the narrative about awful human rights violations that have been happening on a daily basis inside Russia.

REICHARD: Are there other proposals to change the way the council works?

STRADNER: I mean, there are some people, for example, who refer to the fact that if you go back to the history of the United Nations, the language that was in the initial charter listed the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, as permanent member of the Council, it was not Russia back then. So some people, for example, claim that it's very, that we can actually install Ukraine instead of Russia, because it was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, that included different republics other than Russia back then. So some people, for example, claimed that this is a legal, I don't want to call it a loophole, but this is one of the feasible ways that we can actually put Russia out (of) there because legally, it's very, very difficult, really, to remove Russia from the Security Council or the General Assembly Resolution, because it requires a recommendation from the Security Council. And because Russia is one of the permanent member states and has veto power, it can block any such resolution from being passed.

REICHARD: The United Nations does send peacekeeping forces to various parts of the world. But member nations aren’t bound to wait for UN approval before taking military action. And UN resolutions aren’t binding if a country chooses to reject them. So, what effect does the Security Council’s action or inaction really have on decisions being made in Washington?

STRADNER: To begin with, the United Nations Security Council resolutions are binding—unlike some of the United Nations General Assembly resolutions—and they really, I mean, they do have a tremendously important role. But let me just go back because we are currently living (in) some sort of a new Cold War. I don't like to call it like that, but it's a good analogy to what happened back during the Cold War, because back then, I mean, the United Nations was blocked. And that's something we are seeing right now. And the West really cares about maintaining international liberal order. We really need to also find a way to limit Russia's influence within the United Nations. Some people, you know, also fear that this may actually escalate further. I do not think, you know, that removing Russia from different United Nations bodies can actually escalate further conflict. But it can actually show that the West really cares about maintaining international liberal order.

REICHARD: Right now, Russia is using the veto power for its benefit. But Washington has also used vetoes to block measures it disagrees with. So, what effect could this new proposal have on U.S. foreign policy in the future?

STRADNER: Of course, like Russia and China, I mean, that's the purpose of great power politics, right? They can veto certain things through the United Nations when they don't serve their interests. We've done it in the past and probably will do it in the future. I really don't think that this can actually have any tremendous effect, like on how states behave when stakes are very, very high, such as during the wartime. And let me remind you also that we also waged wars without the authorization of the Security Council. I mean, just think about during the 90s or the 1999 NATO intervention. I mean, Russia was sitting there in China and we had to end the atrocities in the former Yugoslavia. It was very, very difficult to pass such a resolution in the United Nations. So we decided to escape the United Nations system and to use force for the humanitarian purposes, actually justifying under the humanitarian intervention. If you go back even to 2014, Russia used the very similar reasoning for Ukraine. I mean, they refer to something similar to the Responsibility to Protect and why they did not resort to the United Nations. I mean, if you even hear how Russia is justifying, legally, this war, they are using tools such as self-defense. And let me remind you and our audience, that there are two ways that you can wage basically, to put it simply, legal wars, according to the United Nations. Either you can justify it under self defense, or you need the authorization of the Security Council.

REICHARD: Final question, Ivana: It appears that so far, Russia can act with impunity. The UN seems unable to do anything about it. Could this be a tipping point, in terms of the UN’s influence?

STRADNER: First of all, this is not the first war that Russia has waged without the authorization of the Security Council or of the United Nations. I mean, you really just have to think about what Russia did in Georgia or in Ukraine in 2014, let alone awful atrocities in Syria in terms of international humanitarian law. So I have to be really blunt here and to say whoever really thinks that the United Nations can stop the wars, especially among the powers, I'm afraid that it's up for disappointment. So I really don't think the United Nations can constrain the behavior of Vladimir Putin. But it is tremendously important to keep and to maintain the United Nations importance for historical reasons. I mean, just the United Nation resolution really emphasizes perfectly Russian atrocities and this is very important for the future of international liberal order as it is and the second thing for the historical reasons to keep Russia at least morally accountable.

REICHARD: Ivana Stradner is an expert on international law and security, currently a research fellow with the American Enterprise Institute. Ivana, thank you.

STRADNER: My pleasure.

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.