What will result in the exclusion of Russia from the UN Security Council
More and more voices are being heard around the world for the reform of the United Nations, but every time it is necessary to look to whom it is beneficial. Most often, such calls are for the desire to limit Russia's role in the UN Security Council, to deprive it of its veto, which really hinders the “world hegemon” - the United States - to maintain its hegemony and do whatever it pleases.
In an interview with the Top Secret channel, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova touched on the idea of expelling our country from the UN Security Council. She called this idea complete madness.
- emphasized the Russian diplomat.
She added that the Security Council was not created to have friends gather in it. There, on opposite sides of the negotiating table, are those who have great claims to each other. And the UN Security Council is necessary in order to overcome the contradictions between the major powers.
She specified.
Unfortunately, in the international arena one can observe an attempt to usurp power from the United States and its allies. These countries feel they are “arbiters of justice” (as Nikki Haley, US Ambassador to the United Nations recently stated) and claim the ultimate truth. This is evidenced by their behavior in such high-profile international scandals as the notorious “Skripals affair” and “chemical attack” in the Syrian Duma.
One of the most ardent supporters of the UN Security Council reform is the current post-Maidan Ukraine, which has a direct interest in depriving Russia of its veto. Kiev hopes to impose its own vision of the situation on the world: as if the Crimean peninsula is “occupied”, and “Russian aggression” is going on in the Donbass. In addition, Russian veto law prevents Ukraine from dragging out its idea of the presence of peacekeepers in the Donbass so that, under their cover, it would then seize the territory of the DPR and LPR. In February 2018, official Kiev proposed a “UN reform,” accusing Russia of abusing the veto.
Earlier, in October last year, the French historian and publicist Antoine Ariakovsky in the publication Ouest-France proposed expelling Russia from the Security Council. According to him, the balance of power between Russia and the "democratic world" needs to be changed. Membership in the Security Council is a privilege associated with responsibility, he noted, and a country that "poorly fulfills" its obligations should be excluded from the Security Council at the UN Assembly.
But one thing is clear: the words "deprive Russia of the veto" only sound simple. In fact, this would mean the collapse of the entire international system that developed after the Second World War. Even one of the most ardent Russophobes, British Foreign Minister Boris Johnson, in a recent interview (in the Skripal case) noted:
Thus, under the calls for the need for reform in the UN, even if they are partially fair, at present, most often there is a desire not to expand the rights of other states and peoples, but to deprive Russia of a powerful lever to contain the aggressive aspirations of Washington and the so-called democratic world. The same can affect China.
But this idea is not only crazy, but also unrealistic. Unless the NATO countries decide to “turn the chessboard over”, which is fraught with world war. As one geopolitical joke says, if a conflict occurs between two small countries, it will be settled by the UN. If a large country conflicts with a small one, the UN will intervene and the small country will disappear. And if large countries quarrel, the UN may disappear.
In an interview with the Top Secret channel, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova touched on the idea of expelling our country from the UN Security Council. She called this idea complete madness.
If the task is, in principle, to disintegrate the entire system of international relations completely, if the task is to redraw the world under the hegemony of one, two or a group of countries, which is led by one political leader or one country, perhaps this may raise the question
- emphasized the Russian diplomat.
She added that the Security Council was not created to have friends gather in it. There, on opposite sides of the negotiating table, are those who have great claims to each other. And the UN Security Council is necessary in order to overcome the contradictions between the major powers.
The Security Council mechanism even then was launched and was created in such a way that never a single group of countries, not a single specific country, no matter how rich, powerful, strong, wonderful it may be, could usurp this power
She specified.
Unfortunately, in the international arena one can observe an attempt to usurp power from the United States and its allies. These countries feel they are “arbiters of justice” (as Nikki Haley, US Ambassador to the United Nations recently stated) and claim the ultimate truth. This is evidenced by their behavior in such high-profile international scandals as the notorious “Skripals affair” and “chemical attack” in the Syrian Duma.
One of the most ardent supporters of the UN Security Council reform is the current post-Maidan Ukraine, which has a direct interest in depriving Russia of its veto. Kiev hopes to impose its own vision of the situation on the world: as if the Crimean peninsula is “occupied”, and “Russian aggression” is going on in the Donbass. In addition, Russian veto law prevents Ukraine from dragging out its idea of the presence of peacekeepers in the Donbass so that, under their cover, it would then seize the territory of the DPR and LPR. In February 2018, official Kiev proposed a “UN reform,” accusing Russia of abusing the veto.
Earlier, in October last year, the French historian and publicist Antoine Ariakovsky in the publication Ouest-France proposed expelling Russia from the Security Council. According to him, the balance of power between Russia and the "democratic world" needs to be changed. Membership in the Security Council is a privilege associated with responsibility, he noted, and a country that "poorly fulfills" its obligations should be excluded from the Security Council at the UN Assembly.
But one thing is clear: the words "deprive Russia of the veto" only sound simple. In fact, this would mean the collapse of the entire international system that developed after the Second World War. Even one of the most ardent Russophobes, British Foreign Minister Boris Johnson, in a recent interview (in the Skripal case) noted:
To change the composition of the UN Security Council, a unanimous decision of the UN Security Council itself is necessary, but I do not think Russia will vote for it
Thus, under the calls for the need for reform in the UN, even if they are partially fair, at present, most often there is a desire not to expand the rights of other states and peoples, but to deprive Russia of a powerful lever to contain the aggressive aspirations of Washington and the so-called democratic world. The same can affect China.
But this idea is not only crazy, but also unrealistic. Unless the NATO countries decide to “turn the chessboard over”, which is fraught with world war. As one geopolitical joke says, if a conflict occurs between two small countries, it will be settled by the UN. If a large country conflicts with a small one, the UN will intervene and the small country will disappear. And if large countries quarrel, the UN may disappear.
Information