Russian Aggression, Divisions and Inequalities After 3 Years of COVID Test UN
The 77th High Level session of the United Nations General Assembly is the first time the gathering of global leaders in person since the COVID-19 pandemic began.
The UN has proven how irrelevant it is by current events. It’s been powerless in addressing Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, as Russia is on the UN Security Council. The world is also being divided into different power blocks. Some countries, like Turkey, which belongs to both the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (along with Russia and China), fight for their interests in more than one bloc.
Writers Suzanne Nossell and Leslie Vinjamuri addressed the fissures tearing our world apart in their article at ForeignAffairs.dotcom, “Some Assembly Required: Why the UN’s Broadest Forum Matters More than Ever.” Nossell and Vinjamuri pointed out the importance of the international body, despite the challenges it faces. The two painted an accurate picture of current events: “The last three years have also shredded an already fragile net of global humanitarian support. The COVID-19 pandemic laid bare drastic deficiencies and inequalities in the world’s preparedness for unpredictable public health crises. The consequences of climate change—flooded cities, deadly heat waves, wildfires, and superstorms—are mounting. The pandemic, the climate crisis, and the Ukraine war have conspired to create an unparalleled global food crisis plunging 345 million people into acute food insecurity and 50 million to the edge of famine, according to the World Food Programme. Forty nations are now at risk of defaulting on their sovereign debt.”
The UN’s Sustainable Development Goals—the 17 benchmarks on everything from ending poverty to gender equality that were established in 2015 and supposed to be met by 2030—will not be achieved, it’s obvious. This year’s UN General Assembly High-Level meeting will highlight the geopolitical tensions present in the world. Internationalists must concentrate on three items: where individual states stand on Ukraine; whether world opinion can serve as a catalyst to galvanize faltering humanitarian ideas; and as a test of whether the UN will remain relevant in any way.
Nossell and Vinjamuri pointed out the importance of the scheduling of the meeting: “The timing of this year’s General Assembly, just a week after the world absorbed news of Ukraine’s startling battlefield gains, renders the event a live litmus test of global opinion about Vladimir Putin’s war and the bold authoritarian power play that it represents.”
Russia’s actions in Ukraine have both deepened divisions and catalyzed new coalitions across the globe. Since Putin invaded in February, countries have been forced to take a stance on his violation of the UN Charter, which requires members not to use “force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” In March, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution that affirmed Ukrainian sovereignty and called on Russia to withdraw its troops from the invaded territory. The final tally had 141 states supporting the resolution and just five opposing it, with 35 abstentions. In April, the General Assembly adopted a resolution to suspend Russia’s membership on the UN Human Rights Council with 93 voting in favor, 24 against, and 58 abstentions. The resolutions signaled an agreement on the part of certain nation states.
During a recent press conference, Putin admitted that Beijing had expressed concerns over the Ukraine war, he also lectured the West for seeking to impose its own rules on others. He urged a return to a world in which the UN and its broad multilateral treaties reigned supreme. Putin’s lip-service to the UN system, with its founding precepts, treaties, and institutions, is an opening the West should seize, as stated by Nossell and Vinjamuri. As Washington and its allies try to manage an ascendant China and Russia, international law and norms have the potential to be potent constraints that draw a line between legitimate and illegitimate action. That is, provided the United States and its partners demonstrate that the weight of world opinion trusts them to respect these international principles and rejects Putin’s aggression.
So far, China has supported Russia it its quest to swallow Ukraine. However, Putin’s actions might change things. As the Russian military loses territory in Ukraine, concerns raised at the UN General Assembly could contribute to a tipping point in global attitudes. Russia’s tactics, including enforced blackouts in eastern Kharkiv and Donetsk and shelling near Ukraine’s teetering Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, represent the kind of unacceptable actions that could spur a broader moral consensus that would weigh on Beijing and Moscow.
Nossell and Vinjamuri suggested that the UN General Assembly might play a positive role that the Security Council cannot play. They stated a possible scenario: “in April, the General Assembly passed a resolution requiring its president to open a debate within 10 working days of any use of the veto by a permanent member of the Security Council. This is intended to create accountability for those who wield the veto, forcing them to justify their action before an assembly of 193 states that are adept at pointing fingers. The prospect of a public, televised spectacle in which countries that block Security Council action are put under a global microscope has the potential to serve as a powerful disincentive for using the veto.”
The work of the General Assembly reflects the evolution of the UN – its most tangible accomplishments are not diplomatic breakthroughs but the tackling of problems that impact the world. Perhaps the General Assembly can discipline Russia’s behavior by galvanizing world public opinion. In addition, the US should lead other UN nations to combat climate change, the refugee crises, and world hunger. However, maybe a shaming of Russia will help modify their behavior. Let’s hope the word’s various power centers can work together to solve pressing problems.
Jason Sibert is the Lead Writer for the Peace Economy Project
