Faced with the “war crimes” of which Russia is accused, there is only one solution according to the Ukrainian president: to exclude this country from the UN Security Council. Shocking images of victims in support, Volodymyr Zelensky defended his point of view, Tuesday, April 5, before this body of which Russia is one of the five permanent members. But this request has very little chance of succeeding because it would require the agreement of Vladimir Putin himself. However, this status and the right of veto it confers are a particularly valuable weapon for the head of the Kremlin in the context of the war in Ukraine.
>>War in Ukraine: follow the latest information in our live
To prevent a condemnation from the UN
Russia has been a permanent member of the UN Security Council since its creation in 1945, along with France, the United States, the United Kingdom and China. A seat that allows him to veto resolutions and decisions, regardless of the majority opinion within the Council. Moscow does not hesitate and even holds the record for the number of vetoes (29 since the fall of the Soviet Union).
On February 25, the day after the outbreak of war in Ukraine, she thus prevented the adoption of a resolution deploring the “aggression” against the country led by Volodymyr Zelensky. The text, presented by the United States and Albania, called for the immediate withdrawal of Russian troops. Despite 11 votes “for” (and three abstentions), the Russian “no” prevented any form of UN condemnation of the Russian invasion.
To oppose the dispatch of blue helmets
This possibility of blocking also allows Russia to oppose a potential military intervention by the United Nations. As part of its peacekeeping mission, the UN can indeed deploy blue helmets to ensure compliance with a ceasefire, as was the case in 1992 in Bosnia. These civilians, soldiers or police are supposed to act for the “disarmament of ex-combatants, defense of fundamental rights, promotion of the rule of law, support for free and fair elections”, as stated by the United Nations on its website.
But for that such a force be deployed in Ukraine after the end of the fighting, the agreement of the Security Council is again required. And the Russian veto is hardly in doubt, explains on franceinfo Bertrand Badie, professor emeritus at Sciences-Po and specialist in international relations: “Russia is reluctant to be placed under the surveillance of an authority which it considers to be one of the pillars.”
To counter certain legal proceedings
With its right of veto, Russia can also oppose referral by the UN Security Council to the International Criminal Court. It would thus prevent the launch of an investigation into possible war crimes in Ukraine. However, this does not protect it from any legal proceedings because the ICC can also be seized by a Member State of the Treaty of Rome. [texte fondateur de la Cour] or by the prosecutor.
Thus Karim Khan, the Prosecutor General of the ICC, announced on Wednesday March 2, the opening of an investigation into the Ukrainian situation considering that there is a “reasonable basis” of evidence. But the procedure promises to be long and full of pitfalls. In particular because for a Russian official to be brought before the ICC, he must be arrested on the territory of a signatory member of the Treaty of Rome, which is no longer the case for Russia since 2016.
To send a message to his public opinion
Beyond this power of political, military and judicial obstruction, being a permanent member of the UN Security Council is also a matter of prestige for Vladimir Putin, believes Carole Grimaud Potter, professor of geopolitics at the Russia at the University of Montpellier. By continuing to attend Board meetings, and in particular the one where Volodymyr Zelensky spoke by videoconference, “Russia wants to show that it is ‘right in its boots’, says the researcher.
It is also a way of showing Russian public opinion that Russia still counts in these bodies despite what is happening in Ukraine, despite the crimes in Boutcha, continues Carole Grimaud Potter. She must be clear with the message she gives to her public opinion, that it is a just war. The Russian public wouldn’t have understood if Russia hadn’t participated and might have taken this as ultimately a stampede.”