​The UN is a symbol of encouraging the aggressor

Apparently, the UN should suffer the same fate as the League of Nations - the first international interstate organization, which was also created with the aim of developing cooperation, achieving peace and security between peoples. As Wikipedia points out, the disbandment was caused by "a complex decision-making system, the lack of a mechanism for their implementation, the declarativeness and inconsistency of individual League of Nations documents led to its powerlessness against aggressors like Germany and the USSR and eventually led to a final collapse from the beginning of the Second World War of 1939-1945."

It would seem that its successor, the UN taking into account all the shortcomings of the first structure, should already be more effective. Perhaps it was so, the UN performed its function until the Russian Federation attacked...one of the founding members of the UN, which receives neither protection nor real mechanisms for stopping aggression from this structure.

Isn't it surprising that a structure designed to stop conflicts somehow only shows concern about one of its founders? Since 2014 when the Russian Federation without hiding from the world, attacked Ukrainian territories and seized Crimea. The UN has only expressed condemnation, concern, deep concern or disappointment. However, further statements of assistance from the UN are a draw. It turned out that Russia, which considers itself the successor of the USSR, does not have any documentary evidence of the UN decision on this matter.

Nevertheless, the current UN Secretary-General António Guterres is not concerned about Russia's aggression against one of the founding members of the UN. However, António Guterres is very concerned about another and in particular the finances, as well as, Ukrainians have already seen and felt the property of transnational corporations and Russia itself.

All this was clearly manifested through the "grain agreement" organized for the export of grain from Ukraine at a time when Russia is shelling Ukrainian cities with missiles. Regarding the shelling, destruction of cities, the murder of Ukrainian children, the issue of prisoners who on the orders of President Vladimir Zelenskyy, came out of Azovstal captive under the guise of evacuation, here António Guterres expresses deep concern. But when the issue arose with the export of grain of transnational corporations and Russia, the UN Secretary-General showed remarkable dexterity for ingenuity, persuading the Ukrainian authorities to the conditions of Russia regarding the export of grain from Ukraine.

And what do we have now?

Immediately after the signing of the agreement, missile strikes took place on Odessa. Instead of mentioning and applying the UN charter, António Guterres said "We condemn unconditionally" when referring to the missile strikes but Russia won from this agreement as sanctions were lifted from Russia. Now, regardless of whether Russia is shelling our ports, giving us the opportunity to take out our grain it can now safely export its grain and sell it, in addition to mineral fertilizers as well by the way. It can also safely export and sell, buy spare parts for her fleet — sanctions have been lifted.

So how long is Mr. Guterres going to condemn Russia unconditionally when he as a UN Secretary-General, has mechanisms to influence the aggressor's country but instead of demanding that Russia stop its aggression and comply with the UN Charter, it is met, while the Ukrainians from this agreement have only lost?

At the Eastern Economic Forum, Putin said that African countries are suffering from hunger and Ukraine is not fulfilling its agreements but has taken 87 ships, not to African countries, but to Western countries and that in this case it is necessary to stop grain trade in Ukraine. At the same time, he did not announce how much Russia had exported their grain and fertilizers to which countries and did not mention that sanctions had been lifted thanks to the grain deal with Russia. Facts are the number of Russian ships in accordance with the grain agreement exceeds the Ukrainian ones.In addition, Putin did not mention that Middle East countries, like Lebanon, refused to buy grain from Ukraine for allegedly disrupted delivery times, due to the fact that Russia promised to sell stolen Ukrainian grain to Lebanon. Since the relatives of the defenders began to appeal in writing two weeks ago to the ambassadors of the G7 countries with a request to adjust the grain agreement and suspend the export of both Russian and Ukrainian grain until the release of all defenders of Mariupol, Russia's response to the civil initiative of the native defenders of Mariupol was such a speech by Putin. To keep Ukrainian prisoners of war captive, Putin forgot about "hungry Africans" and the importance of shipping grain by Russia and, accordingly, western sanctions. As it turned out, Russia is a country not only who is an aggressor, but also a country that spreads unprecedented disinformation and lies.The country is an ogre, whose leader manipulates not only the consciousness of its citizens but also tries to manipulate the consciousness of world society.

Today's decisions taken by the UN Security Council contradict and is conflicting with International law and the UN Charter itself. Public International law, is a law in the process of formation particularly the role of International Organizations is to manage an organization such as the United Nations. The doctrine can be considered that no country should be allowed to veto issues relating to itself and the conflict in which it participates, since this is contrary to the purpose of the UN's contribution to international law.

Russia should not pretend that International affairs are its internal affairs, that war (without announcement) is only a "special operation", or that shuffling territories between the states of the former USSR are events that should not relate to international law.

As for the Russian succession of the USSR, topical issues make it problematic that Russia behaves largely "if" it also inherited the empire of the USSR over other states that were previously part of the USSR, but gained full independence after its collapse.

Therefore, the international community should not be allowed to use its status as a permanent member of the UN Security Council to block condemnation of such flagrant violations of international law as the UN Charter itself, as well as blocking the adoption of resolutions in the UN General Assembly. Russia has recognized Ukraine an independent state and the two countries have exchanged ambassadors, so Russia should not be allowed to turn back time and gradually turn back into the USSR, which it was led by Putin.

Such issues are a threat to international law, rather than the technical details of deviating from strict adherence to the UNSC veto principles, given the specific context. But even the UN charter itself and the documents set forth on the UN website on the right of veto state that Security Council decisions on all other issues are considered adopted when the votes of nine members of the Council are cast for them, including the corresponding votes of all permanent members of the Council, and the party involved in the dispute must abstain from voting when making a decision on the basis of Chapter VI and on the basis of Article 52, paragraph 3.

Therefore, accordingly Russia cannot have a say in resolving issues if the conflicts/disputes relate directly to Russia itself involved in the conflict/dispute. It is not clear how the UN Security Council turned a blind eye to this when making decisions in the UN Security Council regarding Ukraine, if the party to the conflict in Ukraine is a permanent member of the UN Security Council? Thus, Russia's veto in the UN Security Council when considering the issue of Ukraine contradicted both the UN Charter and logical common sense.

Of course, the citizens of Ukraine are surprised and shocked that this agreement is in the “interests” of everyone except the Ukrainian people. Nevertheless, today the relatives of the defenders of Mariupol demand that the international community stop the export of grain by both Ukraine and Russia until the defenders of Mariupol are returned from captivity, where their livelihood and wellbeing are a real threat. After a blatant terrorist act by Russia against prisoners of war, which took place on 07/29/22 in Olenivka, the only lever of influence on the aggressor is the cessation of grain exports by Russia and Ukraine. Because this grain agreement has become a trade in blood for the UN and the world community.After all, if the Ukrainian authorities cannot resolve the issue of the release of prisoners and the UN Secretary-General is more concerned with the export of grain than with the lives of people, as well as how best to help the aggressor, then the question arises: what does the UN in the person of its Secretary-General António Guterres really care about now? Russia openly mocks international law, the Geneva Conventions, using torture and direct killing of prisoners, and the UN, meanwhile, deals with the issue of trade.

Unfortunately, the current UN leadership, represented by UN Secretary-General António Guterres, uses double standards and does not apply the mechanisms laid down in the UN Charter against the aggressor, who does not hide that he is going to destroy Ukraine and Ukrainians as a nation. The UN Secretary-General has never stressed that Russia violates the UN Charter and in particular: paragraph 4 of Article 2 of the Charter: "All Members of the United Nations shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force both against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, and in any other manner incompatible with the Purposes of the United Nations, which gives the right of the Security Council to apply Art. 6 of the Charter: "A member who systematically violates the principles contained in this Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly on the recommendation of the Security Council."

But UN Secretary-General António Guterres behaves as a representative of Russia, not as secretary-general of a respected organization. What Russia is currently doing with one of the countries that is a permanent member of the Security Council and which is a founding member of the UN allows, according to the UN charter, to apply not only Art. 6 of this charter, but also articles from 39 to 47 articles of the Charter I, according to these articles, especially if an armed attack on a Member has taken place, he has the right to use armed forces, which are constituted by the Security Council with the help of the Military Staff Committee.

However, the UN Secretary General's reaction is reduced to excitement and flirting with the Russian aggressor and fulfilling Russia's demands, violating the UN Charter, although UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres knows that Ukraine is not only a member of the UN, but also a founding member of the UN. Thus, the UN Secretary-General must return to the implementation of the UN Charter and still convene the Security Council to ensure the restoration of the goals set out in the UN Charter, while at the same time "creating the conditions under which justice and the obligations" arising from the treaties can be respected and other sources of international law", as stated in the UN Charter.

In general, if we look at the situation from the outside, it turns out that the money (contributions, and possibly fees) of Russia is more important than the UN charter? This is the question that is being asked today by the mothers and women of the defenders of Mariupol, because they do not see real actions from the UN, but they have not been interested in concerns for a long time, because concerns Ukrainians are sent to the Moscow ship.

However, there is a question for representatives of the Ukrainian authorities, who clearly do not behave like Boris Johnson. The indecision of the representatives of the negotiating groups, the weak diplomatic team does not give hope to the Ukrainian mothers, sisters and women of captured Ukrainian soldiers, so they demand from the UN actions, the purpose of which was still not to protect the interests of transnational corporations, but to maintain and strengthen peace and international security, to develop cooperation between the states of the world.

However, instead of observing peace and the UN charter, it protects the interests not of the victim of the attack, but of third parties. And what is this like, not global corruption? It is not surprising that transnational corporations support and encourage corruption in other countries and in particular, in Ukraine, where the fight against corrupt officials has remained in words. Ukrainian people do not agree with this, we demand that the same UN stop adhering to double standards and remember that this structure was created precisely to protect the founding members.

On the eve of the UN General Assembly meeting, Ukrainian society, namely the relatives of prisoners of war, believe that the demand to stop the export of grain is a pressure of society to develop a UN resolution that, as a result of the Russian terrorist attack in Olenivka, would require Russia to immediately release the prisoners of war defending Mariupol and adopt a resolution that would strengthen the requirements for the use of the veto of a permanent member of the UN Security Council.These resolutions would help move the issue of Russia's aggression against Ukraine and human rights violations and the Geneva Convention on combatants off the ground.

If the UN General Assembly does not resolve these issues that are now facing the world community, then we can confidently say that the United Nations has ordered a long life, like the League of Nations and the world community faces the question of creating a new format of an international organization that will not only comply with international law, but also protect it.

Oksana KOTOMKINA, "Conflicts and Laws"

Photo from open sources