Volodymyr Zelensky did not mince his words on Tuesday, April 5, for his first speech before the UN Security Council since the start of the invasion of his country by Russia.
The Ukrainian president, dressed in his now characteristic military uniform, emphasized the inability of the main world body to fulfill its mission of maintaining international peace and security.
"You can rule out Russia as an aggressor and as a cause of war so that it doesn't block decisions about its own aggression," the TV actor-turned-war president said.
"Or, if there is no alternative, the next option would be to disband you outright."
Volodymyr Zelensky made the speech a day after his high-profile visit to Buchha, where he accuses Russian troops of committing 'war crimes' and 'genocide' while occupying the town northwest of kyiv .
Before the 15 member states of the executive body of the UN, he called for the exclusion of Russia from the Security Council and for a reform of the United Nations system, so that "the veto does not mean the right to die" .
Before warning: "If this continues, countries will only be able to rely on the power of their own forces to ensure their security, and no longer on international law, on international institutions," and "the United Nations will not would just have to close."
Once again, the war in Ukraine has exposed the imperfections of the world's main security body, in which five permanent members - China, the United States, France, the United Kingdom and Russia - have the power to block the vote on resolutions.
The debates and proposals for reform of this supposed "failed system" of the United Nations have been legion since its origin, after the Second World War.
Expand the circle of permanent members
The right of veto - which is at the origin of a large part of the current difficulties of the Security Council - was put in place at the San Francisco conference in 1945, which was to lay the foundations of the United Nations by creating a successor to the League of Nations (LON), which proved powerless to prevent World War II.
In discussions with Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, then US President Franklin D. Roosevelt argued that the right of veto should be limited to a limited number of countries with the manpower necessary for military expeditions.
According to Roosevelt, the consensus – easier to find with a restricted group of countries – should allow the new Security Council to overcome the problems experienced by the League of Nations.
"But two years after the creation of the UN, the Cold War began - it was the end of the consensus that Roosevelt was trying to establish with Stalin at that time", explains on France 24 Yves Doutriaux, former French deputy ambassador to France. the UN.
The end of the Cold War has not, however, made it possible to overcome the blockages.
Since 2010, Russia, often associated with China, has used its veto 23 times, mainly in the Syrian conflict.
In comparison over the same period, the United States has only used it four times, mainly on the "Palestinian question".
The United Kingdom and France have not used their right of veto since 1989.
Besides the question of veto power, emerging powers such as India, Brazil and South Africa argue that limiting the Security Council to five permanent members does not reflect the changing balance of power in the world.
Nor does the current limitation represent the world's population: as former US Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power argued in 2009, the five permanent members initially represented
40% of the world's population, compared to 29% now.
Among the proposals for reform, we find calls for the expansion of the Council to include the most populous nations of the world (India, Brazil or even Indonesia) or for the inclusion of one or more African nations ( Nigeria, Ethiopia and Egypt).
Difficulty of a "global alliance" that "secures the free world"
However, the war in Ukraine has shown that many of the Security Council aspirants have not joined a "global alliance that unites democracies" and "secures the free world", as Michael Beckley and Hal Brands explain in a article for the American magazine Foreign Affairs.
Many of them did not join in condemning Russia's aggression and Ukraine's violation of sovereignty.
Nor did they respond to calls by the US and the EU to sanction Moscow.
Some 35 countries, including India and South Africa, abstained on March 3 in the United Nations General Assembly vote condemning the invasion of Ukraine.
While the resolution was passed by an overwhelming majority (141 votes out of 193 member countries), 16 African countries with close ties to Russia abstained.
Dependence on cheap Russian military equipment and sympathy for Moscow during the anti-colonial and anti-apartheid struggles explain, to some extent, most of these abstentions.
Russia has also taken advantage of anti-Western sentiment in several countries in Africa, South Asia and Latin America, targeting countries like India, Pakistan, Mali and the Central African Republic with disinformation campaigns. .
No consensus, no reform
India's position, for example, is ambiguous regarding the invasion of Ukraine.
New Delhi has repeatedly refrained from condemning her, but her unease with Russia's actions is evident in her strong statements at the UN calling for "respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states" - without however name Moscow.
>> To read also: War in Ukraine: India trapped by its proximity to Russia
For India as for other countries, this balancing act rests not only on dependence on Russian weapons, but also on a diplomatic debt for Moscow's past support to the Security Council on issues related to New Delhi's regional and foreign policy interests.
In the UN diplomatic tradition, member countries of the General Assembly generally associate themselves with one of the permanent members of the Security Council.
The latter will veto any resolution directed against them in exchange for diplomatic, economic or security advantages.
Although most permanent members officially declare themselves in favor of an enlargement, the movement is blocked behind the scenes by the current holders of the right of veto as well as by the geopolitical rivals of the countries which have been proposed for a permanent seat.
"The Security Council is blocked on purpose, because the United Nations was built like this," notes Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch (HRW).
"Security Council reform has been on the agenda for a long time, but it can't go anywhere unless the five permanent members agree. But there is no consensus on this. ."
UN bodies active despite 'stalled' Security Council
However, the head of HRW warns against excessive criticism that would make the UN system a failed system.
"The Security Council may be at an impasse, but the other organs of the United Nations are acting within the limits of their possibilities", explains Kenneth Roth.
He cites as examples the General Assembly's vote condemning the invasion of Ukraine, as well as the activities of bodies such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the UN Human Rights Council ( CDH).
As a sign of its activity, the United Nations General Assembly voted on Thursday, April 7, to suspend Russia from the HRC because of "flagrant and systematic violations and abuses of human rights" in Ukraine.
Some 93 votes declared themselves in favor of this suspension, 24 countries voted against and 58 abstained – including India.
New Delhi, however, hardened its stance and earlier this week explicitly condemned "reports of civilian killings in Boutcha" and backed calls for an independent investigation - also demanded by Ukraine.
Moscow had warned, for its part, some members of the UN General Assembly that abstentions or positive votes on the resolution would be considered an "unfriendly gesture" with consequences for bilateral relations.
After the vote, the Kremlin spokesman warned that Russia will continue to "defend its interests by all legal means".
Russia may have control over the Security Council with its veto power, but the actions of most UN member states, as well as individual governments, ensure that while not all members are equal in the UN system, they respect the principles of equality and justice.
Article translated from English by Jean-Luc Mounier. The original can be read here.
The summary of the
France 24 week invites you to come back to the news that marked the week
I subscribe
Take international news everywhere with you!
Download the France 24 app
google-play-badge_EN