How Ukraine can score another goal at the UN

Diplomats are debating in New York how the UN should commemorate the one-year anniversary of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine – and of the Ukrainian resistance – at the end of February. This is partly a matter of diplomatic ritual – both the Security Council and the General Assembly will hold sessions to mark the date – but it also points to deeper questions about exactly what kind of measures UN member states are willing to support. while the war lasts.

Ukrainian officials have proposed submitting resolutions to the General Assembly that would break new ground by setting conditions for ending the war and holding Russian authorities accountable for the aggression. But some of kyiv’s allies point out that many UN members – mostly from the Global South, but also from the West – would not back such moves. For a variety of reasons, the United States and the major European powers may prefer Ukraine to take a less contentious approach that also wins as much support as possible in New York.

The General Assembly has been a highly visible barometer of international opinion on the war. It was not by chance that she found herself destined for this role. In January 2022, a Western diplomat told Crisis Group that the Ukrainian authorities were ready to wage a “Palestinian” campaign at the UN in case Russian tanks crossed the border. By this term he meant that kyiv, though at a military disadvantage, would use UN voting to isolate Moscow in the same way that Palestinian diplomats and their allies turn to the UN each year to win majorities condemning Israel.

“In January 2022, a Western diplomat noted that the Ukrainian authorities were willing to wage a ‘Palestinian’ campaign at the UN in case Russian tanks crossed the border”

In the end, Ukraine has proven to be much stronger militarily than this prediction suggested, but kyiv and its friends have made good use of the UN as a platform to lash out at Moscow. In March, ten days after the Russian invasion, 141 of the 193 members of the General Assembly – including majorities from all its regional groups – voted to condemn the crime of aggression. Six months later, despite warnings of “Ukraine fatigue” spreading among UN members, an even larger number made it clear that they remained sympathetic to Ukraine regarding its right to sovereignty and its territorial integrity. After Russian President Vladimir Putin sought to annex four regions of Ukraine, 143 members backed a resolution in October rejecting the move as illegal.

UN members condemning illegal Russian annexation attempts in Ukraine. Green, in favor; red, against; orange, abstention; grey, don’t vote.

These figures must be understood in their context. Many of the countries that voted in support of Ukraine as a matter of principle – such as Brazil, Indonesia or the Arab states – refused to join international sanctions against Russia. Furthermore, quite a few countries that joined the overwhelming majorities of March and October in the General Assembly refused to vote in favor of resolutions applying more concrete sanctions against Moscow. In April, just 93 UN members backed a resolution suspending Russia from the UN Human Rights Council – the press, at the time, suggested that Russia’s mission to the UN had warned that Moscow would find ways to penalize those who supported the initiative, led by the US. A November text endorsing the idea of ​​a damage registry to track Russian destruction in Ukraine as a basis for future reparations got 94 votes. Western diplomats may not have pushed as hard for this text as they did for the annexation resolution, assuming it would pass with a smaller vote and yet serve a useful purpose. But some countries that abstained, such as Indonesia and Brazil, suggested that talk of reparations could inhibit future diplomacy with Russia.

Attachments and damage. How countries voted on the 2 resolutions on Ukraine. Purple, in favor of 2; blue, in favor of the resolution on annexations; red, in favor of the resolution on damages; lilac, in favor of none.

Looking ahead to February, kyiv could assume that a resolution based on the March and October texts would garner similar levels of support, but it could also try to go further. In recent weeks, Ukraine has aspired to push through resolutions that pose stronger challenges to Russia. Ukrainian diplomats have suggested that the General Assembly could take the opportunity of the anniversary to endorse the ten-point “peace formula” that President Volodymyr Zelensky launched in November. This not only highlights the need to reaffirm the country’s territorial integrity, but also includes the idea of ​​a special court that could try Russian leaders for the crime of aggression, possibly including Putin. Ukraine’s second proposal is a resolution that focuses on the need to hold Russia accountable for its actions during the war, again raising the possibility of an aggression tribunal. Ukrainian experts believe that establishing Moscow’s status as an aggressor could help kyiv justify its efforts to reclaim frozen Russian funds in the US and Europe, although this idea is questionable.

Some European officials – including the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen – have encouraged the idea of ​​an aggression tribunal. But, at least at the UN, many of Ukraine’s partners worry that these proposals could complicate future engagement with Russia and alienate potential supporters in New York. Given that an international tribunal would inevitably focus on putting Russia’s top leadership on trial, it could be seen as an existential risk to Putin and his circle, perhaps prompting him to react with an escalation in the war. This possibility worries some members of the UN, including some of Ukraine’s most important friends. Latin American officials point out that Ukraine has not yet signed the Rome Statute, the basis for full membership of the International Criminal Court, which they suggest complicates its claims for international justice. Some of Ukraine’s partners worry the country could take a hit to its image if it introduces one or both of the resolutions and gets significantly fewer votes than the now symbolic 140. Above all, because the media would focus on that number and not on the content of the resolutions.

Similar doubts hover over another idea proposed by Ukraine: that of organizing a “peace summit” at the UN around the anniversary of the Russian offensive on February 24, in which Zelensky himself could participate, but with almost total security would exclude Russia. It is unclear whether non-Western leaders would attend such an event, and some may act against Ukrainian designs by proposing alternative peace plans (such as an immediate ceasefire), which kyiv believes favor Moscow. . It is also possible that Zelensky faced criticism from the media for visiting New York, for uncertain profit, rather than staying home to commemorate such an important anniversary.

“Ukraine would be better off aiming for what is easily achievable than trying to get resolutions that break new ground”

For all these reasons, many of Ukraine’s friends – including the US and major European allies – would probably prefer kyiv to accommodate its ambitions, even aiming for a single resolution in February. Ukraine is more likely to win support for its initiatives at the UN if it presents them one by one, rather than promoting several ideas simultaneously. It would also be useful if Ukraine’s international partners could agree on a common approach to the issue of accountability. Ukraine reportedly recently indicated that it would be willing to postpone the resolution on accountability until March or later, in order to secure more support. At the same time, European diplomats who are more sympathetic to kyiv’s approach counter that Ukraine should at least be able to test the potential level of support for its resolutions.

Ukraine may be better off aiming for what is easily achievable than investing a lot of political capital in trying to get resolutions that break new ground. General Assembly documents rarely shape conflicts – as generations of Palestinian diplomats can tell their Ukrainian counterparts – but they can boost morale and send an important signal about member states’ commitment to enshrined values ​​and principles. in the UN Charter. kyiv should set itself that goal. Going into February, it could score a limited but clear victory by introducing a simple resolution reaffirming the central tenet of its struggle over the past year, a right that the General Assembly has already recognized: its right to exit this war as a sovereign state by command of his territory. This is still the crux of the matter.

Article originally published in English hereon the website of Crisis Group.