Images - Russia and the UN
The video and documents proving Russia is not in the UN, and it's representatives can be expelled by a simple majority resolution of the UN General Assembly, within a week. No veto, no "reform".
The video and documents proving Russia is not in the UN, and it's representatives can be expelled by a simple majority (of members present and voting, abstentions aren’t counted) resolution of the UN General Assembly, within a week. No veto, no "reform".
PREFACE- HERE IS MY TWITTER-X THREAD OVERVIEW THAT HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY BLOCKED BY X (thread has been hidden and likes and replies are prevented)
The documents referred to in (and supplementing) this video:
(Play the video above at 1.75x speed; discussion starts at 5m15s (cued); click images below to view full size)
[00:00:20]: Overview of UN Security Council [00:02:14]: Introduction [00:04:07]: Lie #1: "Russia is in the UN" [00:09:05]: UN Membership [00:15:03]: USSR vs Russia [00:30:00]: Lie #2: "We can't get it out" [00:35:26]: Precedent: China [00:38:44]: 2014 coups in Ukraine [00:42:47]: The resolution text [00:50:39]: Precedent: Yugoslavia [00:56:42]: Lie #3: "The UN can't use force anyway" [00:59:00]: The cover-up [01:22:04]: YouTube Comment Censorship Analysis
Contents:
And what procedure was followed to “admit” Russia to UN membership? Oh, a letter!
Boris Yeltsin letter dated 24 December 1991 to the UN Secretary General, and UN explanatory note
NO USSR PERMISSION, let alone support, for Russia’s claim to its UN “memberships"
From the horse’s mouth: how the fraud was done in the UN, and by whom.
(Next: So, what happened to the USSR’s UN (and other) memberships?)
Preamble: Articles always contain the same disinformation - no one will say the emperor has no clothes
cf (example): Fraud of the United Nations: how to throw Russia out of a place in the UN Security Council that does not belong to it | European truth (27 July 2022) - This illustrates the legal flaw I have found in every similar article on this subject, which I have pointed out in the video: there is no need to remove a state as a member if it isn’t a member. The trespasser “representatives” can be expelled easily, the requirements for expelling or suspending member States don’t apply.
Was Russia ever the USSR?
Well, the name says it all. “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics”. USSR was never Russia. It was a union of multiple states. But let’s double check the documentation.
Russia/USSR documents
1919-12-22 Declaration_and_Treaty_on_the_Creation_of_the_USSR, Treaty on the Creation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics - Wikipedia - The USSR was not Russia. It was formed by a Treaty between 4 sovereign states - Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Transcaucasia Republic (now Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia).
The USSR Constitutions throughout confirmed that each of the member states, which includes Russia, continued to be separate entities from it, and could leave the Union at any time. (The fact that Moscow-based USSR militia prevented that happening, and that the other states were exploited by the Moscow-based USSR administration, did not alter the legal reality.) Russia was not only not the USSR, but it had no legal precedence to any other state member in the USSR. All were equal.
UN foundation memberships - international confirmation of separate statehood
Neither Russia, Ukraine or the other 13 members of the USSR “became” the USSR when they joined. Although the USSR conducted foreign policy on their behalf by agreement, they maintained their status as separate states internationally. That is corroborated by the fact that Ukraine and Belarus Soviet Socialist Republics became members of the United Nations at the same time that the USSR did, while they were members of the USSR. Russia (RSFSR as it was then known) and the 12 other SSRs did not become members of the UN. Not being a member of the UN did not “turn” Russia into the USSR.
Russia leaves the USSR - before the USSR ceased to exist.
Russia wasn’t even a member of the state whose membership it was claiming. Russia left the USSR 8 December 1991 (Belavezha Accord - English translation submitted to UN 12 December 1991), Ratified by Russia 12 December 1991
The 8 remaining USSR members declare the USSR ceased to exist, 13 days after Russia has left.
Alma Ata Declaration 21 December 1991 (English translation tabled in the UN)
(Scans of original below)
whereby the 8 remaining member states declared the USSR ceased to exist.
Note the guarantee by all 11 states of the international Treaty obligations of the former USSR: totally inconsistent with any claim that Russia “inherited” anything.
(Note in passing the agreement for joint control of nuclear weapons - how the control of the peaceful democratic states of Ukraine and Belarus was removed and placed with Russia is a subject for further investigation; partially covered in “When the West Defanged Ukraine: The Budapest Memorandum, a geopolitical cautionary tale for the ages.” - George Bogden 01 Aug 2022,.)
OK, so Russia never “was” the USSR … so what was the basis for Russia’s claim to take over the UN membership of a completely separate state??? Oh, a “decision”!
The same day, 11 of the USSR’s 15 former members sign a Declaration that they “support” Russia “continuing” the USSR’s UN membership. (NOT Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, or Georgia.)
And what procedure was followed to “admit” Russia to UN membership? Oh, a letter!
Yes, a letter. From the president of a country which had never been a member of the UN, and was not even a member of the USSR at the time, delivered by a traitor USSR UN representative, without any authorisation from the USSR.
Boris Yeltsin letter dated 24 December 1991 to the UN Secretary General, and UN explanatory note
The letter was not even accepted as a UN document. It was never circulated. It was probably never even seen by most members of the Security Council.
The only publicly available copy of it or even mention of it in the entire public UN records apart from about 3 deeply hidden and camouflaged references years after 1991, is in an explanatory note issued by the UN library, undated but first captured by archive.org on 1 November 2022, suggesting it could have been a response to a Ukraine MFA inquiry earlier that year.
What is the ACC, and why did the Secretary-General telegraph it that he had “brought” the Continuation Letters “to the attention of the Presidents of the Security Council and the General Assembly” and “steps are being taken to circulate these texts to all Member States”?
NO USSR PERMISSION, let alone support, for Russia’s claim to its UN “memberships":
Even if it could have, it seems the USSR did not agree to (it couldn’t) or “support” Russia occupying it’s UN memberships. (It would be very surprising if Russia had not heavily pressured the USSR to give consent or support, given that Russia had obviously persuaded the 11 ex states to give their support.)
USSR Soviet of the Republics Declaration 142-N 26 December 1991 - Deafening silence on Yeltsin’s claim of it’s UN membership 2 days earlier.
Gorbachev resignation speech as President of the USSR 25 December 1991 - Deafening silence on Yeltsin’s claim of USSR UN membership the previous day.
From the horse’s mouth: how the fraud was done in the UN, and by whom.
(Trump’s lawyers would be proud of this!)
Video in web page: the UN Radio archive: Ambassador Vorontsov on how Russia became the “continuator of the USSR” (It’s only in Russian, no English page.) Best web page translator addon - TWP!
https://web.archive.org/web/20200827092957/https://news.un.org/ru/audio/2015/10/1030441
I have added subtitles by AI. You can do this yourself, using happyscribe or another captioning service.
Transcript of the AI subtitles is at How Russia got "into" the United Nations: Vorontsov, Security Council President and USSR/RF Representative at the time - Knowledge is Power
Put that together with Vorontsov’s press release to the NYT on the same day, and it is clear that no effort whatsoever was made to get consent from the membership of the UN:
Example of normal notice given to UN members, General Assembly consideration, and record of lack of opposition, where no resolution on membership was required
This what Vorontsov and the corrupt Secretary-General didn’t do1, confirming their bad faith, and knowledge that what they were doing was not only invalid under the Charter, but would not be agreed:
Syria resuming it’s own founding membership after briefly federating with Egypt into the United Arab Republic, summarised in The Succession of States in relation to Membership in the United Nations -
Memorandum prepared by the Secretariat - 1962 (A/CN.4/149 and Add.1) at page 105:
The context: Who was influencing Russia:
“In Russia, every president wears Stalin’s overcoat” 20 years after the constitutional crisis of 1993, ex-chairman of the Supreme Council Ruslan Khasbulatov recalls the shooting of the White House September 29, 2013 (click to enlarge), provides a clue to who would want to give an unstable regime with an unbroken history of imperialist aggression, violation of human rights and non-compliance with the UN Charter, control of the UN when it wasn’t a member:
(A wee history aside for anyone in doubt about the background of the Washington Consensus: How the Corporate Takeover of American Politics Began | Robert Reich revisits the origin in 1971 of organised corporate control of elected governments. They got a new puppet in 1991 - Yeltsin. The whole of Russia de-regulated and opened up to them. The destruction of Parliamentary control in 1993 and return of power to a “king” and oligarchs. The reverse of the UK parliament/royalty history - at least of the published history of it.)
Complicity of the US, UK and France
According to this report in the New York Times the day before, the US, UK and France were complicit in the sleight of hand, for their own vested interests.
It is not the place of UK, France and US to make the UN’s decisions on these matters.
They do not have jurisdiction to do so.
It is time for them to acknowledge that, and that their former administrations’ fraudulent manipulations created a violation of the UN Charter and a frankenstein which must now be undone.
(The most ridiculous aspect of their statements is that they appear to have been conned into believing a complete fallacy - that if the “seat” wasn’t “given” to Russia, their own status would be jeopardised. Of course nothing could be further from the truth.
This is a disinformation technique the Kremlin uses to this day, threatening the UK that (if Russia wasn’t “given” the USSR’s “seat”), then if Scotland were to secede, the UK would lose it’s permanent membership - where in fact it would simply be a change of borders and would have no such result. As when India retained it’s membership when Pakistan seceded.)
It implies that China did NOT agree, along with many other states mentioned in the above NY Times report. It could be surmised that China would have vetoed any attempt to appoint Russia as a permanent member if it had been put to a vote, and almost certain that such appointment of an unstable state with a horrific history of aggression, corruption and violation of human rights would not receive ratification by the necessary 2/3 of members of the General Assembly.
And President Bush’s endorsement - the next day, before any UN or formal discussion:
Christmas day. It is clear that Yeltsin was Bush’s new “buddy”:
See also:
Fraud of the United Nations: how to throw Russia out of a place in the UN Security Council that it does not belong to | European truth newspaper, (Ukrainian version of the article is far more detailed than their English page, and contains screenshots, but neither mention the obvious A/RES/2758 procedure below).
So… what does the law have to say about a non-member of the UN, “continuing” a membership of a completely different state which had ceased to exist, which it had not even been part of when it ceased to exist, without even any authority from the member state?
UN Charter provisions:
Let’s start with the purposes of the UN. It was set up originally with 50 members.
There was no expectation that all states should be members (as is argued currently). It was not available to warring states. It was an organisation of only peace-loving states which agreed to enforce the UN Charter and to be subject to it, and which were admitted by agreement.
Membership provisions: Since Russia did not “inherit” USSR’s memberships, how could it possibly be a UN member?
Articles 3 and 4 of the UN Charter provide the only way states can become members of the UN.
Russia was not a foundation member under Article 3. It was not a signatory to the original Charter. And, as we have seen, it is not the USSR.
And, we recall, Russian Federation has never applied for membership under Article 4:
So, it is not a member of the United Nations.
Well, is Russia a Permanent Member of the Security Council?
The permanent members are named in Article 23(1) of the UN Charter. Russia is not in the list. It is not the USSR.
So, it is not a Permanent Member of the Security Council.
Russia does not have a “seat”, let alone vote, let alone a veto.
As a non-member, it is not allowed to attend or be heard in any proceedings of the UN or the Security Council, without special permission.
So, if Russia is not allowed to attend or be heard in the UN or the Security Council, how can it be removed?
Well, “call security”. Take away it’s offices, seat and microphone.
The problem with that is, the Secretary-General, who has control of the administration, is continuing to lie that Russia is a member of the UN and a permanent member of the Security Council. He hasn’t “called security”.
The UN Secretariat needs to be directed to do so.
This exact situation of a regime unlawfully claiming UN memberships occurred in 1950-1971 in the case of China, also involving a permanent membership. In that case there was a dispute rather than a lie: an ousted former government of China claimed to be still entitled to the memberships. It was dealt with by a resolution of the General Assembly declaring it wasn’t, and directing expulsion of the unlawful representatives (below).
What votes are required to make declarations and expel trespassers from non-members regimes?
The Secretary-General is also lying that expulsion of Russia would require “reform” of the United Nations, a 2/3 majority vote of the General Assembly and could be vetoed by Russia as a permanent member.
This is demonstrably untrue as a glance at the 1971 resolution will show. That was implemented by a 59% General Assembly vote. It did not involve the Security Council at all.
The voting requirements are set out in Article 18 of the UN Charter. Clause 18(2) requires a 2/3 majority vote for admission, suspension and expulsion of member states. However a declaration (or recognition of a fact) and expulsion of representatives of non members is not within any of those categories. There is no change being made to any membership.
It falls under “other questions”, which is covered in Article 18(3). Such decisions are made by a majority of members present and voting.
(Note: Abstentions are not counted - so if all except 10 states abstained, a majority of 6 votes would pass a resolution.)
Can declarations and expulsions of trespassers be vetoed?
No, as the UN Secretariat will be well aware.
Even if Russia was a permanent member (which it isn’t), the Security Council has no say in such matters.
The Security Council has delegated jurisdiction to make decisions specifically on maintenance of peace and security under Chapters 6-8 and 12 of the Charter only. It’s recommendation is required under articles 4-6 of the Charter for admission/suspension/expulsion of member states.
Nothing else.
Again, a declaration (or recognition of a fact) and expulsion of representatives is not within any of those categories. There is no change being made to any membership.
There is no power to veto expulsion of representatives.
(Note in passing the mandatory requirement for the Security Council to act in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter. Raising the question of validity of acts or failures to act contrary to those principles, such as vetos of resolutions to suppress aggression.)
By the way - “UN peacekeepers can’t use force” - fallacy - Article 42; obligations of members - Article 43.
“Reform” - Article 108 amendment of the UN Charter is required to admit Russia as a permanent member, not to expel it.
Now we come to the reason why Russia was not admitted to permanent membership in 1991, and did not even apply, but instead tried to trick the world.
For Russia, a different country to the USSR, to become a permanent member, Article 23 of the Charter which names the USSR, would have to be amended.
Article 108 requires amendments to be not only voted on, but ratified (states formal notification of agreement to be bound) by 2/3 of all members (not just of votes), including all permanent members, before they can take effect.
Obviously no state in it’s right mind would vote to give a veto over the UN to a regime with a horrific record of sovereignty and human rights abuses for its entire history, not to mention consistent abuses of the UN veto, and was in a state of acute instability, corruption and economic crisis.
UN rulings on memberships
This is what the UN can and needs to table and pass (based on decisions below)
Established UN rulings
Extinction of memberships; new states previously part of member states can not claim member status
A/C.1/212 Determination of 6th Committee on expiry and succession of UN memberships 8 October 1947,
Quoted in The Succession of States in relation to Membership in the United Nations -
Memorandum prepared by the Secretariat - 3 December 1962 (A/CN.4/149 and Add.1) at page 104
And we recall the “extinction of the [USSR] as a legal personality” was “recognised in the international order” by the declarations tabled and accepted in the United Nations in December 1991.
So, under the 1947 ruling, the USSR’s UN memberships “thereby … ceased to exist”.
Members of federal states cannot claim the membership of the federal states which have ceased to exist
The 6th Committee ruling further explicitly states that a “State” which “formed part of a State Member” “cannot claim the status of a Member … unless it has been formally admitted as [a member] in conformity with the provisions of the Charter”.
(That is, admitted in accordance with Articles 4 and 18(2) of the Charter, which require
a judgment of the UN that it is "able and willing to carry out the obligations in the ... Charter",
a Security Council recommendation, and
a 2/3 vote of the General Assembly.)
Which, as we know, has never been done.
The 1947 ruling was applied in A/RES/47/1 1992, holding that pre-existing states cannot continue memberships of federal states [even if they hadn’t left, and hadn’t declared the federal state had ceased to exist, as Russia had done], but must apply for membership and “shall not participate in the work of the General Assembly”.
The above resolution was based on SC/RES/777 1992 where the Security Council made a finding that the original federal state of Yugoslavia had ceased to exist (even when 2 of it’s members, Serbia and Montenegro, had not left; for background see Milestones: 1989–1992 - Office of the Historian), and recommended a decision by the General Assembly accordingly. (The SC cannot decide as it is not within it’s defined jurisdiction under Articles 4-6.)
Expulsion of representatives of regime not entitled to membership - precedent
In 1949 Chiang Kai Shek’s Republic of China (ROC) was ousted as the government of China by the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Despite no longer being the government, ROC continued exercising the UN Membership rights for China including it’s permanent membership of the Security Council and veto.
That is comparable to a former US President’s administration continuing to exercise the US’ UN membership rights, after a new President has been inaugurated.
Both ROC and Russian Federation were/are claiming Memberships they have no claim to. The only differences being that
China still exists and still has it’s UN memberships, where the USSR ceased to exist in 1991 along with it’s memberships. And
ROC at least had a claim that the PRC was “illegitimate”, where Russia’s claim has no basis whatsoever.
After over 20 years, by A/RES/2758 1971 the General Assembly made a declaration recognising that ROC was not entitled to exercise China’s memberships, and a decision to expel ROC’s representatives.
; after it had 20 years.
Recognising that the ROC regime itself was not the representative of any UN Member, was not a decision to admit, suspend or expel any member involving the Security Council under Articles 4-6.
Although ROC claimed to be a Permanent Member of the Security Council (exactly as Russian Federation is claiming), no permanent members were able to veto the resolution, because there was no requirement for any decision or recommendation by the Security Council under Articles 4-6 (as explained above).
The Security Council can only “veto” it’s own decisions, and it can only make decisions where it has been given jurisdiction. No one has any power of veto over General Assembly decisions.
(Note the far right column of the voting results in the table below - abstentions are not counted in calculating votes of members “present and voting”. Although the votes in favour were over 2/3 of the votes cast in that case, this was not necessary, as Article 18(2) did not apply.
“Consent”, delay and estoppel arguments
As can be seen from Resolution 2758, these arguments are specious Kremlin chicanery.
The Kremlin claims the members “consented”, but we have seen they did not. Even if they had, that cannot stop a resolution. ROC’s claim to Chin’s UN memberships WAS explicitly “consented” to by resolution A/RES/505 in 19522 (unlike Russia’s), and the majority of UN members recognized the ROC as the representative of China up until 1971. But “consent” could not override A/RES/2758 in 1971 declaring ROC representatives to be "unlawfully present".
Unlike Russia, ROC’s claim was not fraudulent sleight of hand. There is no estoppel available in the case of fraud.
The “consent” to ROC continued for 22 years. That did not stop A/RES/2758 being passed. Estoppel applies only to interpretation of Treaties. It cannot stop the UN’s power to pass resolutions.
For more detail see
Why hasn’t anyone done anything about this?????
Well, you can look at my substacks about YouTube deleting anything on the subject, and Twitter/X shadow-banning posts and replies on the subject, and repeatedly locking my account.
But: look at my deniably binned email to Zelensky and Kuleba.
And a post script: So why has no one tabled the resolution? And WHY HAVE THE US, UK AND NATO LEADERS DENIED UKRAINE ARMS FOR 10 YEARS?
Well, the starting point is, any country can table the resolution. It’s as simple as that.
Maybe no country wants Putin’s crosshairs on it right now.
Maybe only 4 countries know, and the others trusted their, and the UN Secretary Generals’, dissembling.
Maybe as many countries as fear Russian reprisal, fear reprisal from US, UK and France if they show them up as corrupt liars and accessories to Putin’s terror.
Because the US set up the problem in the first place. As Vorontsov has described, the US made up a lie that Bush’s neo-liberal sponsors’ new “mate” and protege, Russia, “was” the USSR; bullied and conned the world into believing their lie that Russia has a veto, and can stop the entire UN. Pretty hard to admit, as that makes the US responsible for all the atrocities and corruption that it’s continuing lie about the “veto” has enabled. It makes the US an accessory.
UK and France connived in the UN fraud. As above, pretty hard to admit.
(China, which could not do anything on it’s own, was the only permanent member to obliquely protest. It protested against the veto per se:
"Resolutions of the Security Council ought to reflect the common will of the international community; they should not serve the interests of just a few big Powers. We share the Secretary-General's view that this Organization's work requires the fullest consultation, participation and engagement of all States, big and small. We have consistently held that every country big or small, strong or weak, rich or poor has a right to participate on an equal footing in the discussions aimed at settling the major issues with which the United Nations is concerned. We oppose the notion that a few big, strong or rich countries should be able to monopolize or manipulate the affairs of the United Nations." Page 58, "Provisional verbatim record of the 37th meeting, held at Headquarters, New York, on Wednesday, 14 October 1992." (CF Lavrov, pg 14). Now perhaps President Xi’s inscrutable smile, and America’s aggression towards China, might be more understandable… )2 years later, in the Budapest Memorandum, US and UK "guaranteed" to Ukraine to involve the Security Council if Russia attacked, knowing Russia would veto it. In return for making Ukraine and Belarus defenceless. In return for stripping Belarus and Ukraine of arms. (What didn’t happen was the already emerging despot in the making, Russia, becoming nuclear free, breaking the ex Soviet States’ agreement in the Belavezha Accord and the Alma Ata Protocol for joint control and staged disarmament.) Pretty hard to admit.
At least France and China refused to take part in the Budapest fraud. French President François Mitterrand reportedly remarked to his Ukrainian counterpart President Leonid Kravchuk (who had been threatened and bullied into signing) : “Young man, you will be tricked, one way or the other. Don’t believe them, they will cheat you.” (“When the West Defanged Ukraine: The Budapest Memorandum, a geopolitical cautionary tale for the ages.” - George Bogden 01 Aug 2022,)
Because all other UN members and the whole world were lied to about the facts that I have set out, that Russia is not USSR, they probably didn’t know. [My late father, an ambassador, shouted at me when I got onto the shortlist for MFA that I would be unutterably bored as all they did was have cocktail parties.] (Russia, still lying, now tries to claim that completely ignoring the letter was “tacit agreement”. As Vorontsov makes very clear, there was no acceptance. Countries were bullied and lied to. Action or omissions based on fraud do not lead to estoppel or “Acceptance by practise”. No amount of lies can change the UN Charter.
Because the algorithms of Google have hidden all material on the facts and the solution (they are only discoverable through extreme persistence, luck, and knowledge of the law, through direct links); and promoted disinformation which lies that Russia could veto any attempt to remove it, and reform was necessary, no one else knows.
Everyone trusts the major administrations, the UN, the academia and the media not to lie. We have never thought to question that they might be lying.
And, well, lets face it: it’s selling an awful lot of arms, and producing an awful lot of hegemony. Imagine if countries’ safety was guaranteed, and they only needed to arm enough to contribute their share out of 192 countries, to UN multinational actions. And people’s attention would be focussing elsewhere. Are Ukraine’s peace plan, and fight against corruption, a threat to some sectors?
What I will say, without any question of a doubt, is that it is NOT because it was “accepted” at the time. That is a complete lie. And how do I know this, you ask? Because
Vorontsov told us. There was strong opposition to Russia “continuing” the non-existent “seat” of the USSR. It took deception, bullying and a corrupt Secretary-General to carry out and conceal the fraud. Exactly what was said, done or threatened to the countries which objected, I have yet to uncover.
Not one country acknowledged the letter. Nor did one country make a formal speech accepting that Russia’s impostorship was legitimate.
The strongest of all - if it had been supported, it would have been done legally - by admission to the UN membership under Article 4 of the UN Charter, and amendment of Article 23 to replace USSR with Russia, in accordance with Article 108. The only way it could be done.
That is why we need to educate the world, and our governments; expose the lie, and stop the violation of the law.
What is the significance of this
Every day that the hoax of Russian membership continues, unexposed, is an assurance to Putin and the world that he has backing in high places. It is a green light to continue terrorism, genocide, and spreading of disinformation, corruption and misery.
Every day it is a message to Putin and the people of the world that Russia is above the law.
It is imperative that the United Nations is itself seen to be abiding by the rule of law, before there can be any trust and confidence in it, and any hope of efficacy in performing it’s duties.
WHAT CAN BE DONE ABOUT IT?
Any country can table the proposed resolution. We just need to get one country to do it.
Then the whole world will see what is going on. And every state will be required to choose between a vote for continuing a fraudulent (or at best mistaken) violation of the UN Charter, and for a terrorist state to control the whole UN; or for the “never again” order of peace and human rights, that our grandfathers died to give to all the people of the world.
Every country in the world, it is respectfully submitted, wants a safe, peaceful and prosperous world.
Even if the resolution is lost (which it won’t be - 143:7 countries supported the last vote), the status quo would simply continue… except the whole world would know of the outrage, and the continuing violation of the UN Charter. And it could be be tabled again, at any time, after political and trade pressure is brought on countries and internal governments to support it.
Russian and UN credibility will be destroyed, until it is passed.
There is nothing to lose by tabling the resolution.
That’s it.
Next: hear how a traitor USSR ambassador and G W Bush abused the Presidency of the UN Security Council to deceive the world, from the horse’s mouth. Audio and English transcript of his 2015 interview, hidden in the UN Russian archives.
Next: It’s an academic question, but was this letter made known to ANYONE (apart from the parties to the fraud)???:
Next: So, what happened to the USSR’s UN (and other) memberships?
See the detail in
Example of "consent" (ABSENT for Russia re USSR):
- but that could not override A/RES/2758 in 1971 declaring ROC representatives to be "unlawfully present".
A/RES/505 (1952)
Resolution explicitly recognising Chiang Kai Shek's Republic of China as the government of China (therefore entitled to exercise China's membership rights), 2 years after the coup by the PRC
https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/211034?ln=en&v=pd
f
Leave a comment if you'd like to see any other documents here.