Notification of Yeltsin's Letter "Continuing" USSR United Nations memberships??? - Knowledge is Power
It appears the Secretary-General stopped the letter being circulated and lied that it was being circulated. There was no notification, no consultation, and no opportunity to object, let alone vote.
It appears the Secretary-General stopped the letter being circulated and lied that it was being circulated. There was no notification, no consultation, no opportunity to object, let alone vote. There was no "consent". It seems the American public were told more than the UN membership.
This is a compilation of notes, some repetition - sorry not sorry. It is being tidied and added to as I get time. Feel free to add or question information in the comments.
When it is pointed out that Russia is not a member of the UN at all, a common response is that the UN membership “did not object”, “tacitly consented”, and that the clear explicit provisions of the UN Charter have been somehow changed by that. Although that is as ridiculous as the claim the Russia is a member, I investigate here whether the UN membership was even aware of what happened, let alone aware that Russia had no legal right to claim the USSR’s memberships, let alone that those memberships had expired. They certainly were given no opportunity to “object”.
This follows on from the video and details in
Recap:
On 24 December 1991 the Permanent Representative of the USSR to the United Nations, Yuli Vorontsov (former First Deputy Foreign Minister of the USSR), authored and delivered a letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations transmitting a letter from Russian President Boris Yeltsin. Yeltsin’s letter claimed that the USSR’s UN memberships, including the USSR’s (named) permanent membership of the Security Council and the associated veto power, were being “continued” (sic) by a completely separate state, the soon-to-be named Russian Federation; which was not even a member of the USSR at the time having left the USSR, and declared the that USSR “ceased to exist” 2 weeks previously. Somehow, without any recorded discussion, Vorontsov was accredited as the Representative of Russia the same day, and Russia started illegally participating in UN proceedings, when it was not a member.
What was done with the Yeltsin letter?
The Secretary- General, instead of circulating the letter from Yeltsin (the “Yeltsin letter”) and/or the covering letter from the USSR Permanent Representative (the “Vorontsov letter”) (together called the “Continuation letters”) to all UN Members (unlike even notes verbale from Japan and Germany are - see below), states (in a telegraph to his staff the Administrative Committee on Co-ordination, chaired by him) that he has “brought them to the attention” of the Presidents of the General Assembly and Security Council, and that “steps are being taken to circulate these texts to all member states”
Astonishingly, the “Continuation letters” are completely missing from the UN standard indexes and records. Not even the covering telegraph from the S-G is registered in the UN documents library.
So, did the Secretary-General even bring the “Continuation letters” to the attention of the President of the Security Council, as he proclaimed he had? Perhaps verbally??? Oh…
Which then begs the question, why would the S-G tell his staff that he had “brought [the “continuation letters”] to the attention of the President of the Security Council” when they would have known from his previous sentence that that President had given them to him??
Given the absence of a sent/received header/footer I would check the original records of transmissions for that time period, to eliminate any possibility that it was never sent, or a forgery created later. If so, then there would be no record of any correspondence whatsoever regarding those letters.
An alternative reason for the curious wording - the addressee being “Administrative Committee on Co-ordination” part of the UN Secretariat - it may have been to stop them circulating the letters?
Since there was no mention of the Yeltsin letter in any Security Council records, (moreover, there was not even any meeting on 24 December 1991, or before the flag was changed on 28 December 19911) there is no evidence that it was ever even mentioned to any of the other Security Council members (apart fromVorontsov’s evidence that the United States set it up, and UK and France were in the discussions. See the interview with Vorontsov and other materials in my main article Images - Russia and the UN, and How Russia got "into" the United Nations).
That really is the only scenario that makes sense - because if Security Council members had known that Yeltsin had made a claim without any legal basis, they would have been keen to speak about it, whether for or against it. Or to ask questions or refer it to a committee - beyond the control of Vorontsov.
That also fits with the language of the un-indexed, untitled “note”, hidden at page 313 of 355 of the first document on the UN records to mention the letters (released 18 months after the event): it is under the heading “documents… not considered by the Security Council”. There is no mention that either of the letters or their texts were brought to the attention of, made available to, or provided to, anyone at all. (see 7. below.)2
There is no record of any communication to the President of the General Assembly (Nigeria, if I recall). Certainly he did not report to the General Assembly and call for objections, as was done, for example, in the case of Syria (below). It appears that none of the letters have ever been circulated to the UN Members either, they certainly were not entered into the UN records.
It appears the the first time those “Continuation letters” were ever mentioned in an official or public document, is buried in an untitled, un-indexed, “note” at page 313 of 355 pages, in the REPORT OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, COVERING THE PERIOD FROM 16 JUNE 1991 TO 15 JUNE 1992 which was tabled in the General Assembly 2 June 1993, 18 months later. And, there is no mention of the letters being disclosed to anyone whatsoever in the Report.
There is no evidence anywhere else of the letters being disclosed, except the Secretary General’s telegraph to his Administrative Committee on Co-ordination which he chaired, and the USSR Representative Vorontsov who delivered it to him, who also happened to be the President of the Security Council at the time; and also the same day, without any notice, became the Representative for the Russian Federation (apparently without notice to or consent of, the USSR).
On the very same day, Vorontsov advised the NYT (in a tiny article on page A6; see image below) that he was accredited by the UN Secretariat as representative for Russian Federation, 24 December 1991. Most of the UN membership would have been on holiday. (The last sitting of the General Assembly was 20 December, the next was February 1992; the last sitting of the Security Council was 23 December, the next was 31st.) It appears no members were advised. Vorontsov was the USSR representative so no change would have been noticeable, even the name plate and flag were changed surreptitiously during the Christmas/New Year break. (The representation didn’t change: it remained Mr Vorontsov. The outward appearance would have been as no more than a name change, which is normally effected by letter and takes place as from the date of such letter.)
It is also consistent with what Vorontsov told the New York Times on the same day (24 December 1991.) “Mr. Vorontsov said Russia's assumption of the Soviet Union's former position at the United Nations follows automatically from today's letter and requires no further decisions by the Security Council or any other body.“ This suggests that is exactly what he would have said to any member of the UN who noticed at any time that anything changed - if anyone even thought to ask about it.
That statement is flatly untrue. If any members were tricked by it into not objecting, that is fraud. And consent obtained by a fraud is not consent.
The Russian flag was erected on Friday, 28 December 1991 without any ceremony or anyone present except a few (mostly Russian) UN staff and news photographers. It appears no members were notified. Very low profile. (See LA Times clipping below.)
Looking at the scan, there appear to be possibly 4 other documents attached to this correspondence.
Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar telegraph attaching “continuation” letters https://web.archive.org/web/20240104160937/https://ask.un.org/loader?fid=19456&type=1&key=90767ef0305af7e1f1b5c3434e26f797 There is no record in the UN documents library of:
any written or verbal correspondence to the Presidents enclosing or even mentioning the letters or their contents
Any correspondence of any kind, written or verbal, to the UN members or the General Assembly or any organs of the UN (apart from this telegraph to the ACC (the “Administrative Committee on Co-ordination” part of the UN Secretariat - which may have been to stop them circulating the letters?)
any minutes of the General Assembly or the Security Council mentioning the letters, or Russia’s “continuation” of the membership, or of the changes of nameplate or flag.
So, what is normal practice?
Rules on the procedure for admission of new members were adopted by the General Assembly on 21 November 1947. They were complied with by the other ex Soviet states in their applications for membership. They remain in place today.
The rules require:
a written application to be delivered to the Secretary-General.
a declaration accompanying the application, that the applicant state “accepts the obligations contained in the Charter”.
the S-G to send a copy of the application to the General Assembly, or to the Members if the General Assembly is not in session.
It was the Secretary’s practice at the time to also send copies to the members of notifications received of changes in memberships not requiring any General Assembly or Security Council action, under cover of a (written) “note verbale” advising they had been administratively actioned. For example,
in the cases of Yemen and German amalgamations of memberships;
Syria resuming it’s original membership.
And notices that members had ceased to exist -
Czechoslovakia,
The letter from Belarus attaching the Belavezha accord declaring the USSR had ceased to exist dated 12 December 1991, tabled 13 December,
and of course the letter from Belarus attaching the Alma Ata protocols declaring the USSR had ceased to exist - circulated to the Security Council the same day it was received, dated 27 December 1991, 4 days after Yeltsin’s letter was not circulated, tabled 30 December.
Why was the letter from Belarus dated 24 December 1991 “denunciating” (sic) the USSR (which had no significance to UN membership), circulated to all members, while Yeltsin’s letter of the same date, claiming the USSR’s memberships and requesting a “name change”, wasn’t,
and the letter from Belarus 3 days later dated 27 December 1991 announcing that the USSR had “ceased to exist” was?
Even matters as minor as notes verbale about compliance with sanctions were tabled in the UN Security Council and recorded in the Records - but not a letter claiming a permanent membership????:
Applications for membership and declarations, circulated by the Secretary General, indexed in the UN digital Library (other ex Soviet states)
and voted on:
Or genuinely “not opposed”: Syrian notice notified to the General Assembly, opportunity for objections given, President’s report on action taken after no objection received
Security Council documents -
Letters from Syria advising return to it’s existing separate membership'; Yemen advising amalgamation of members, Czechoslovakia advising dissolution of a member, dozens of letters about compliance with arms embargo, Belarus attaching Alma Ata treaties dissolving USSR… but NOT a letter advising change of a SC permanent member???
Other letters sent to the Security Council by the Secretary-General on the same day - 24 December 1991 - are on record and indexed:
The Security Council reports
The UN library service FAQ page names 3 documents mentioning the “Continuation letters”.
A/47/2 summary of year to 15 June 1992 (dated 2 June 1993);
A/47/2(Corr) Corrected a typo);
A/47/2(Suppl) - the same report, with sundry parts amended, and expanded introduction:
The first version the Security Council report required by the UN Charter to be made to the General Assembly every year.
An “advance” version??? - not published until 18 months later”:
Then the “1994” (UN records date)/”1995” (date on the document)/2007 (actual publication/release date) version of the 1991 annual report of the Security Council: A/47(Supp)
(Note the totally different treatment and records of Serbia and Montenegro’s announcement of “continuation” of the Federal Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia - on the page preceding the untitled, un-indexed, “note” about Yeltsin’s letter:
Serbia and Montenegro had never left the FSRY - Russia was not even a member of the USSR.
Serbia and Montenegro had authority of a joint declaration of authority from the Federation - Russia had NO authority from the USSR, and it did not even exist according to Russia.
Serbia and Montenegro got their own chapter in the SC Report, entry in the table of contents, their letter was recorded and circulated - Russia’s was an un-indexed untitled, “note”, Yeltsin’s letter was not even recorded.
Serbia and Montenegro’s letter was considered by the UNSC and notes of the SC position were circulated - there is no evidence Yeltsin’s letter was even made known to the SC members apart from whomever Vorontsov may have shown it to privately. There was no record of any SC meeting about it.
Serbia and Montenegro were ultimately denied the ability to continue the FSRY membership, ostensibly due to concerns regarding aggression - Russia was permitted to participate unlawfully despite it’s agency in the USSR attempt to annex Lithuania by force in 1991, Angola, it’s own wars in Georgia, Abkazia, and it’s attempt to claim and insurrection attempts in Crimea, the latter being the subject of complaints to the UN and ignored - see chapter 72 of the “matters brought to the attention of the SC but not discussed”.)
3 January letter from Russian Federation circulated and on UN records - but none about Yeltsin’s letter
Information requests for records:
A request was made at some point, the response was published in the UN Library with the copy of the “continuation letters”. (The first web archive capture was November 2022, suggesting it may have been a response to Ukraine MFA request mentioned in Kyslytsa’s YouTube interview uploaded on 8 February 2022 (below).)
The response was removed at the end of January 2024, and reappeared by April 2024, after the writer (and no doubt others) queried it.
Here are some requests made for records of distribution in the UN, and reply from the Library that there are none.
So, one might ask, wouldn’t Ukraine have known about this? It appears, they did not.
It appears from this video that Ukraine had done nothing. (Noting that many records were destroyed by Yanukovych when he fled in 2014)
What is absolutely beyond belief is that Ukraine has done nothing about it in 2 1/2 years since the video, preferring to sacrifice millions of lives, it’s cities, economy and world goodwill and resources. This smells badly of either corruption, a mentality approaching imbecility, or bowing to orders from supporter states wishing to protect Putin.)
It seems the American public were told more than the UN membership. There was no notification, no consultation and no opportunity to object, let alone vote.
The New York Times was told by Vorontsov “Russia’s assumption … follows automatically from” Boris Yeltsin’s letter. https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1991/12/25/074891.html?pageNumber=6
By chance, the writer found another oblique reference to the matter in another document, the OCR text in that reference contains a space between each character. So it is not findable in the document or in the UN records.