Open letter: Why New Zealand should table the resolution to remove the representatives of impostor Russia from the UN.

WE are responsible for OUR GOVERNMENTS EMPOWERING PUTIN. The resolution can be tabled by ANY COUNTRY. Write, and sign or start a petition, to your government. Here's a sample.

WE are responsible for OUR GOVERNMENTS EMPOWERING PUTIN. The resolution can be tabled by ANY COUNTRY. Write, and sign or start a petition, to your government. Here's a sample.

(A video summary of the issues and materials referred to in this letter are in my substack "Images - Russia and the UN", which contains all documentation and links to the originals. Link at the end.)

Russia is not in control of the United Nations. It is not even a member¹. It’s representatives can easily be expelled, within as little as a week.

Why are WE allowing OUR OWN GOVERNMENTS to maintain this lie, arming Putin to poison the world with disinformation and spread terrorism and corruption with impunity; preventing peace, co-operation and prosperity, sucking up billions of dollars which would end poverty?

Minister and Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs

Chris Seed, Chief Executive and Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade

Dear Ministers and Secretary

I am writing to formally request

1. What is the MFA current position (if any) regarding the purported exercise of United Nations ("UN") and United Nations Security Council ("UNSC") membership rights formerly possessed by the USSR, by the Russian Federation ("RF").

2. That New Zealand urgently without delay initiates a United Nations General Assembly resolution (the "proposed resolution"), as follows:
   
   

   “RECALLING the principles of the Charter of the United Nations,
   
   

   “CONSIDERING that compliance with the Charter of the United Nations is essential both for the protection of the Charter and for the cause that the United Nations must serve under the Charter,
   
   

   “RECOGNISING that "the USSR as a subject of international law and a geopolitical reality no longer exists", was acknowledged and declared by Russia on 8 December 1991, in the Belavezha Accord and (confirmed on 21 December 1991 in the Alma Ata Declaration and thereafter²); and accordingly the USSR memberships of the United Nations and all organisations related to it, no longer exist,³

   
   
   “RECOGNISING that the entire foundation of Russia's claim that it "is a member" (1 letter⁴, dated 24 December 1991, from Boris Yeltsin, president of a country which was not even a member of the UN), is without any legal authority, is meaningless and of no effect,
   
   

   “RECOGNISING that Russia is not and has never been a member of the United Nations, and it's presence is a violation of the United Nations  Charter (Articles 4 and 23),
   
   

   “DECIDES to expel forthwith the representatives of Russia from the place which they unlawfully occupy at the United Nations and in all the organisations related to it.”

Grounds for requests:

It is submitted that:

1. The purported exercise of any UN membership rights by the RF is fraudulent, invalid, and a violation of the provisions of the United Nations Charter,
   
         

    

   RF is not a member of the UN or the UNSC.
   

   1.  The only permissible procedures for states to become members of the UN are set out in Articles 3 and 4 of the Charter.

   2. The RF has never been admitted to membership under Article 3 or 4 .  Accordingly it is not and never has been a member of the UN and is not entitled to any membership rights.  Nor is it subject to any duties of members, including compliance with the Charter, which it has never agreed to.
      

   3. The only procedures for states to become members of the UNSC are set out in Article 23 of the Charter.

   4. The RF has never been named as a permanent member of the UNSC in Article 23 and is therefore not and never has been a permanent member.
      

   5. The RF has not been elected to the UNSC and is not eligible for such election. Accordingly it is not and never has been a member of the UNSC.
      
      

   RF has no claim to membership rights of the former USSR.
   

   1. United Nations General Assembly and permanent Security Council memberships are personal to the named states to which they are granted.

   2. There is no provision for transfer by any means of such memberships. 
      

   3. Changes of government are not "transfers" of memberships because the memberships attach to states, not governments. (China, and New Zealand being examples of memberships being exercisable by successive governments of a state)
      

   4. Permanent memberships are not "seats" open to be filled by any other entities.  The only memberships in the UN Security Council capable of being called "seats" are the 10 positions occupied for limited terms by elected states.

   5. The Russian Federation itself along with other states including Ukraine repeatedly declared and acknowledged in 2 distinct treaties that  "the USSR as a subject of international law and a geopolitical reality no longer exists" and accordingly as a matter of law and in the absence of any provision in the Charter for preservation or transfer, all  memberships had lapsed and expired before the declaration of "continuation" by Russia.⁵

   6. The Russian Federation itself along with other states including Ukraine repeatedly acknowledged in several treaties that  there was no "inheritance": for example the 1991-12-04 MOSCOW TREATY"Contract on legal succession in relation to external state debt and assets of the Union of the SSR";  the 12 and 21 December Guarantees by 11 other ex soviet states of USSR's treaty obligations; the “support” expressed in the Alma Ata “Decision”; the applications by all other ex Soviet states for UN membership.

   7. Notably Yeltsin's letter to the UN did not make any claim to any "inheritance" or any other right to the USSR's membership.
      
      

2. The violation of the UN Charter is giving false credence to a terrorist state and is being used to
   

   1. Prevent the UN performing its function of suppressing aggression, expediting peaceful settlement of disputes and protecting human rights

   2. Buy "friends" with the promise of influence and abuse of the non-existent "veto"

   3. Spread and sponsor corruption, totalitarianism, terrorism, and human rights violations amongst vulnerable countries with impunity

   4. Spread wars and the resultant food and economic crises which affect the entire world,

   5. Polarise world opinion and create discord by forcing countries to take unilateral action outside the UN to deal with matters the whole world should be dealing with in co-operation, then accusing countries which take such action of "unipolarity".
      
      

3. New Zealand is the Country that should propose the resolution
   
   

   1. New Zealand as a state compliant with international law and in particular the UN Charter itself should not be complicit in this fraud.

   2. New Zealand and all other countries of the world need the protection of the UN. This is being prevented by the fraudulent pretence of a "veto" that does not exist, by a state that has never acceded to the UN Charter and is obviously using the fraud to maliciously destroy the power of the UN to perform its primary function, to suppress acts of aggression (and thence encourage peaceful settlement of disputes).

   3. New Zealand, as a representative of all small UN member states dependent on protection of the UN not only for sovereign integrity, but for protection from the economic and other consequences of illegal aggression, is in an ideal position to instigate this resolution; where Ukraine and other states directly in need of UN suppression of aggression, are probably not in a position to do so due to dependence on states for it's survival.

   4. New Zealand is likely to unite rather than polarise the views from other UN members as it has a unique position of independence in its foreign policies, is relatively non-aligned, recently voted in favour of the Gaza resolution and has a long history of peaceful  and enlightened leadership from women's suffrage to anti-nuclear policies. Other countries belonging to NATO, and Ukraine will polarise voting, and yet others have vulnerability to the totalitarian bloc.
      
      

4. The procedure is simple and proven.
   

   1. It is the same procedure as was used in resolution A/RES/2758 in 1971 to remove unlawful claimants of a membership, permanent membership and veto; exactly the same situation as RF.

   2. The only difference is that China as a territory remained in existence whereas USSR has not. The USSR was formally and legally abolished by 2 treaties in December 1991: the Belavezha Accord and the Alma Ata Declaration. Acknowledged internationally by the tabling of those Treaties in the UNGA on 13 and 30 December 1991. The USSR former territory no longer exists, now being comprised of 15 separate states.
      

   3. The procedure requires only a simple majority in the UN General Assembly. although

      1. 143/192 countries which condemned Russia is over 2/3, 1 country short of 3/4;

      2. the resolution is likely to be supported by all countries needing the protection of the UN (as above).
         

   4. The procedure cannot be vetoed. (ROC claimed a permanent membership and veto but was simply declared to be no longer the lawful representative of China, the member, in 1971; because such a declaration is not an admission, suspension or expulsion of a member in any of the categories in Articles 4-6 of the UN Charter, the resolution is outside the jurisdiction of the UNSC.)
      

   5. The procedure is not associated with any risk of escalation by RF as the whole world (or a majority) will be acting.

   6. The procedure cannot be challenged without challenging the legitimacy of the PRC as a permanent member.

   7. The PRC itself would be unlikely to challenge such a clearly housekeeping matter of law.  It would be placing itself at risk of sanctions and even a worldwide boycott which it simply cannot afford.
      

Thank you in anticipation of your consideration of this request.

I would appreciate a detailed discussion of any questions if you have any concerns (although I believe it is simple, and self-evident, and highly advantageous to New Zealand, both in our political profile, and in removing a major cause of economic difficulty).  I have researched this matter intensively and can provide a complete collection of links on request.

Yours sincerely,

---

---

1. Read this in conjunction with this, which sets out images and links of the evidence, and a video overview.

2. 1991-12-08 BELAVEZHA ACCORD “the USSR as a subject of international law and a geopolitical reality no longer exists.” '' Agreement on the establishment of the Neza Commonwealth... | UKR-Russia-Belarus

 

1991-12-21 Alma-Ata Declaration of Independent States (December 21, 1991) "the Commonwealth, which is neither a state nor a state association" ... "With the formation of the Commonwealth of Independent States, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics ceases to exist" ... "member states of the Commonwealth guarantee, ... the fulfillment of international obligations arising from treaties and agreements of the former USSR"
 

Also self-declared by Declaration no. 142-N of the Soviet of the Republics of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR 1991-12-26 - if it was still in existence! Retrospectively https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Declaration_no._142-N_of_the_Soviet_of_the_Republics_of_the_Supreme_Soviet_of_the_USSR

3. 5th Committee determination 8 October 1947, cited in the UN Secretariat “Succession of States and Governments 1962, applied in S/RES/777 and A/RES/47, 1992

4. 1991-12-24 Where can I find the letters of 24 December 1991 regarding the continuation of the membership of the USSR by the Russian Federation? - Ask DAG! "UN Archives has provided a scan from the archives of the Secretary-General" "This material was not issued as a UN document" "Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council states" "The Russian Federation did not apply for membership" "letter dated 24 December 1991, [footnote 6] the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics transmitted to the Secretary-General a letter of the same date" "President of the Russian Federation informed the Secretary-General" "membership of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the United Nations, including the Security Council and all other organs and organizations of the United Nations system, was being continued by the Russian Federation" "with the support of the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States***" "position of the Russian Federation was not challenged" "Matters brought to the attention of the Security Council but not discussed" "letter of the same date from the Permanent Representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,#red" "transmitting to the Secretary-General a letter, also of the same date, from Mr. Boris Yeltsin, President of the Russian Federation, in which he informed the Secretary-General that the membership of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the United Nations, including the Security Council and all other organs and organizations of the United Nations system, was being continued" "requested the Secretary-General to consider that letter as confirmation of the credentials to represent the Russian Federation" "all the persons currently holding the credentials of representatives of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics"

*** A "decision" of 11 out of 15 ex members of the USSR, inconsistent with the clear acknowledgement in the Declaration made the same day, which has the same legal effect as a "decision" by 11 out of 15 siblings to "support" one of them to "continue" their dead mother's membership of the government electoral rolls and vote in parliamentary elections. https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/997_217#Text

5. x