The urgency to expel Russian Federation from the United Nations | Knowledge is Power

Let's have that vote on Russia, that Vorontsov tricked the UN out of in 1991. Putin is working hard and fast to capture votes and buy "friends". We explore the pros and cons of Just Doing It Now.

So what - why is it even important?

It’s not important. It is fundamental. It is critical.

This violation of the UN Charter is the figurehead of the abuse and disregard of law in the international arena, which has led to the state of international gangland anarchy where the whole world, even my own small country at the end of the world, is wracked by physical, economic and culture wars damaging economies and destroying lives, homes and environments.

It is why invasions, dictatorships, human and rights abuses flourish with impunity while the world can do nothing about it - because our carefully constructed democratic security organisation - the UN - has been reduced to a infestation of snouts in the trough, hand-wringing, draining countries’ resources to the tune of $60bn a year, while our mortgage rates/rents and food prices spiral, and poverty and misery spread.

Make no mistake, our UN is under attack and has been all but destroyed by malign actors who do not want to be governed by law. And every moment the destruction continues, the spectre of corruption is shoved in the face of national administrations and voting public who grow to accept it and join in. That is how corruption grows.

The aim is to disable the UN completely - by stacking the Security Council with so many vetos that nothing will ever be done. While the only reform which should be made, is for the General Assembly to be able to over-rule vetos of the existing permanent members (a safety valve) by a 2/3 majority. (But that is the topic of another discussion.)

Imagine if some gang got control over your city/country’s government and legislature, shut down your police force and gangs went around raping and murdering your neighbours and having gang wars, destroying whole communities and their infrastructure. And your safety was no longer an assured by a police force answerable to the community through your elected representatives, but depended on what gang you belonged to and whether you could persuade them to help you if you were attacked. That is what is happening on a world level.

1. The UN will break up if the UN stops pretending Russia is member.

Haha, no.

First, people forget that the UN started out with only 50 members. Membership was only open to peaceful countries which complied with the Charter. All the countries in the world (except Russian Federation) applied to join, and agreed to comply with the Charter, abandon aggression and advance human rights, for a multitude of reasons. The few which are not members are desperate to join. The UN offers protection (or it will without Russia), aid, funding, dispute resolution, the International Court of Justice, and a voice and vote in the world community.

Particularly notable is the example of NATO. An organisation which is strong and protects its members against aggression only makes it more desirable to join.

Second, people forget that the UN has power to stop aggression of non-members. So it will become more, not less, useful and efficient and therefore desirable.

2. Kicking Russia out won’t make any difference because China will veto everything.

Simply not true.

First, China has no interest in protecting Russia’s protection racket. China has not abused it’s veto to accumulate allies, it has done actual development work and aid to do so.

Second, China has spoken out strongly against abuse of the veto, and the big powers “club”. With Russia and the other permanent members all abusing their vetos there was little more it could do.

Third, China is far too vulnerable to trade boycotts if it did abuse its veto.

3. Re-establishing democracy in the UN would not threaten US and NATO’s hegemony.

This is a fallacy. The UN Charter specifically provides for use of regional powers and organisations. US and NATO would still be the go-to for the UN. Their economic power would be unaffected. But they would become answerable.

4. Re-establishing the power of the UN to use force would reduce arms escalation.

This is true. At present, every NATO country is individually arming to fight Russia. Instead, the world’s nations should only need to arm enough for their contribution to collective peace keeping.

Prompt action by the UN to stop aggression will further reduce the necessity for and use of arms as there should be no lengthy wars anymore.

5. The violation of it’s own Charter by allowing a non-member to vote is making a travesty of the UN.

For the UN to have respect it must be seen to act in accordance with the law.

3. Russia has been taught to disdain the law. That is why It is passing on that lesson to the whole world.

That lesson must be undone.

4. Without the veto, the UN can act.

The Security Council resolutions which were “vetoed” by Russia will not even need to be re-tabled. As the vetos are a nullity, any resolutions vetoed only by Russia are in fact passed, as legally Russia does not have a veto, as it has never been appointed as a permanent member.

Russian Federation has stopped effective interventions in every country facing strife. Except Gaza. It has turned the UN from a co-operative security organisation into a big boys game of tit for tat.

4. Without the protection of a “veto”, Russia’s sycophant states will stop breaking the law.

5. It will restore the balance of power to the world.

Any permanent member which abuses it’s veto will be vulnerable to trade boycotts from the rest of the world. All that is necessary for that is for resolutions to be tabled and voted on in the UNSC. Instead of machinations and blackmails behind closed doors.

6. Russia will have the incentive to start complying with the law and with it’s treaty obligations.

At the moment it has none.

When RF satisfies the UN that it can and it will comply with Article 4 of the UN Charter, it can be admitted as a normal member of the General Assembly. But no country should ever be given another veto or permanent membership of the UN. We have seen what can result. The words used in S/RES/777 should apply: it “should apply for membership… it shall not participate in the work of the General Assembly“ (should be “the UN”).

7. Continuing the fraud does not “enable communications with Russia”.

The UN communicates with non member states. “Communication” is not a reason for making North Korea, Russia or any other non-member into a permanent member. It’s not a reason for allowing Russia to control the entire UN. There isn’t any communication. There is only lies, which membership lends credibility to.

With Russia out of the UN, it’s lies can be ignored. Which will incentivise real communication.

8. It will reduce if not remove the threat of a nuclear attack by Putin.

Who will Putin nuke if the whole, or half of the, world is against him? If he nuked UN forces, he can expect commensurate repercussions. The risk is reduced to a death wish on the part of Putin - which is extremely likely to be stopped by the chain of command.

9. China is extremely unlikely to veto Security Council intervention.

Once Russia is gone, China will have no veto backup in the UN Security Council. Unlike Russia, China is too vulnerable to economic sanctions or simple boycott by the entire free world to risk.

10. Another permanent member may veto Security Council intervention.

Given the inexplicable actions of the US refusing to help Ukraine meaningfully, and blocking meaningful assistance from countries influenced by it, not to mention the unlikely event of Trump being elected President, the US might consider a veto. However exercise of the veto in violation of Article 24 of the UN Charter is likely to lead to mass boycotts of the US and major loss of hegemony. Again, the risk would not be worth it.

11. The removal of toxicity within the UN will likely lead to resumption of the natural spread of democracy and respect for human rights, thwarted for nearly the entire life of the UN by the Kremlin.

12. Other errant states are highly likely to return to the fold of compliance with the UN Charter.

With the ability of Russia to give away “get out of jail cards” by threat of veto, It’s influence and protection over states such as Syria and Iran will be gone. When faced with the reality of consequences they are almost certain to stop at least overt abuses. And once they are not protected, their populations will be enabled to push for democracy and rights. This is likely to lead to a very, very different world in which harmony will prevail instead of aggression and polarisation.

13. There is not enough support in the UN.

False.

If there are 193 UNGA members all present and voting (counting Russia as a member) then 97 would be required for a majority to expel RF personnel.

However if the resolution is actually tabled, there will be mass publicity, leading to consequences both external and internal for regimes which publicly vote to continue a violation of the UN Charter and to give a terrorist regime power to stop the world.

I expect a number of countries would be absent or abstain (due to fear of Putin).

Under rule 126 of the Rules of Procedure of the UN General Assembly, abstentions are not votes.

So, if all of the 40 countries which did not attend the June 2024 Summit on Peace in Ukraine voted against the resolution, the votes required to pass the resolution would be 41. (And, since there is no veto power, that simple majority of UN Members’ votes would pass the resolution, even if all the permanent members voted agaist it.)

That is on the basis that all 40 states which were not invited to the Summit could be pressured by Putin into voting against the resolution, by no means a forgone conclusion. Many could abstain or absent themselves, to avoid repercussions in the event that the resolution is passed and their protection from Russia is gone.

The greatest risk is that a majority (present and voting) could vote against including it in the Agenda (Rule 15), or to remove it (Rule 22). So it would be important to pre-arrange support to get it onto the agenda, even from states which might wish to abstain on or even vote against, the resolution itself.

Here is the procedure:

x

Next: read how simple it is to take our world police force back: