“Now we have more arguments than we did before”

Last week, the UN Security Council reviewed the Ukrainian question for the 29th time. And just like previously, not a single decision was made because of Russia’s veto, which is a permanent member of the Security Council.

The Day addressed the Permanent Representative of Ukraine in the UN Yurii Sergeyev with a request to tell under which conditions our country will be able to achieve the condemnation of Russian aggression at this international forum, and also on the prospects of reforming the UN, and depriving the five permanent UN Security Council members of the veto right in particular.

“Firstly, during all sessions, Security Council member states displayed solidarity with Ukraine. Not a single country, except for the Russian Federation, of course, omitted emphasizing its support of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and non-interference in our affairs from the outside. A part of Western countries, including the United States, directly urged Russia to stop aggression. By the way, the question of Russian aggression rose in early March at one of the first Security Council meetings. Let me remind that back then the Ambassador of Jordan told in detail what the essence of Russian aggression in Crimea is by referring to corresponding resolutions of the UN Security Council. He told literally stage by stage that when Russian Black Sea Fleet troops moved beyond the limits of their location without consent of Ukraine, it was an act of aggression.

“So, these facts have already been presented back then. And now, after the adoption of the corresponding resolution by the Verkhovna Rada, it will be much easier to promote recognition of Russia as a party to the conflict and an aggressor. Even though we understand that Russia will apply its right to veto even in this case. It is extremely hard to bring to responsibility a permanent Security Council member via the mechanisms that act at the UN. Russia understands this and will use it, but now we have more arguments than we did before. Since the decision of the Verkhovna Rada is at least a tool, according to which it will be possible to gather more support.”

And when can a session of the UN Security Council be expected, at which this issue will be considered?

“In order to view any issue at the UN Security Council, either an emergency is needed, as it happened in the context of the terrorist attack in Mariupol, or the issue must be well prepared in order to achieve positive result. In January we already held a meeting, informed on the state of affairs, and literally in several days we were forced to call the assembly of an extraordinary session, as the situation became more complicated because of the missile attack on Mariupol.

“As for the session on recognition of Russia as an aggressor, preparations for this must be made. It is impossible to achieve in one swoop, it requires intensified work.”

Do you have enough informational support or resources so the world, and the UN in particular, would receive objective information on what is really going on in eastern Ukraine?

“Of course, it is hard to fight Russian propaganda. Information resources in Russia are much larger. But we have the truth and facts, that is why since we have the Verkhovna Rada’s resolution now, all previous facts, starting from late February of the past year and until the recent moment, will be generalized and presented in an absolutely different plane.

“We will involve the existing resources, they are not enough, but we have resources of countries that feel sympathetic for us and supported us. I mean the EU countries, the United States, some countries of the African continent. Thus, with their help we will be able to spread this information all over the world.”

But we have Ukrainian resources, for example, our newspaper Den is published in three languages, in particular, its English version is published twice a week, and it is also available online. Wouldn’t it be useful to use this resource at the UN for the daily explanation of the situation in our country?

“Of course, we could be doing that as well. We use analytic materials that are published by your newspaper. You invite rather serious experts, especially in areas where we lack knowledge and information on the situation, for example in the Middle East and Africa. We take information from your sources. So, it is very useful.

It is hard to fight Russian propaganda. Information resources in Russia are much larger. But we have the truth and facts, that is why since we have the Verkhovna Rada’s resolution now, all previous facts, starting from late February of the past year and until the recent moment, will be generalized and presented in an absolutely different plane.

“Any other our resources in foreign languages, both printed and online periodicals, could be useful in countering Russian propaganda.”

Do you see the prospects of reforming this organization, considering that it has been discussed for decades?

“Now the 69th session of the UN General Assembly is in process, and certain movements on reforming the UN Security Council and General Assembly were made at the 30th session. The discussion is complex, because the configuration in the global sense is changed, new leaders, such as Japan, Brazil, India, Germany, appear. The world is changing, and of course, there is a demand that the interests of countries that influence global human resources, technical, and other possibilities be taken into consideration. But this is not simple, since there are common interests. Crises in Syria and Ukraine sped up the debate on reforming the UN. There are certain formulations, but the process will not be a quick and simple one.”

So, there is no way to remove the right to veto?

“This issue can be regulated gradually. For example, those who have the right to veto have to agree to the principles of its application and non-application. This is what the French president offered. Then it will be possible to move on. Shifting to the principle of adopting the decision via consensus, which exists in separate UN committees, cannot be a way out either, because anyone can break a consensus.”

What other options are there?

“It would be possible to adopt the existing at the UN General Assembly principle of decision-making by two thirds of votes. But again, mechanisms for this must be defined. After all, this will lead to certain changes in the UN Statute, which will require considerable efforts. The existing Statute was adopted 50 years ago. And that is why some countries apply the Statute as they please. As, for example, Russia applied it in Crimea, having stated that ‘we support the right of the people for self-identification,’ and now Moscow demands the same in Donbas. And this contradicts another principle of the UN Statute: territorial integrity and respect towards territorial integrity. If it was hard to write the Statute that would have unambiguous sense before, making amendments to it will not be simple as well.”

By the way, now is 50 years since Churchill’s death, who suggested in his Fulton speech that the UN should have its own armed forces. What do you think about his proposal?

“It is hard to accomplish. This issue arises even now, however, in a different context. We want the UN to have a permanent peacekeeping force. But all this comes down to the issue of money and question of when and how these peacekeeping forces can be used. Since once the UN has its force, it cannot just send it at will, but only at the request of the government of a country where a problem arises. The UN cannot simply make a decision and implement it. The principle of peacemaking must be changed. Then, there is the financing problem. That is why the question is not simple, and I do not see any prospects.”

And what about our situation, is there any point to ask peacekeepers to help restore control over the border in eastern Ukraine, or in other words, force Russia fulfill Minsk accords?

“This is possible theoretically, but would be rather hard to achieve in practice, since the decision on sending the peacemaking force of the UN is made by the Security Council. Just imagine how the Russian Federation will behave when the Ukrainian government submits a request for the peacemaking force. It will veto it. Or it will behave just like it did in Abkhazia. It manipulated everything in such a way that the peacekeeping force of the CIS was sent there, which was 100 percent made of Russian troops. That’s it.”