So something interesting that could be developing at the UN: Ukraine appears to be laying the groundwork to challenge whether the Russian Federation is the legitimate successor to the USSR’s seat and veto on the Security Council
Here’s the ambassador citing the part of the charter that deals with admission of members during his speech at the UN Security Council earlier tonight
And here’s his demand for the documents that show that the Russian Federation was welcomed to the body by the UNSC and General Assembly. Those documents don’t exist as he noted because the UN legal counsel made the call
The UN Charter was never amended after the USSR broke up. It still references the Soviet Union as one of the permanent members of the UN Security Council. The Russian Federation just ascended to that seat after 1991.
So as @p_orchard noted the only other example of a member joining outside the usual method was when the PRC took over China’s seat from the Nationalist government in Taiwan. They did so via a UNGA resolution, which the US was uh not happy about
So that could (maybe??) be Ukraine’s goal? To have the UNGA pass a resolution declaring that either the USSR’s seat is empty or that some other state should be the -real- successor to the Soviet’s
Do I think it would work? Hell if I know but it’s fascinating and will be wild to see how it develops. Especially since it took IIRC ten years for the PRC’s supporters to overcome US opposition and procedural delays in the UNGA.
From 1961 - 1971, the US made sure the question of the China seat at the UNGA was an “important question” that required a two-thirds vote. It’s possible that Russia try a similar tactic, but will they have support for raising the bar in the first place? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Okay, everyone, stop retweeting this thread and start retweeting this article which goes more in-depth please and thank you
UN Secretary General Antonio Gutteres, speaking directly to camera at the UN Security Council meeting on Ukraine: “President Putin: stop your troops from attacking Ukraine. Give peace a chance.”
Albania’s ambassador says that this isn’t a conflict between Russia and the West, but “between Russia and international law, Russia and the UN Charter."
.@USAmbUN says she spoke with Biden just before this SC meeting and conveys his support to Ukraine. She then runs through the list of justifications that the US said Russia would give — and how all of them have come to pass
Riddle me this: how is the US saying “Russia better not invade Ukraine” a case of being -for- war? It feels like for some people trying to avert a war counts as warmongering and I really don’t get it.
NATO members haven’t issued “deterrent sanctions” that some hawks are calling for
US intel that’s made it into reports has all been about the things that Moscow -wants- to pull, neutralizing potential Russian pretexts
Ukraine isn’t gonna invade Russia, so what am I missing?
I’m just saying, there are some gaps in the logic here to get to “the US is spinning the media into a war between Russia and Ukraine”
I didn’t have room to get into it here, but while the main target of this “crack pipe” thing is def white suburbanites, there’s something about yelling “THE GOV'T WANTS PEOPLE SMOKING CRACK” that speaks to long-standing conspiracies in Black communities
In any case, I’m almost glad this blew up on the right because I learned a lot about harm reduction principles in the process of looking into it, including why safe smoking kits definitely deserve funding
Sinema concluded her remarks by "urging other senators to contact her if they wanted to discuss the issue further.” And I would love to be a fly on the wall for one of those meetings. Or maybe present at one of those meetings. I could make charts.
"Manchin and Sinema need to let legislation live or die by the majority's will. If they truly want bipartisanship to have its day again, they need to be unafraid to let bills come to final votes, even if they find themselves voting with the minority.”
The filibuster is a mistake of the rewritten rules, which deleted the rule for “previous question,” a loophole exploited by the Southern slaveholding class and later the Dixiecrats. That is the history of the filibuster.
The idea that the Senate rules were built around — where the esteemed gentlemen of the Senate will just cordially decide to have a majority vote once debate is naturally exhausted — is not anywhere close to reality
From 1992, again on the National Voter Registration Act: "Republicans, who twice in the last year used the threat of a filibuster to block the measure from coming to the floor, say the bill will encourage vote fraud.”
McConnell DID say a lot of good things about the Voting Rights Act — before the Supreme Court gutted it. This was him in 2004, arguing for making DOJ preclearance permanent instead of needing reauthorization