Thread by @PKurzin

Can #russia actually be removed or, at least, suspended from the #UNSC?

Short answer: no.

Longer answer : it’s complicated (shockingly).🧵 ⬇️

1. Firstly but crucially, the inability to suspend/remove any member underlines a bigger, structural issue:

That the #UNSC is grossly outdated and doesn’t reflect the modern balance of power.

It was formed after WWII, comprising 15 members and the main allies being granted P5 (permanent) status.

But that word means just that.

That they are permanent and there being no mechanism written into the UN Charter to remove them.

Many states have risen while others have declined or plateaued and yet the #UNSC has remained unchanged.

Unsurprisingly, those with the power don’t want to give up, or even have their power ‘diluted’ by adding more members like India for instance.

2. But aside from the previous point, even if there was a willingness to reform the UN. There isn’t actually written mechanism to change the #UNSC.

However, the UN General Assembly or #UNGA does, which involves amending the UN Charter.

Under Article 108 any chances must be approved by 2/3 of member states. But this has never been done before plus it requires UNSC approval…

So you guessed it, that means approval by Russia, which with its veto, means no dice.

3. However, this raises a more nuanced question…

Does Russia have right to the #UNSC seat all? Some, including #Ukraine beg to differ.

Specifically, Russia is not mentioned in the charter as a P5 member - rather its the Soviet Union.

But when it collapsed, Russian President Boris Yeltsin stated that as the former ‘head’ of the SU, they would inherit the seat.

5. However, this means Russians takeover of the seat was never formally approved. Not even in writing, merely verbally.

And so, Ukraine’s emphasises:

- Does Russia have legitimate claim to the seat?
- Given it’s actions, should it have the right to retain it?

It’s certainly thought-provoking.

Moreover, many reference the case where #UNSC switched from Taiwan (ROC) to mainland China (PRC) that happened in 1971.

Simply resolution 2758 made the PRC the only ‘legittimate representative of China’…

But as Professor Andrew Macleod has noted, it was President Nixon’s choice to change where China was governed - from Taipei to Beijing that changed who sat at the #UNSC.

So China won’t want to raise Russia’s claim as that will lead to their own membership being question.

5. Then there is Article 27 which is worth raising as it covers voting on ‘procedural matters’ in the #UNSC : shorturl.at/lyKS9

It emphasises that on affirmative votes involving 9/10 #UNSC members it doesn’t matter it they’re P5 or elected members.

Put differently, these don’t require ‘concurring votes of the permanent members’, and so limitation of veto. In theory.

And this has happened: during the 50-53 Korea War when Taipei approved #UN forces supporting the US against Beijing and North Korean troops.

6. Fundamentally though, it’s not only about if mechanisms exist, but if countries actually have the motivation to act too.

Clearly China has no incentive to raise Russia’s legtimacy since they’d also end up in the spotlight,

And whether like or not, Russia remains an actor with presence in other places which would greatly destabilise whole regions.

Moreover, some states actively welcome their presence - think the growing reliance of #Mail on the #WagnerGroup against Islamic extremists.

Bottom-line, some states won’t support Russias removal because the repercussions for their interests elsewhere would be jeopardised.

This is so unsatisfactory it’s hard to overstate. But it illustrates two final points.

Namely that:

1. States approach geopolitics/international relations based on their interests/goals.
2. The #UN is only as powerful as states allow it to be.

Simplified perhaps. But mainly states to act like this including Western ones.

#Russia’s actions in #Ukraine give it no right to be a permanent member on the #UN organ, whose responsibility is international ‘peace and security’.

But until there is a an active, genuine and collective push for change, prospects for this remain low. END