The UN high Commissioner for human rights Zeid RA’ad al-Hussein may not require the permanent members of the UN security Council rejection of the veto, said the official representative of Russian foreign Ministry Maria Zakharova. Press Secretary of the President Dmitry Peskov, voiced a negative reaction of the Kremlin on this issue. The theme of restriction of right of veto and Russia in the UN security Council pedaliruetsya because of the situation around Syria. But how real is the realization of this scenario? We asked this expert.
Alexei Borisov, head of UNESCO chair, MGIMO:
To somehow limit the right of the permanent members of the UN security Council to veto certain decisions, you need to change the entire Charter of an international organization. If you ever will do, can be considered that the UN ceased to exist, and it would be tantamount to opening Pandora’s box. Since the establishment of this organization on reforming the security Council raised almost annually. I think that we are dealing with another such story emerged in favor of the political moment and the situation, but this story does not end. Otherwise, we will move from world order to global anarchy.
– In your opinion, the veto system is just or it can be called a necessary evil?
Is no evil! The UN was created by the coalition allies, USA, USSR, France and great Britain that won the Second world war, fascism and nationalism. And before that the League of Nations died because of the fact that she had no such agreements.
– However, it turns out that when one of the members of the security Council that does not like it, he vetoes, and the rest have only shrug…
– Believe me, the imposition of the veto is a very rare and serious case in the practice sessions of the security Council. On the sidelines of all its members carry out very serious work in order not to bring the situation to its application. This is the balance by which the whole world is not falling apart.
Gregory Kovrizhenko, honorary President of the world Federation of Associations of the UN:
– The right of veto has repeatedly helped save the organization from collapse, so neither the US nor China, nor the other members of the security Council is not ready to abandon him. It helps the great powers to cooperate with each other in any situation. In addition, while the Charter does not provide for any limitation of the veto, and to make changes impossible.
I am an optimist. It seems to me that a reasonable policy is not much hope that the whole world can change with one decision. They understand that no one lives forever: changing government, changing heads of different levels, changing the policies of States, but the world needs to survive. It seems to me that all reasonable politicians, the idea of survival world is the most important, and the right of veto is one of the key tools for the preservation of hopes for cooperation and peaceful development.
Konstantin Zatulin, head of the Institute of CIS countries:
– A proposal to limit the veto is part of a strategy to create a sinister image of Russia. Maybe someone hoped that Moscow falter nerves and she does not veto the decision to limit the right of veto, but this will not happen. In fact, it will not go no country, as all of you know that this opportunity is very important for them. Diplomacy is retentive thing, under Stalin, we have decided to protest against the non-Communist China seat in the UN security Council for some time to refuse to work in this structure. In response, the US immediately imposed on the international community to intervene in Korea under the auspices of the UN. So, including due to the inaction of the Soviet Union, the Americans attacked the Communist Korea, which led to the collapse of a single country. After that, in spite of his bad opinion about imperialism, we never did such stupid things.