Session ha un. UN General Assembly: Trump is embarrassed, Lavrov keeps intrigue. The New Yorker: Trump brags he got more laughs at the UN than Obama

the beauty

presidential press office

Petro Poroshenko said that the UN peacekeeping mission could force Russia to fulfill the Minsk agreements in good faith

presidential press office

President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko spoke at the High-Level Peacekeeping Event as part of his participation in the 73rd session General Assembly. Poroshenko recalled that external military aggression against Ukraine continues. And it grossly violates the UN Charter and the resolution of the General Assembly and the Security Council of the Organization. About this - in the story.

According to the UN's most cautious estimates, the number of victims of the conflict was about 35,000. Of these, 10,000 were killed and about 25,000 were wounded, the head of state said. The number of internally displaced persons exceeded 1.5 million.

The speech of the head of state at the General Assembly is the highest official level of address of Ukraine

It is the UN peacekeeping mission that could force Russia to fulfill the Minsk agreements in good faith. However, Russia opposes the peacekeepers, the President stressed. The Kremlin is afraid that the peacekeepers will see the Russian military and military equipment throughout the occupied territory, he explained.

The UN must provide a bold response to this challenge, Poroshenko concluded. He also recalled that Ukraine's appeal to deploy a UN peacekeeping operation in the occupied territory has not yet been satisfied. And noted the need to reform the UN to increase efficiency peacekeeping.

Impossible Scenario

Despite the fact that the need to introduce a peacekeeping mission to the Donbass has been discussed for more than a year, this scenario is now impossible, said military expert Mikhail Savchenko, since this requires Russia's consent.

Russia has the right of veto, he recalled. And the General Assembly is unlikely to seriously address this issue, because they are afraid to go too far and drive the beast into a corner, the expert added.

The speech of the head of state at the General Assembly is the highest official level of Ukraine's appeal to send a peacekeeping mission to our country, noted former ambassador of Ukraine in Croatia, Advisor to the Minister for Temporarily Occupied Territories and Internally Displaced Persons Oleksandr Levchenko.

According to him, the mechanism of action should be as follows: a discussion is held, an assessment mission calculates how much one year of the mission’s stay in Donbas can cost, with this estimate the UN Secretary General reports to the UN Security Council, and the Security Council makes a final decision. The main question, according to the expert, is what kind of mandate this mission will go to Ukraine with. The expert is convinced that it is impossible to avoid Russia's veto.

New conflict

The peacekeeping mission is the only format that can radically change the situation in the Donbas towards de-escalating the conflict and returning those territories to normal life, Serhiy Grabsky, head of the board of the All-Ukrainian Association of the Union of Peacekeeping Operations Participants, said earlier.

Russia has the right to veto

We are talking about creating a security space with humanitarian support for territories not controlled by Ukraine and holding elections in the future, he added.

On September 26, Petro Poroshenko will hand over to the UN Secretary General António Guterres a diplomatic note on the non-renewal of the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation with the Russian Federation.

A high-level debate began at the 73rd session of the UN General Assembly. A variety of issues are on the agenda. Most of them are under consideration by the Assembly on an ongoing basis (ensuring international peace and security, disarmament, human rights, decolonization, etc.). Usually the agenda is formed long before the start of a new session, but this time attempts were made to amend the agenda just before the start of the session, including including provocative questions.

Thus, Ukraine is dragging its “Regulations on the temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine” to the UN. In an explanatory note to the Chairman of the UN General Assembly, the Ukrainian authorities stated that they expect support from the "international community" regarding the "temporary occupation" of the territory of Ukraine and plan to carry out their decisions under the heading of UN General Assembly resolutions. This tactic is bearing fruit. Thus, at the 68th session of the General Assembly, Ukraine managed to push through resolution No. 262 “Territorial integrity of Ukraine; at the 71st session - resolution No. 205 “The situation in the field of human rights in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol” (there, the UN General Assembly “condemned the ongoing temporary occupation of the indicated part of the territory of Ukraine” and “confirmed the non-recognition of its annexation”).

True, there was no universal approval of these resolutions. Resolution No. 262 was adopted by a little over half of the votes: 100 delegations voted in favor of it; 11 delegations were against, but what matters here is not the number of those who voted "against", but the number of those who did not vote "for", including those who abstained (58) and did not take part in the vote (24). The fact is that Western delegations literally “twisted the arms” of other UN members. Resolution No. 205 received even less support: 70 delegations voted for it, 26 voted against, and 77 and 20, respectively, abstained and did not vote. Thus, Ukraine's "success" is actually exaggerated - its projects are not supported by the majority of UN member states! However, formally the resolutions have been adopted and are being used in the propaganda war.

The use of the UNGA on issues that cannot be resolved in the Security Council, unfortunately, is becoming an increasingly frequently used weapon. An illegal body established in 2015, the so-called “Impartial and Independent Mechanism to Facilitate the Investigation of Those Responsible for the Most Serious Crimes under the international law committed in the Syrian Arab Republic since March 2011 and their prosecution.” This body was created by the UN General Assembly in direct violation of the UN Charter, which prohibits the Assembly from dealing with issues under consideration by the Security Council (the situation in Syria was on the agenda of the UN Security Council). The resolution on the creation of the "Mechanism" was pushed through by the Western countries-members of the Security Council, who were unable to push through the transfer of the situation in Syria to the International Criminal Court (Russia invariably vetoed drafts of such resolutions).

Another issue that they will try to include on the agenda of the opening session of the UN General Assembly is "The responsibility to protect and prevent genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity." This concept proceeds from the fact that the protection of human rights legally has priority over state sovereignty. In most countries of the world, they perfectly understand what the essence of this “theory” is, therefore it is hardly recognized. And the governing bodies of the UN, including the leadership of its legal service, decided to promote this "theory as a legal norm in parts: they say, let's start with the most win-win - who dares not support the prevention of genocide, and then add" and other international crimes "and the concept can be to drag through in pieces (in separate elements of crimes) .... To implement this plan, the post of UN special adviser on the prevention of genocide was specially created, who a few days ago called on the UN Security Council "to prevent another tragedy in Syria." And UN Secretary-General A. Guterres officially calls the promotion of the theory of "responsibility to protect" one of his main goals!

Creation international courts and all sorts of "mechanisms" - another example of a number of UN bodies going beyond their powers or using them for provocative activities. By the way, crossbows happen in this propaganda war. Recall the recent harsh statements of the US presidential adviser on national security J. Bolton that the International Criminal Court (ICC) is an illegal and corrupt institution. But it was the United States that was the sponsor of the draft resolutions on the transfer of the situation in Syria to the ICC. And it is there that the United States is systematically trying to transfer cases to other states!

On September 25, the main speeches began, the so-called general debate, in which 84 heads of state and 44 heads of government will speak. On 26 September, a high-level plenary meeting convened by the President of the General Assembly was held to celebrate and promote international day struggle for the complete elimination nuclear weapons(This day was established by the UN General Assembly in 2013). As you know, in December 2016, the UN General Assembly decided to prepare a treaty on the complete elimination of nuclear weapons.

In September 2017, on the website of the Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the UN in connection with the opening for signing of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, a comment was published: “Russia cannot move further along the path of reducing nuclear weapons exclusively on a bilateral basis with the United States (not to mention the fact that according to the line of the Donald Trump administration on issues such as the future of the Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms and the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces remains unclear). In fact, we have already reached the threshold beyond which the corresponding hypothetical negotiations will have to be multilateral. It is no longer possible to ignore the potentials of all other states possessing nuclear weapons in the course of such discussions.”

The Russian Foreign Ministry spoke out against signing an agreement on a complete ban on nuclear weapons. According to the director of the department for non-proliferation and arms control of the Russian Foreign Ministry Mikhail Ulyanov, the ratification of the agreement does not meet national interest Russia and could lead to a violation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which entered into force in 1970.

On September 17, 2018, the Russian representative, speaking in Vienna at a session of the IAEA Board of Governors on the issue of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, noted that the promotion of this issue within the IAEA is inappropriate, since nuclear disarmament is not mentioned either among the tasks or among the functions of the IAEA, listed in the Charter of this organization.

Thus, Ukraine is dragging its “Regulations on the temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine” to the UN. In an explanatory note to the Chairman of the UN General Assembly, the Ukrainian authorities stated that they expect support from the "international community" regarding the "temporary occupation" of the territory of Ukraine and plan to carry out their decisions under the heading of UN General Assembly resolutions. This tactic is bearing fruit. Thus, at the 68th session of the General Assembly, Ukraine managed to push through resolution No. 262 “Territorial integrity of Ukraine; at the 71st session - resolution No. 205 “The situation in the field of human rights in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol” (there, the UN General Assembly “condemned the ongoing temporary occupation of the specified part of the territory of Ukraine” and “confirmed the non-recognition of its annexation”).

True, there was no universal approval of these resolutions. Resolution No. 262 was adopted by a little over half of the votes: 100 delegations voted in favor of it; 11 delegations were against, but what matters here is not the number of those who voted "against", but the number of those who did not vote "for", including those who abstained (58) and did not take part in the vote (24). The fact is that Western delegations literally “twisted the arms” of other UN members. Resolution No. 205 received even less support: 70 delegations voted for it, 26 voted against, and 77 and 20 abstained and did not vote, respectively. However, formally the resolutions have been adopted and are being used in the propaganda war.

The use of the UNGA on issues that cannot be resolved in the Security Council, unfortunately, is becoming an increasingly frequently used weapon. The illegal body established in 2015, the so-called "Impartial and Independent Mechanism to Facilitate the Investigation of the Persons Responsible for the Most Serious Crimes under International Law Committed in the Syrian Arab Republic since March 2011, and their prosecution." This body was created by the UN General Assembly in direct violation of the UN Charter, which prohibits the Assembly from dealing with issues under consideration by the Security Council (the situation in Syria was on the agenda of the UN Security Council). The resolution on the creation of the "Mechanism" was pushed through by the Western countries-members of the Security Council, who were unable to push through the transfer of the situation in Syria to the International Criminal Court (Russia invariably vetoed drafts of such resolutions).

The creation of international courts and all kinds of "mechanisms" is another example of a number of UN bodies going beyond their powers or using them for provocative activities. By the way, crossbows happen in this propaganda war. Let us recall the recent harsh statements by US National Security Adviser George Bolton that the International Criminal Court (ICC) is an illegal and corrupt institution. But it was the United States that was the sponsor of the draft resolutions on the transfer of the situation in Syria to the ICC. And it is there that the United States is systematically trying to transfer cases to other states!

On September 25, the main speeches began, the so-called general debate, in which 84 heads of state and 44 heads of government will speak. On September 26, a high-level plenary meeting convened by the President of the General Assembly was held to celebrate and promote the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons (the day was established by the UN General Assembly in 2013). As you know, in December 2016, the UN General Assembly decided to prepare a treaty on the complete elimination of nuclear weapons.

In September 2017, on the website of the Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the UN in connection with the opening for signing of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, a comment was published: “Russia cannot move further along the path of reducing nuclear weapons exclusively on a bilateral basis with the United States (not to mention the fact that the line of the Donald Trump administration on issues such as the future of the Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms and the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces remains unclear). In fact, we have already reached the threshold beyond which the corresponding hypothetical negotiations will have to be multilateral. It is no longer possible to ignore the potentials of all other states possessing nuclear weapons in the course of such discussions.”

The Russian Foreign Ministry spoke out against signing an agreement on a complete ban on nuclear weapons. According to Mikhail Ulyanov, Director of the Department for Non-Proliferation and Arms Control of the Russian Foreign Ministry, the ratification of the agreement does not meet the national interests of Russia and may lead to a violation of the regime of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which entered into force in 1970.

Dear Mr Secretary General,

Dear colleagues,

Peacekeeping activities are among the unconditional priorities of the UN. For several decades, the Blue Helmets have symbolized the hopes of the world community to end the war and heal the wounds of armed conflicts. The service of peacekeepers has never been easy. Last year alone, 59 of them gave their lives. Everything must be done to avoid similar tragedies in the future.

Russia supports the desire of the Secretary General to improve the Organization's peacekeeping activities. Some changes are clearly overdue. At the same time, of course, the basic principles of peacekeeping must remain unshakable. Passion for "power" mandates is not a panacea. The experience of the UN in Mali and the DR Congo is a vivid confirmation of this. It is the governments hosting peacekeeping operations that bear the main responsibility for the security of the population, including from terrorist attacks, for the establishment of the political process, the elimination of the causes of the conflict, and the provision of post-conflict reconstruction. The international community, in turn, must assist governments in every way to achieve these goals.

The mandates of peacekeeping operations must be clear and realistic. It is important to take into account the opinions of both host states and contributor countries, and to establish a respectful dialogue with them.

For all the demand for the expertise of the UN Secretariat, the decisive role in determining the strategic directions of peacekeeping belongs to the Security Council and the General Assembly. Their prerogatives must be strictly respected.

We support the desire to build up close cooperation between the UN and regional and subregional organizations in the conduct of peacekeeping operations. A successful example is the cooperation of the UN with the African Union. We are ready to develop contacts in the field of peacekeeping between the UN and the CSTO.

We are closely following the Secretariat's efforts to put into practice the concept of "intelligence in UN peacekeeping". So far, they raise questions, primarily with regard to the definition of "intelligence", which, in the secretariat's interpretation, goes far beyond what was clearly agreed upon in the decisions of the General Assembly's Special Committee on PKOs (C-34). Also puzzling are attempts to conceal from Member States materials containing the vision of this concept by the Secretariat. I emphasize, as stated in the C-34 report, intelligence in PKOs can only be used to ensure the safety of peacekeepers and the protection of civilians. Data collection must be carried out strictly in accordance with the UN Charter, with the consent of the receiving party and by purely legal methods. Of particular importance are the secure storage and safe handling of sensitive information. The Special Committee did not give consent to its use for the purposes of special political missions and humanitarian operations and even more so - for the creation of some kind of independent intelligence service at the UN headquarters.

With regard to the declaration “On Joint Commitments in the Field of Peacekeeping” officially presented today. We are grateful to the Secretary General for his initiative. The principles laid down in the document generally set the right vector for the development of peacekeeping activities.

However, we cannot agree with some provisions.

First, it is an emphasis on cooperation with civil society and NGOs to the detriment of engagement with host governments.

Secondly, the desire to place at the center of mandates tasks that are secondary and uncharacteristic of peacekeeping, including in the field of human rights. There are specialized UN bodies for this topic, and, probably, one should not intrude into their competence.

Thirdly, and especially in view of the two remarks mentioned above, it is alarming that the authors of the draft Declaration consider military action as some kind of miraculous remedy in solving peacekeeping tasks.

Fourthly, it is unacceptable that the draft Declaration does not confirm the coordinating role of Special Committee UNGA on PKO.

We would also advise against emphasizing in a document seeking consensus the "special significance" of individual regional organizations with mixed peacekeeping experience.

We presume that the declaration has no precedent character, and the specific forms of possible practical application of its provisions should be the subject of further intergovernmental agreement.

On that understanding, we decided not to object to the consensus.

Around the 73rd session of the UN General Assembly, in which all states are on an equal footing, there is by no means a celebratory atmosphere. In the past, she played a significant role, but for several years now she has been the object of criticism. Against the background of Trump's aggressive diplomacy, its difficulties reflect the general crisis of the multilateral system.

Every year in September, the regular session of the UN General Assembly opens, the 73rd in a row since the adoption of the UN Charter. This central institution for the organization is aimed at discussions and serves as a guarantor of equality between states. It is also designated as one of the "principal organs" of the UN in Article 7 of the 1945 charter.

Be that as it may, the General Assembly has to deal with regular criticism. Thus, General de Gaulle back in 1965 condemned stormy and outrageous meetings at which it was impossible to organize an objective discussion. Last year, the President of the United States called the UN "a club for chatting and having fun." It is worth noting that this temple of the multilateral system has been shaken, not by criticism, but by Donald Trump's diplomatic methods, which rely on bilateral ties and strength. In such circumstances, let's look at the main issues that surround this UN agency.

What is the UN General Assembly?

While the opening of each session, with speeches by Heads of State or Government, attracts the most media attention, it is not just one week a year when UN member states come together to take stock of the past and find a response to the challenges ahead.

Although the General Assembly is not as well known as the Security Council, within its framework, representatives of 193 UN member states debate in the format of annual sessions that last from September to the end of December.

What is her role?

It provides advice to States on various issues like international cooperation, peacekeeping, disarmament, climate, education and society, and puts forward initiatives that are designed to push states in the right direction. In particular, this concerns the Millennium Development Goals adopted in 2000 (aimed mainly at combating poverty) and 17 Millennium Development Goals approved in September 2015. sustainable development". Unlike the Security Council, GA resolutions are not binding.

Although discussion is at the core of the GA's work, it is also tasked effective work UN. In particular, it is she who distributes the budget, elects non-permanent members Security Council, and also appoints according to his recommendations Secretary General UN.

How does it work?

“Reps really love spending time in New York. However, the most important thing happens, rather, not on the sidelines of the UN, but in hotels where leadership meetings take place,” says Alain Dejammet, former Ambassador of France and author of the book “World Fire - What is the UN doing?”. “Conversations are going on, which is good, especially since, along with rather restrained and formal speeches, there are also bilateral behind-the-scenes contacts,” adds Alain Pellet, lecturer in international law at the University of Paris-Nanterre.

Alain Dejammet does not consider the General Assembly useless: "Speeches at the opening of the annual session reflect the spirit of the times." “While resolutions are not binding, states still feel a sense of responsibility,” he notes, citing decolonization in the 1950s and 1960s or the recent Paris climate agreement, although the US withdrawal from the latter has shown the limits of this process.

A pledge of democratic legitimacy?

The peculiarity of the GA is that it gives each state one vote and, therefore, puts them on an equal footing. "It doesn't matter who it is, China or Barbuda!" exclaims Alain Dejammet. According to him, this UN body has historically granted the right to vote to African and Latin American countries. That is why General de Gaulle, who called the UN some kind of incomprehensible contraption, nevertheless recognized its usefulness during his second presidential term. "He stated interesting development: all more states joined the UN and started a confrontation with the superpowers,” writes Maurice Vaïsse, lecturer at the Paris Institute of Political Studies. In theory, the General Assembly allows you to fight the hegemony of the great powers.

But can it be considered a kind of parliament of peoples, a guarantee of democracy, as one might think from the first words of the charter of 1945: "We, the peoples of the United Nations ..."? “No, democracy is a vote per person. The vote on the state, as in the General Assembly, only meets the requirements of the sovereign equality of states,” Alain Pellet assures, adding that the GA also cannot be considered a parliament, since it does not have legislative powers.

Is GA effective?

“She was the real center of gravity of the UN until the early 1980s,” says Alain Pellet. Be that as it may, the former chairman of the UN Commission on International Law noted the following in Pouvoir magazine in 2004: “After cold war and the beginning of liberal globalization, she drowned in stagnant verbiage without connection with reality. She has not been left without trump cards, but she lacks political will.” In 2016 alone, the GA adopted 329 resolutions. “The vast majority of them go unnoticed, and rightly so,” the publicist believes.

It is this growth of documentation under the influence of the bureaucratic machine that formed the basis of criticism of Donald Trump and proposals for fundamental reforms of the UN by the new Secretary General António Guterres, elected in 2017. “The general direction seems positive to me, however, this is probably already the 30th attempt in a row ...” Alain Pellet said then. According to him, against the backdrop of the actions of Donald Trump, as well as Russia and China, “we are seeing, first of all, a return to sovereignty. The position of the multilateral approach has clearly been shaken.”

The materials of InoSMI contain only assessments of foreign media and do not reflect the position of the editors of InoSMI.

Subscribe to us