Yurii SERHIEIEV: “We have shown the world the true face of Russia

The UN Security Council (UNSC) met for the 31st time to deal with the Ukrainian question on February 27. Peculiarly, it gathered a year after the first meeting which addressed the issue of territorial integrity of Ukraine against the background of Russian aggression, in particular the unlawful takeover of Crimea. The Day turned to Permanent Representative of Ukraine at the UN Yurii SERHIEIEV, asking him to comment on this meeting and tell if there was any way to limit Russia’s right of veto or even expel this aggressor state from the UNSC.

“HAD THE WORLD RESPONDED IN MARCH 2014 AS STRONGLY AS IT DOES NOW, IT MIGHT HAVE STOPPED THE RUSSIANS SOMEHOW BACK THEN ALREADY”

“It was a routine meeting with no provision for a discussion. We listened to the information presented by head of the OSCE mission in Ukraine Ertugrul Apakan and member of the contact group Heidi Tagliavini. They offered their reports on the situation on the ground and implementation of the Minsk Agreements.”

In your opinion, to what extent were their reports true and reflecting the real state of affairs in the Donbas?

“They presented their point of view, saying they would like to have more information and the process was slow, but could be accelerated. As the UNSC held no discussion after this meeting, I made a comment for the UN press corps. I said that we were concerned about the fact that the Minsk Accords were at risk, and the Russian-backed separatists constantly tried to provoke us and undermine these accords. Shellings continued today [on February 27. – Author] even as the UNSC meeting was being held. They killed two and wounded seven Ukrainian soldiers just today. There are no obvious signs that the terrorists are ready for withdrawing their equipment. At the same time we are concerned, and we attracted the global community’s attention to it, about the emerging troop concentration in the direction of Mariupol. Therefore, we called on world leaders and the UN again through the press to influence Vladimir Putin so that he forces his men in Donetsk and Luhansk to fulfill their part of the bargain. Thus, it was a purely information meeting, but we took advantage of the fact that today is actually the anniversary of the eve of the first Ukraine-themed meeting of the UNSC, held a year ago on February 28, 2014. It was the day when we started to publicize facts of the Russian aggression in Ukraine. Therefore, today’s meeting, which was entitled “The Territorial Integrity of Ukraine” and held with the participation of first deputy speaker Andrii Parubii, representatives of UN member states, ambassadors and deputy ambassadors, political scientists, leaders of the Ukrainian community, saw us stating that parts of our country had been occupied a year ago. Some of them have been annexed, and there is a risk of further escalation, further occupation. The key point of our presentations was as follows: we have tried everything in our power, we have shown the world that we can protect ourselves, we have shown the world the true face of Russia and called on everyone to make a contribution to our common security system, both European and global, now, for the Russian aggression has essentially broken and crushed everything that happened after the Yalta and Potsdam conferences, that is, the entire postwar order, and it is a challenge not only for us, even though it is especially clear in our case, but for the whole world.”

You rightly said that a policy of appeasement should not be used with Russia. What is your opinion, then, on the general trend of the UN response to the Russian aggression against Ukraine, which has been going on for almost a year?

“It is not as forceful as we would like, and had the world responded in March 2014 as strongly as it does now, it might have stopped the Russians somehow back then already. Still, we remember that the sanctions were imposed gradually, some of them were even joked about, but they then began to increase and bite. However, everyone understands that while being painful for Russia, the sanctions cannot decisively influence it so that it stops the aggression. This is so because Russia has a huge reserve of endurance, or rather of slavish behavior, inspiring people to meet every hardship, up to shortages of food and drinks, if they are united by some idea. Let us recall that the Soviet Union always used an external enemy, a national crisis as such a unifying idea.”

“PUTIN’S HUGE PUBLIC SUPPORT IS DANGEROUS FOR ALL PARTIES”

We know, however, that plants or factories often burned down because a fireman or someone else was asleep at work, and it was still presented by the media as an external enemy’s actions.

“I agree that the search for an external enemy is followed by the search for an internal one, these are interconnected as the state starts to destroy various group and keeps explaining to people – look, the enemy is still at large. Our problem is that Putin’s huge public support is dangerous for all parties, because he needs to maintain it at these levels. However, the only way to do so is to continue the aggression. This is the real issue.”

Mr. Ambassador, what are the prospects for depriving Russia of its veto, during voting on certain issues at least?

“It is unlikely.”

But some media quoted you as saying it was possible.

“No, no, they misunderstood what I meant. I meant there were ways to get around a veto. Meanwhile, depriving Russia of its veto is almost impossible.”

Why is it so?

“Because the mechanisms incorporated in the UN procedure fully protect permanent members of the UNSC. That is, there is Paragraph 3 of Article 27 which states that ‘a party to a dispute shall refrain from voting.’ We have this provision, but for the UNSC to adopt such a decision, the country in question has to vote in support. As Russia has its veto, this avenue is blocked.”

“THEORETICALLY, RUSSIA CAN BE EXPELLED FROM THE UN AND THE UNSC, AS IT OBTAINED MEMBERSHIP IN BOTH BODIES IN THE MANNER THAT WAS NOT QUITE LEGITIMATE”

That is, it is a deadlock?

“Yes, it is. Your proposal will not work in this context, and the problem goes beyond Russia’s objections, because when laying down this principle, some other members of the UNSC had guarantees for themselves in mind. Thus, this is a complicated issue, just as the theoretically possible, but hardly doable, way to expel Russia, as it obtained membership in the UNSC and UN in the manner that was not quite legitimate, or even completely illegitimate.”

How so?

“The UN Charter says that new members, and Russia was a new member, should be admitted by the UN General Assembly vote on the recommendation of the UNSC. Russia did not comply with this procedure, while Serbia, which found itself in the same situation, did. This comparison can be exploited, but it is doubtful whether the world would agree to exclude Russia for its violations of the international law should the matter ever go back to the General Assembly.”

Do you have any concrete information on a peacekeeping mission in Ukraine, seeing that foreign minister Pavlo Klimkin visited the UN headquarters on February 23?

“He came there to hold consultations and look for mechanisms of the future mandate. That is, it went no further than consulting on how it might look like, what form or combination it might take, but this is a long-term issue.”