Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

hieronymusanonymous OP t1_ixydd50 wrote

Reply to comment by NorCalHermitage in Returning to normal relations with Russia would be a mistake, says Lithuanian president by hieronymusanonymous

Nobody has taken the time or the trouble to challenge Russia's seat on the Security Council. Russia simply assumed the seat when the USSR dissolved and no one said "No, you can't do that". But Russia's possession of the seat remains unofficial and Russia can be removed at any time its credentials are challenged. Precedent for this is when Taiwan, then representing China for thirty years, was replaced by Beijing. It happened once, it could happen again. It merely takes the fortitude to get the job done.

1

porncrank t1_ixyf61s wrote

While that is all true, it would be a break from reality for the UN security council. The council mirrors the real world: countries that can "veto" things in real life, because of their global influence or nuclear weapons, get to veto things in the UN. You can take away Russia's seat, but they will retain all the real world power they have now. It just won't be reflected in UN discussions.

6

hieronymusanonymous OP t1_ixyfymy wrote

Cancellation of Russia as the heir to the USSR - and hence, its seat on the UN Security Council - would not prevent Russia from separately applying for ordinary UN membership like any other state with global influence or nuclear weapons such as India.

Of course, Russia would have to agree to the goals of the UN Charter in order to acquire a seat in the UN General Assembly. If it really followed those goals, Russia might even get one of those temporary non-veto 2-year seats on the Security Council.

And if Russia doesn't support the goals of the UN Charter, its absence from the UN would merely prevent its continuing obstructionism.

1