A Russian perspective published by Pravda on the crisis affecting the UN Security Council in relation to the Syria chemical weapon’s saga
It goes about the UN resolution that will make it possible to submit the question of the investigation of the alleged chemical attack in Syria to the UN General Assembly, The Guardian says. UN ambassadors have already discussed the crisis in Syria in Sweden and intend to continue discussing it this week as well.
OPCW experts are staying in Syria now, but the organisation does not have the authority to establish those responsible for the alleged attack in Syria’s Douma, the newspaper wrote.
It will be up to the UN Security Council to name the guilty. Russia has the veto right, and Moscow has already blocked more than a dozen resolutions against the Syrian authorities. In particular, Russia vetoed a US resolution on the development of a new mechanism for investigating chemical attacks in Syria.
Therefore, UN countries want to use “Uniting for Peace” resolution from November 3, 1950. If nine of fifteen members of the UN Security Council agree, it will enable them to bypass Russia’s veto and put the issue to the vote at the General Assembly. The resolution presumes a disputed issue is submitted to the General Assembly, if the Security Council, for example, is unable to maintain security and peace in the world. In this case, the UN General Assembly can give the Security Council any recommendations on peace-maintaining issues.
To agree on a mechanism for establishing responsibility for the alleged chemical attack in Syria, two-thirds of the votes of the members of the UN General Assembly – all UN members – will be required.
“Uniting for Peace” Resolution has been used several times since it was adoption in 1950. In particular, it was used in 2006 on the issue of Israel’s actions in East Jerusalem.
Pravda.Ru requested an expert opinion on the subject from Mikhail Sinelnikov-Orishak, an American political analyst.
“UN Resolution 377 from 1950, “Uniting for Peace,” which Western countries want to use to put maximum pressure on Russia, does not conform to the UN Charter. According to Paragraph 3 of Article 27 of the Charter, issues other than procedural matters shall be deemed accepted if they receive “concurring votes of all permanent members of the Council.”
“Consequently, a vote from a permanent member of the Security Council submitted against a pending decision shall be considered a vote of veto. Resolution 377, which states that the veto of a permanent member of the Security Council can be overcome under certain circumstances is known in the expert community as one of the most “contradictory acts of international law.” It has been used several times in the history of the United Nations, but most often unsuccessfully.
“For example, in 1980, the UN General Assembly unblocked a resolution, which the USSR vetoed at the Security Council demanding an immediate withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan. Nothing happened. Finally, what is the difference between a resolution of the General Assembly and a decision of the Security Council on the same issue? A decision of the Security Council is binding, and a resolution is recommendatory,” the expert told Pravda.Ru.
Earlier, representatives of 114 countries supported the idea of a possible restriction of the use of the veto right by permanent members of the UN Security Council. Such a statement was made by Liechtenstein’s Foreign Affairs Minister, Aurelia Frick.
In 2013, France put forward a similar proposal, but Russia and the United States did not support the initiative. Currently, the veto right is a privilege for the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, the United States, China and France.