Ukraine war must be resolved within UN halls, not on the battlefield

This year marks the 80th anniversary of Japan’s surrender in World War II and the founding of the United Nations. Humanity learned with great pain that peace and security must coexist for all nations, and the vicious circle of war must not be repeated. In 1941, the United States imposed an oil embargo on Japan in response to its expansion in Asia and invasion of French Indochina. For the US and its allies, Japan’s militant aggression was a blatant violation of peace; for Japan, the embargo was an existential threat. Japan retaliated with a pre-emptive attack on Pearl Harbour, which led to the US declaration of war. The vicious circle of war ended with the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. The Russian war in Ukraine is not the same as the Japanese war in Asia and the geopolitical context is vastly different. But despite an 80-year gap, the lesson from the second world war continues to hold true. Geopolitics is complex; not so the basic tenets of the UN Charter, which unequivocally sets out four purposes and seven principles. The United Nations’ first purpose is to “maintain international peace and security”, and its first principle is “the sovereign equality of all its members”. The Ukraine peace process should begin by going back to the origins of the UN, and this warrants a balanced assessment of “peace” and “security” on the basis of “sovereign equality”. In contrast, the Cold War zero-sum paradigm, anchored in unilateral sanctions and lethal weapons, risks pushing the world closer to war. The Doomsday Clock, set by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, is 89 seconds to midnight, the closest to doomsday since its inception in 1947. In other words, the world has never been closer to a catastrophe since the end of World War II. Despite being symbolic, the core message of the Doomsday Clock is clear. As China’s President Xi Jinping put it at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit, the world is facing “a marked increase in factors of instability, uncertainty and unpredictability”. Consequently, Xi issued a rallying call to SCO member states to safeguard the international system with the UN at its core. He also reassured UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres that China would always be a trustworthy partner of the UN. In contrast, US President Donald Trump’s diplomatic efforts last month were short on cohesion and assurance. For a start, his red-carpet treatment of Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska was a source of anxiety for Ukraine and many in Europe. Trump then hosted Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky and European leaders at the White House. There was an undercurrent of anxiety and a few strained smiles, though the meeting did end on a note of optimism. But the optimism was short-lived, with Russia, Ukraine and Europe digging in on the issues of security guarantees and territorial integrity. Even Trump seems to be recalibrating – again – as he looks for other ways to further US interests and bolster his claim to Nobel Prize glory. The Ukraine war is complex, with entrenched historical roots, and the stakes are high for Ukraine, Russia and Europe as well as the US and Nato. As Xi acknowledged in a call with Putin, just before the Alaska summit, there are no simple solutions to complex problems. Russia’s war in Ukraine cannot be condoned, but its security interests should be considered, not ignored. Indeed, Russia blames the war on the expansion of the transatlantic security alliance, which Nato continued despite Moscow’s repeated pleas since the collapse of the Berlin Wall. This vicious circle is a remnant of the Cold War. Last month, Russia escalated its attacks on Ukraine, causing more civilian casualties and fatalities. Guterres condemned the missile and drone attacks while China was more nuanced, calling on the “relevant parties to follow the principles of no expansion of the battlefield”. At the UN General Assembly meeting in 2022, just after the outbreak of hostilities, 141 nations or an overwhelming 78 per cent of the vote supported a resolution to condemn Russia. But in February, as the war entered its fourth year, another resolution saw condemnation dropped to 93 nations, or 53 per cent of total votes. Crucially, there was a significant rise in the number of nations abstaining from the vote. In 2022, there were 35 abstentions but this year, the number increased to 65 – 37 per cent of the total vote. The US tabled a third UN resolution calling for an end to the Ukraine war, but without taking sides, and this watered-down version yielded a similar voting trend: 93 countries supported but 73 countries abstained – making up 42 per cent of the vote. The shift from overwhelming condemnation to increasing abstentions does not exonerate Russia. But it does indicate a growing desire for a balanced resolution, as espoused in the UN Charter. In 1945, the US led the drafting of the UN Charter, and the other 50 founder-nations that signed up were unambiguous about their intention, which was “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind”. Today, the scourge of war continues to plague humanity, but as US unipolarity gives way to a multipolar world, the resolution of the Ukraine war should be undertaken within the halls of the UN, not on the battlefields.

Ukraine war must be resolved within UN halls, not on the battlefield

.css-1c6uqr6{color:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-size:inherit;font-family:inherit;line-height:inherit;overflow-wrap:break-word;}A balanced assessment of peace and security on the basis of sovereign equality is needed – not unilateral sanctions and lethal weapons

A balanced assessment of peace and security on the basis of sovereign equality is needed – not unilateral sanctions and lethal weapons