KICK RUSSIA OUT OF THE U.N.?

With the unrelenting assault by Russian troops on innocent and largely defenseless civilians in Ukraine, short of starting World War III, many of us are contemplating what more we can do to further isolate and punish Putin and his inner circle. According to a recently completed poll by Monmouth University in New Jersey, 81% of Americans support the economic sanctions imposed on Russia thus far. A follow-up survey done by the Pew Research Center suggests that this endorsement is increasing in popularity. Although, surprisingly and regrettably, survey results also indicate that 7% of Americans still appear to think that Russia is justified in its actions in Ukraine. While this show of support remains overwhelming, 52% still think that our response to the Russian invasion has thus far not been strong enough. Seventy-five percent of us back imposing greater pressure on Putin's regime, but stay well short of recommending military confrontation. The suggestion that has recently gained momentum among a growing number of politicians and even some academics is to kick Russia out of the United Nations, or, at a minimum, off the Security Council. Nine Republican senators are currently already drafting a resolution to that effect, which they hope will put the entire Congress on record saying so. While this approach may be tempting, the questions that emerge are: "can we?" and, perhaps more importantly, "should we?" Iryna Zaverukha, an associate professor at Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles, reiterated President Volodymyr Zelensky's call on the U.N. to expel Russia from the Security Council. In an impassioned op-ed, published in the Los Angeles Times, she charged that "the U.N.'s main purpose is to maintain international peace and security, but it did not prevent the full-scale brutal war now happening in Ukraine, nor did it prevent or punish Russia's unlawful seizure of Crimea and its occupancy of Donbas in 2014." Under Article 6 of the U.N. charter, members who persistently violate U.N. principles, upon recommendation of the Security Council, can be expelled by a 2/3 majority vote of the General Assembly. According to Article 5 of the charter, the offending country could have its rights and privileges of membership suspended. In either case, the Security Council would need to initiate these actions. Russia, which has veto power, actually presided over the Council when its troops invaded Ukraine on February 24. Needless to suggest that either action would likely face a Russian veto. No country has been expelled from the U.N. since its founding in 1945. There is, however, a potential path forward that does not require consensus on the Security Council. In emergency session, the General Assembly could follow what is called the "Uniting for Peace" resolution model which was first adopted in 1950. This resolution states that, in any cases where the Security Council, because of a lack of unanimity among its five permanent members, fails to act as required to maintain international security and peace, the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately and may issue appropriate recommendations to U.N. members for collective measures, including the use of armed forces when necessary, in order to maintain or restore international security and peace. This resolution was first put in place when we were on the brink of the Korean War, after the Soviet Union vetoed U.N. action four times. It has been invoked 11 times since. Nevertheless, it would still not get rid of Russia. Relative options are few. Diplomats could vote to suspend Russia from participation in the General Assembly, which does not require Security Council buy-in. This move would strip Russia of its right to speak or vote, but would allow it to retain membership. This was done in 1974 when South Africa was suspended for its "apartheid" system. Members could also remove Russia from the Human Rights Council, or refuse to recognize a Russian backed government in Ukraine.There is even an argument emerging that suggests that Russia is not a legitimate member of the organization, since there has never been a formal decision to admit it as a member after the demise of the USSR. However, the same goes for Ukraine after it transitioned from a Soviet Socialist Republic to the current independent state. Professor Zaverukha and others are proposing that the Ukraine crisis offers an opportunity for the U.N. to preserve its relevance and reshape itself in a way that would provide security for the entire global community. No matter how tempting some of these recommendations are, the simple fact is that it is not possible to expel Russia from the organization, nor would it be wise to shut down a communication channel during this time of high tension. Theo Wierdsma