THE HUMAN TOLL OF FEARMONGERING

It is frustrating for anyone who attempts to discuss salient newsworthy topics when pertinent statistical details of issues uppermost in people's minds are constantly evolving. No sooner had the horrible massacre at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, on May 24, hit the news cycle, or similar, although less "spectacular," incidents already began to turn up. During Memorial Day weekend alone, during 14 distinct episodes, between 5 AM Friday and early Tuesday, gun violence killed another 156 and injured 412. Where in most countries any of these acts of violence would have merited prime news coverage, we no longer seemed interested and buried the information towards the back of major publications. We are caught up in a perpetual cycle of Groundhog Day episodes. We quickly lose interest, even when attention is needed. While effective responses to gun related crimes and gun control are complicated, what is becoming increasingly obvious is that, at its core, the violent outgrowth of what historian Richard Hofstadter called our "gun culture," is being fueled by manipulated fearmongering, intentionally and unnecessarily attempting to make people afraid of something. On the one hand we are confronted by a proliferation of indiscriminate types of fire arms in civilian hands, fed by fear of losing "constitutional rights," spearheaded by a very active gun lobby. On the other hand we are exposed to aggressive marketing of what has been referred to as the "Great Replacement Theory," identified by multiple shooters in publicized "manifestos" as justification for their killing sprees. This conspiracy theory caters to the fear that white, Anglo-Saxon, Christian dominance is gradually and deliberately being replaced by non-Christian people of color - a conviction firmly embedded in white supremacist and xenophobic ideologies. The role these organizations play in effectively insuring accessibility of fire arms is somewhat unique. Typically, lobbying organizations serve as checks on industry groups. In the U.S. they are actually aligned with gun manufacturers. With war chests filled with hundreds of millions of dollars, they have successfully managed to counter any attempts at limiting gun ownership. Their position has been that any infringement on individual "rights" would ultimately lead to repeal of the Second Amendment and forfeiture of all guns. Political Action Committees associated with gun rights groups have consistently managed to secure support from legislators for their point of view - some of whom have received tens of millions of dollars in campaign donations- insuring that gun control legislation proposals introduced in the House and Senate are destined to fail. These include bans on assault weapons, expanded background checks, and even prohibition of fire arms sales to people on federal terrorism watch lists. Consequently, this relentless, effective, targeted fearmongering has resulted in our country's unique position of having more civilian owned fire arms in circulation than we have people. With less than 5% of the world's population, we own 46% of the world's civilian owned guns. Statistical consequences are eye opening. According to the "Brady Campaign," every day 321 people are shot in our country - 111 are shot and killed and an additional 95 are shot intentionally but survive. It should not come as a surprise that when any kid turning 18 can purchase an AR15 three years before being allowed to buy a beer, we are asking for trouble. Opponents of gun control legislation tend to suggest that we should concentrate on mental illness, not on guns. But do we really propose that the U.S. contains more criminally insane people than other countries? The difference between our social environment and that of other, safer, countries is accessibility to guns, especially assault weapons. While the fear of losing constitutional rights is being manipulated to support the unabated proliferation of fire arms in this country, a growing number of motivated assailants use the perceived threat to white America losing its dominance in society as justification for their homicidal rage. The theoretical foundation for this belief stems from a hypothesis promoted by Renaud Camus, a French novelist, who invented the "Great Replacement," a far-right conspiracy theory which claims that a"global elite" is colluding against the white population of Europe to replace them with non-European peoples. American pundits have readily adapted and adopted Camus' teachings for their own use when preaching from their domestic platforms. Fear sells! The premise of this proposition, while not new, was readily internalized by white supremacist groups across the globe, justifying assaults that ranged from the Mosque attacks in Christchurch in New Zealand, which killed 51, to exclamations uttered by torch bearing "Unite the Right" demonstrators terrorizing Charlottesville in 2017, shouting "Jews will not replace us." Domestic targets for these groups are becoming openly obvious. We have experienced mass attacks on African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Jews, Muslims, and immigrants in general. Target groups are being demonized. Politicians are no different. President Trump called Mexicans "criminals and rapists," and intimated that African immigrants came from "shit-hole countries." Studies show that one in three Americans now believe that immigrants are being brought into the country for political gain. The message is clear: fearmongering pays off for promoters and perpetrators. However, it comes at a horrible cost for its target audience. Former Lewis and Clark College president Barry Glassner, in his book "The Culture of Fear," suggests that there is a lot of power and money available to individuals and organizations who can perpetuate these fears. If money and power are the objective, truth and consequences no longer seem to matter. Theo Wierdsma

TIME FOR REFLECTION

This was forwarded to me some time ago. It spoke to me, and this seemed to be the right time to share its content. Barely the day started and it's already six in the evening. Barely arrived on Monday and it's already Friday. ... and the month is already over. ... and the year is almost over. ... and already 40, 50 or 60 years of our lives have passed. ... and we realize that we lost our parents, friends. ... and we realize it's too late to go back. So, let's try, despite everything, to enjoy the remaining time. Let's keep looking for activities that we like. Let's put some color in our grey. Let's smile at the little things in life that put balm in our hearts. And despite everything, we must continue to enjoy with serenity this time we have left. Let's try to eliminate the afters. I'm doing it after. I'll say after. I'll think about it after. We leave everything for later like "after" is ours. Because what we don't understand is that Afterwards, the coffee gets cold. Afterwards, priorities change. Afterwards, the charm is broken. Afterwards, health passes. Afterwards, the kids grow up. Afterwards, parents get old. Afterwards, promises are forgotten. Afterwards, the day becomes the night. Afterwards, life ends. And then it's often too late. So ... Let's leave nothing for later. Because while still waiting to see later, we can lose the best moments, the best experiences, best friends, the best family. The day is today. The moment is now. We are no longer at the age where we can afford to postpone what needs to be done right away. It looks like an eternity, but it's a short trip. Enjoy life and always be kind. Original author unknown to me. Theo Wierdsma

ROTARY'S UNRELENTING PASSION FOR SERVICE

On February 23, 1905, when Chicago attorney Paul Harris and three of his business friends met in a small office "to create a club of professionals and businessmen for friendship and fellowship," nobody anticipated that this small gathering would ultimately bloom into the most prestigious service club in the world. Over the years Rotary, so named initially to recognize its rotating meeting locations, grew into a global network of 46,000 clubs with 1.4 million members in 200 countries, who dedicate their time and talent to tackle the world's most pressing humanitarian challenges. A standout among many significant contributions to humanitarian causes around the world, and among Rotary's major accomplishments over time was its highly successful attempt at eradicating polio, a program the organization launched in 1985. Within twenty-five years of its inception Rotary amassed $900 million in contributions to the cause, which helped to support the immunization of two billion children worldwide. With financial assistance from the "Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation," and through the massive involvement of Rotary's international network of volunteers around the world, polio cases, over time, were reduced by 99%, leaving only Afghanistan, Pakistan and Nigeria still reporting cases today. Rotary's vast network of like-minded volunteers has proven to be instrumental in support of addressing multiple causes and challenges in many parts of the world. Its response to the humanitarian crises resulting from the current war in Ukraine is a case in point. The organization, headquartered in Evanston, Illinois, under guidance of John Hewko, whose mother was born in Kharkiv, one of Ukraine's most embattled cities, began focusing on the consequences of Russia's invasion within days of the start of hostilities on February 24. As General Secretary and CEO of Rotary International, Hewko, an actual member of the Rotary Club of Kyiv, used the reach of his organization to coordinate reactions to the need for humanitarian relief for refugees from the very beginning. Literally within days, Rotarians contributed $14.4 million to help financially support regions that assisted Ukrainian refugees or other victims of the war. Ukraine's 62 clubs, with an estimated 1,100 members, which, with the exception of a few now in Russian controlled areas, continue to meet regularly. They are active in war zones, even in cities like Kharkiv, they help refugees adopt to their new realities, help people evacuate to safe zones, prepare and deliver hot meals, and function as distributors of supplies provided by clubs from surrounding countries. Across Europe, Rotaract members, a younger group of Rotarians, use digital tools to share information and coordinate assistance to people affected by the war. Iryna Bushmina, a member of the Rotaract Club of Kyiv-City, after fleeing with her sister and three month old nephew - journeying to Vienna - organized a huge scale relief effort and an online platform to find shelter for thousands of Ukrainian refugees. The point is this: Rotary has become a very significant international force for humanitarian relief efforts. The organization does go out of its way to insist that it is not politically motivated. In effect, when asked about its interest in the military operation in Ukraine, Rotary International responded: "As one of the world's largest humanitarian organizations, we have made promoting peace the cornerstone of our global mission. Our call for an immediate ceasefire and a restoration of diplomatic efforts is not about politics, it's about safety and humanity." While, internationally, Rotary's reach and coordinated involvement is significant, local clubs, while supporting international efforts, are doing their best to be relevant to their own communities as well. Watsonville Rotary, one of seven clubs in Santa Cruz County, is celebrating it's 95th anniversary this Sunday, May 22. As reported in the Register-Pajaronian, the Rotary Club of Watsonville received its charter on May 21, 1927. While the initial twenty-five charter members hoped that this occasion would earn them headline coverage in the paper that day, the honor bestowed by Rotary International on our community received second billing to "Lindbergh Lands Safely in Paris" that same day. A coincidence old-timers never forgot. Membership in the local club, which meets every Wednesday for lunch at the Elk's Club on Martinelli Street, averages between 70-80 Rotarians. Over the years the club has substantially contributed to a wide variety of community as well as international philanthropic efforts. Its Community Trust program, serving Watsonville youth and local non-profits, has distributed well over $500,000. The club's "adopted" schools - E.A. Hall, Renaissance, New School and Cabrillo - benefited to the tune of $160,000 for scholarships and equipment. Projects funding literacy programs, health education, medical supply needs and water sanitation projects in Guatemala and Peru received more than $200,000. over time. Job shadowing events for Watsonville High students, speech contests, support for foreign exchange students and weekly student achievement recognition at informative luncheon meetings round out inclusive, well thought out programs. The club's 95th anniversary and its legacy of productive empathy represent a well deserved milestone in the Watsonville and Pajaro Valley community. Theo Wierdsma

PUTIN'S "BIG BROTHER" BARRIERS

Recent press reports of polling results indicating that upwards of 71% of Russians say they support Putin's war in Ukraine caught many by surprise. After all, Western media continue to cover the horrific effects of military activity Ukraine is daily exposed to in great detail. However, these statistics should not astonish anyone. While, internationally, as a result of imposed sanctions, Russian society has become more or less isolated, domestically, Vladimir Putin has spared no effort putting up barriers to insure it is insulated from unwanted and unsanctioned outside sources of information. Staying true to autocratic leadership principles, Putin has had 22 years to wrest control over Russia's communications channels. In today's Russia all major media outlets are controlled by the state. The Russian government owns 60% of newspapers and all national television stations. Russia's system of "Operational Investigatory Measures" requires telecommunications operators to install hardware provided by the FSB (formerly KGB), which allows the agency to unilaterally monitor users' communications and content, including phone calls, email traffic and web browsing activity. Besides, according to a 2016 Rand Corporation report, Russia's propaganda machine broadcasts "incredibly large volumes [of propaganda] via text, video, audio, internet, social media, satellite TV and traditional radio and television broadcasting." So, why do so many Russians say they support the "special operation" in Ukraine? The government controls the media and the message. It consequently controls the collective mind of the citizenry. Putin has taken the edict from his favorite historic mentor, Joseph Stalin, to heart: "The press must grow day in and day out - it is our party's sharpest and most resourceful weapon." This sentiment was restated by one of Stalin's successors, Nikita Khrushchev, who also believed that "the press is our chief ideological weapon." Many influential leaders, in Russia and beyond, have since repeated this point of view. One of the most poignant articulations came from Malcolm X, who expressed the opinion that: The media is the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that is power, because they control the mind of the masses." Putin developed governmental control into a science, managing to either block, sanitize or drown out interpretation, commentary and criticism that conflicted with officially sanctioned coverage of news content. In light of the military conflict in Ukraine, the government passed laws criminalizing "discrediting" the Russian military, spreading "fake news" and mentioning in the press that the Russian invasion of Ukraine amounted to war. Penalties for disobeying these laws can add up to 15 years in prison. Thus far, well over 15,000 dissidents have been arrested. For many, the mere expression of unsanctioned thought begins to feel like a criminal act. What Russians are hearing from their government every day are statements like: There is no ongoing war; The special operation held in Ukraine is aimed strictly at the military infrastructure of the fascists who seized power in Kyiv to intimidate and oppress the nation; We fight for our freedom and the freedom of the Ukrainian people; The Ukrainians welcome the Russian army, the only ones resisting are Nazi groups and military forces controlled by the fascist Kyiv regime; Russia has not started the war, it has come to end it; If it had not been for the Russian operation, NATO and the Nazis would have attacked us imminently to proceed with the genocide of the Russian and the Ukrainian nations - and so on. (Robert Coalson, Radio Free Europe). After being subjected to this persistent propaganda blitz and the reality of the government's uncontested control over official media outlets, polling results are not at all surprising. Combine these influences with the liberal use of leading questions, like: "Do you support a battle against Nazism?" and the caution expressed during virtually every interview that answers are recorded for "quality control," and the fix is in. No wonder Putin's popularity exceeds 80%. Who dares to dispute that? In March, Maxim Katz, an opposition politician in Moscow, with a team of researchers, commissioned a poll on public attitudes towards the war. Out of 31,000 people contacted, 29,400 ended the conversation as soon as they heard the topic. The sociologist Iskander Yasaveyev has suggested that "many Russians understand that they are being lied to, that they are getting propaganda, but they want to be deceived. It is simpler for them to suppress their inner conflict." Seventy-three years after George Orwell published "1984," "Big Brother" is still watching. Theo Wierdsma

WAR CRIMES - LEGAL CONCEPT OR OXYMORON?

The seemingly unending military confrontation in Ukraine continues unabated. As Russian troops move from areas they controlled to a newly declared front in the Donbas region, they leave behind gruesome evidence of inhumane depravity and savagery, inflicted on a defenseless civilian population. In Bucha, a suburb of Kyiv, so far more than 500 bodies have been discovered: shot, tortured, raped, burned, killed without apparent pretext. For the greater Kyiv area the additional body count already exceeds 1000. Add to these statistics the lethal result of the horrific missile attack on the train station in Kramatorsk, where 4,000 refugees were waiting to escape the fighting, and the more than 20,000 civilians estimated to have been killed in Mariupol and elsewhere, the picture becomes crystal clear: with genocidal intent and its advance successfully obstructed by Ukrainian forces, Putin's military is pursuing a scorched earth strategy, leaving nothing behind. As she was interviewed while exhuming another mass grave in Bucha, Ukraine's Prosecutor General Iryna Venediktova observed that, throughout the country, more than 6,000 alleged war crime cases were already being investigated. (Mark Lowen, BBC News, Apr. 14, 2022). Charging the aggressor with committing war crimes helps to define the extent of the war as experienced by the domestic population. However, to have those charges adjudicated, they need to be prosecuted before the International Criminal Court in The Hague. Its process is quite time consuming and does not produce swift justice. To make their case, prosecutors would have to establish a direct line of responsibility from the top of Russia's government to the atrocities on the ground - and show they were not just committed, but ordered. The use of the term "war crimes" raises a number of questions. Some would argue that war in itself is a criminal, lawless activity involving ruthless, inhumane violence. If that is true, "war crimes," a legal concept, implying a violation of, supposedly, non existent "rules of war," is really an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. While this may be an academic debate, over time other national actors have attempted to modify the severity of military conflict by establishing "rules of war" that embody the essentials of human dignity. Attempts at civilizing warfare date back at least to the Code of Hammurabi, a legal text created by the king of Babylon around 1755 - 1750 BC. It imposes a code of conduct in the event of war, designed to "keep the strong from oppressing the weak." The Bible and Quran also contain rules of respect for adversaries. Over time, frequently following horrendous exhibitions of genocidal conflict, these rules evolved. In 1863, President Abraham Lincoln issued a set of rules, commonly known as the "Lieber Code," which introduced a code of conduct for Union soldiers during hostilities throughout the Civil War. This code inspired other countries to adopt similar rules for their military and served as a template for international efforts to codify the laws of engagement during war. Ultimately international treaties were agreed upon, culminating in the Geneva Convention adopted in 1949, dictating what can and cannot be done during armed conflict. Many crimes identified in the protocols adopted by much of the international community responded to horrendous acts of cruelty displayed by feuding armies. These include Hitler's "euthanasia program," murdering newborn infants displaying mental or physical disabilities to cleanse the "Aryan" race of people considered genetically defective, killing at least 10,000; the Holocaust, killing more than 6 million; medical experiments conducted by Japan's Lieutenant General Ishii Shiro, leading to the assassination of up to a half million mostly Chinese and Russian human beings; the genocide of Armenian and Assyrian people, resulting in the death of well over a million; hundreds of thousands killed in the Balkans during the Yugoslav wars at the end of the last century, and many others. The Geneva Convention specifically identifies intentionally killing civilians and prisoners of war, torture, taking hostages, sexual violence, pillaging, genocide and ethnic cleansing as violations of the rules of war. Many of these certifiably apply to acts committed by Russian troops in Ukraine. The International Criminal Court, which was established by the Rome Statute in 1998, nominally assumes jurisdiction over alleged war crimes. The Statute is designed to facilitate and prosecute war criminals before the court and, since inception, multiple heads of state have had their cases tried in this facility. Some of these include notorious defendants like Japan's General Hideki Tojo, Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic, Bosnian President Radovan Karadzic and Lybian leader Muammar Gaddafi. The Court's tenure has not been without controversy. It is often accused of only trying cases brought by the winners of military conflict, suggesting these cases result in "victors' justice," in pursuit of revenge. Some question why not all horrific bloodshed was prosecuted as war crimes, such as the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The U.S., Russia, China and Israel have not recognized the Court's jurisdiction, although the U.S. participates as an observer. Finally, it is important to recognize that proceedings before the Court can only be brought by a national government or by the U.N. Security Council - in which Russia has veto power. Also, the Court tries people, not countries. While establishing responsibility for the war crimes committed in Ukraine would not be problematic, pointing clearly at the Russian president, to give the allegations their intended effect, Vladimir Putin would need to be apprehended and taken to The Hague for trial, something not likely to happen any time soon. So, yes, "war crimes" is an internationally recognized legal concept. However, unless the world can bring Putin and his chief collaborators to justice, identifying the thousands of openly flaunted violations of this concept, while illuminating, remains effectively symbolic. Theo Wierdsma

FRENCH ELECTION IMPACTED BY RUSSIAN AGGRESSION

In just a few days, about 48 million French voters will go to the polls to select their next president. In what is traditionally a two step process, twelve candidates will face off on April 10. If one of them receives an absolute majority, he or she is elected president. If not, the top two contenders will compete in a run-off election on April 24. Since 1965, when the current direct election system was introduced, every election has gone to a second round. Until recently, the issues dominating the campaign centered on immigration, climate change, the ballooning national debt accumulated in fighting the coronavirus, and the country's troubled anti-terrorist effort in Mali, a former French colony. Once Russia invaded Ukraine, the focus shifted notably. Public debate moved from domestic issues to geopolitics. Campaign coverage almost ground to a halt. Political broadcasts were replaced by TV specials on Ukraine. At the same time the current crisis forced the candidates to rethink their political campaigns, the first time in recent history that they had been hijacked by foreign policy - an issue that is not usually a top priority for French voters. The French election is not only significant for France. The outcome could be consequential for the European Union and for the cohesion of the NATO alliance. France is one of the two largest EU member states. It has the second largest economy in the EU, and it is one of the founding states of the bloc. French leadership matters hugely to the future of the European project, which has continued to evolve since the signing of the Maastricht Treaty in 1993. Its continued reliable stewardship during the current conflict is crucial. The country's approach to Russia has always been a significant, although inconsistent, element of presidential election campaigns, generally requiring guidance. Moreover, public support for NATO has dropped recently, from a high of 71% in 2009, to only 47% according to a recent poll. Besides, the French population is currently skewing towards becoming one of the most euroskeptic countries in the European Union. Given these trends, France's current president, Emanuel Macron, still the favorite to win the election, remains Europe's only hope. Macron has been one of the most visible and vocal European leaders responding to challenges facing the 27 member organization. He is openly attempting to fill the void created by the retirement of former German chancellor Angela Merkel. His ambition to lead a progressive revival of pro European liberals against national populists in France and across Europe is largely acknowledged. And his February 7 trip to Moscow in a diplomatic effort to talk with Putin and negotiate deescalation of the current conflict, although unsuccessful, allowed him to look like Europe's de-facto leader in the quest for constructive engagement with Russia. His most prominent opponents may think twice about criticizing their president too blatantly now that there is a war on European soil, for fear of appearing to work against France's interests. What concerns much of the rest of Europe is that Macon's opponents in this election tend to be euroskeptic, and that they have displayed cozy views on Moscow and Vladimir Putin. Marine Le Pen, leader of the far-right National Rally, the odds on favorite to end up in second place behind Macron, has long maintained a special connection to Russia and the Putin regime. Russia even funded part of her presidential campaign five years ago. She has openly proclaimed that she believes Ukraine belongs to Russia's sphere of influence. She intends to withdraw France from NATO's Military Command structure - something Charles de Gaulle did in 1966, but was reinstated by Nicolas Sarkozy in 2009. She does not like article 5 of the NATO treaty, opposes military assistance to Ukraine and continues to be a staunch euroskeptic, even though she served in the European Parliament until 2017. If elected, she would be a disturbing force in European politics. Currently polling in third place, hard-left Jean Luc Melenchon, is radically opposed to NATO, calling it a "tool of subservience to the United States, He wants France to stay entirely out of the fray and he says that he understands why Putin feels threatened by the perceived encirclement of Russia by NATO. The current war has not changed his perspective. Further down the list, but diluting far-right support for Le Pen, sits Eric Zemmour, a TV personality who turned his notoriety into a platform for anti-immigrant venom. He adamantly opposes NATO and, while condemning Russia's aggression, he holds NATO responsible for the war in Ukraine. Putin's aggressive action in Ukraine served to unite and focus the 30 member states that make up the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. At the same time, the war motivated all but one the most euroskeptic European Union member states to sign on to a unified and determined response. The outcome of the French election could potentially disrupt this cooperative approach, not just for the short term, but for the indefinite future, affecting European strategies for years to come, and possibly leave Ukraine and other former Soviet states wondering about an uncertain future. Now that Viktor Orban's April 3rd election victory in Hungary will likely keep that country officially in, or close to, Putin's camp, the stakes are high for the rest of Europe, much of which hopes that Emmanuel Macron pulls out a win and will continue to lead the continent during the next five years. Theo Wierdsma

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