Ukrainian UN Ambassador asks who voted for newly formed Russia to be admitted to UN

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

Tweet text:

Pete
@NYBackpacker
Ukrainian Ambassador to the UN General Assembly asking which country “voted for Russia [a newly formed country] to be admitted to the UN” after the breakup of the Soviet Union

No one in the Assembly raises their hands

Incredible moment in the UN.

#UnitedNations #UN


Watch on Twitter
9:04 AM · Feb 28, 2022

[Drum]

1. It was electrifying...

Watching it all, and am proud of the international community and the UN

[SheltieLover]

2. Kick them out of UN!

[SCantiGOP]

24. The UN is the cornerstone

of post-World War 2 international relations. It has done immeasurable good, even while hobbled by lack of authority and grandstanding.

Removing a country for bad actions would be the first step towards its dissolution. North Korea, Syria and Myanmar are members, and there was no move to remove the US for its illegal and unjustified intervention in Iraq.

Not attacking you Sheltielover, just defending one of the few safeguards this dangerous world still has.

[Lonestarblue]

28. Absolutely right, but perhaps the makeup of the five permanent members should be revisited.

The UN charter names the USSR as the permanent member with veto power. The USSR does not exist. With its dissolution, the correct decision would have been to reduce the number to four members, with each separate state allowed to apply for membership. Why should Russia alone have the power of the USSR when other states were also part of the USSR? None of those states should replace Russia, but Russia should never have been part of that group. Food for thought.

[fierywoman]

32. THIS!

[OneBlueDotS-Carolina]

3. Ukrainian Ambassador has been laying the groundwork...

for this moment for a week. The USSR was admitted to the UN when it was formed, with a permanent veto of the security council. The Ukrainian ambassador is saying, the charter's language says you have to apply for membership, so why did the Russian Federation get an automatic pass, anyone vote for them, anyone, Bueller?

Please don't quote me on this, just a casual observer of what the Ukrainian ambassador is up to.

[70sEraVet]

5. I see now. Thanks.

[70sEraVet]

4. I don't understand. Was his point to show that countries were too embarrassed

to show that they had voted to admit Russia?

[HUAJIAO]

6. I think the point was that there WAS NO vote to affirm russian membership

in the UN .

[dchill]

15. There you go.

[OneBlueDotS-Carolina]

9. See this link

Ukraine believes that Russia’s membership in the UN and UNSC is illegitimate. The status of a permanent UNSC member grants Russia the right to veto its decisions — the latest one of which has been to veto a resolution condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Speaking at a UN Security Council meeting on 24 February almost immediately after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Serhiy Kyslytsia, Ukraine’s permanent representative to the UN, raised an important question of how legally Russia has become a member of the UN Security Council instead of the USSR. This issue was largely ignored in the press amid the war that Russia has unleashed.

The diplomat believes that Russia’s membership in the UN and its permanent membership in the UN’s Security Council is illegal because the UN doesn’t have documents on Russia’s admission to the organization.

Serhiy Kyslytsia reminded that Ukraine had been trying for a long time to obtain documents from the Secretariat on how Russia joined the UN Security Council, to no avail, and called on the Secretary-General to disseminate them now,

more

https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/02/25/ukraine-questions-legality-of-russias-un-unsc-membership/

[obamanut2012]

19. He is right, it is

[EndlessWire]

12. No, he's trying to get the Ambassador kicked from the chair

and in a perfect world, get him kicked out of the UN for violating the charter.

[wnylib]

17. His point is that the old USSR was

admitted to the UN and the Security Council, but the current Russia is not the same country as the USSR, which collapsed over 30 years ago.

Therefore, Russia's membership in the UN and on the Security Council is not legitimate, so kick them out.

[HUAJIAO]

20. exactly !!!

[HUAJIAO]

7. This guy is GOOD !!!!!!!

[msfiddlestix]

8. Excellent question.. I just assumed it happened via voting process...

in the "before times"..

what is the answer to that question I wonder now.

[OneBlueDotS-Carolina]

11. More On Russia's UN "Membership"

Earlier Serhiy Kyslytsia commented to European Pravda,

“Let’s say there that, with certainty, that according to the documents, it is still not the Russian Federation, but… the Soviet Union that is a permanent member of the Security Council (namely, this status gives the right to veto). However, in 1991, in an attempt to secure Russia’s nuclear and military capabilities, the UNSC decided to turn a blind eye to the organization’s violation of its charter and allow Russia to sit at the table — which, however, has not yet made its membership legal. It must also be acknowledged that until recently, this violation was tolerated by Ukraine.”

The UN Charter was signed by 51 founding states, among which were the Ukrainian SSR, the Belarusian SSR, and the USSR. Yet the RSFSR, i.e. Soviet Russia, didn’t sign it, although at that time Russia had its Ministry of Foreign Affairs separate from the Soviet Union’s one.

more

https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/02/25/ukraine-questions-legality-of-russias-un-unsc-membership/?__cf_chl_tk=gafddsgZdMq2N.qjvOjUrAg2lsxMXxin5iwPMHQbCi4-1646070069-0-gaNycGzNCGU

[msfiddlestix]

13. ✔️ Ty n/t

[brush]

14. This Ukrainian UN ambassador is a bad ass. Isn't he also...

the one who suggested Putin kill himself in a bunker like Hitler did?

[Nevilledog]

18. Yup....and that the Russian Ambassador should pray for salvation cuz he's going to hell.

Guy doesn't mince words.

[world wide wally]

16. Now, raise your hand if you want to kick them out

[Delmette2.0]

21. .....

[aeromanKC]

22. Putin was looking for his crowning achievement

Karma for it to be getting kicked out of the Security Council.

[former9thward]

25. No one can kick out a permanent member of the SC

A whole new rival UN would have to be started.

[aeromanKC]

27. Taking Ukraine's Ambassador request to it's successful conclusion.

After all, no one rightfully raised their hand.

[James48]

23. Curious-

Was Ukraine admitted as a separate country to the UN?

Can Ukraine make claim to the Security Council seat that Russia has been using?

[former9thward]

29. Yes, they were admitted as a separate country.

Stalin demanded three votes in the UN so Ukraine and Byelorussia, which were Soviet Republics, were admitted as separate countries with their own votes. Stalin wanted three votes to counter the extra votes the U.S. and the UK got because their colonies, India and Philippines, were admitted as separate countries also.

[AnyFunctioningAdult]

26. Kicking Russia out of the UN is not a good idea

But removing their Security Council veto power is long overdue.

[crickets]

33. Agreed.

Invalidate the USSR membership which no longer applies, recognize Russia as a member, but no longer as a permanent member with veto power.

I have to hand it to Kyslytsia. His arguments are masterful.

[SallyHemmings]

30. I confess

I love this guy

[sarisataka]

31. Good press however

It was presented to the General Assembly for Russia to be the successor to the Soviet Union. It was asked if there were any objections- no one took the opportunity to object.

[crickets]

34. However, the official documentation admitting Russia to the UN is nonexistent.

Russia has been a member called USSR still to this day in the charter. As mentioned in the Euromaidan Press, the official paperwork for Russia's admission doesn't exist. He may be splitting legal hairs, but good on Kyslytsia for doing it. It seems wrong that all other former states from the USSR had to reapply, but Russia did not. Yeltsin just sent a letter, and no one argued at the time. They're arguing now. Sorry if you've already seen these:

Link to tweet

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/ukraine-s-u-n-ambassador-calls-russia-s-veto-question-n1289826

Maybe Kyslytsia is tilting at windmills to make an issue of it at this late date, but somebody should have long before now and didn't. I admire him for it. It's telling that none of the other countries present today are complaining about it. They're letting him make his case, and it's not a entirely bad one.

Who knows? This may get very interesting. Cheers.

[sarisataka]

35. I found this about the Belovezh Accords

Which dissolved the Soviet Union-

The Summit of Alma-Ata also issued a statement on 21 December 1991, supporting Russia's claim to be recognized as the successor state of the Soviet Union for the purposes of membership of the United Nations. On 25 December 1991, Russian President Yeltsin informed UN Secretary-General Javier Pérez de Cuéllar that the Soviet Union had been dissolved and that Russia would, as its successor state, continue the Soviet Union's membership in the United Nations. The document confirmed the credentials of the representatives of the Soviet Union as representatives of Russia and requested that the name "Soviet Union" be changed to "Russian Federation" in all records and entries. This was a move designed to allow Russia to retain the Soviet Union's permanent Security Council seat, which would not have been possible if the former republics were all reckoned as equal successors of the Soviet Union, or if the Soviet Union was regarded as having no successor state for the purpose of continuing the same UN membership. The Secretary-General circulated the request, and there being no objection from any Member State, the Russian Federation took the Soviet Union's UN seat. On January 31, 1992, Russian Federation President Yeltsin personally took part in a Security Council meeting as representative of Russia, the first Security Council meeting in which Russia occupied the permanent Security Council seat originally granted to the Soviet Union by the UN Charter.

I am no expert in international law but it seems to me, if this is accurate, Russia could argue that references the the Soviet Union and clerical errors as they requested the change 30 years ago.

[crickets]

36. Interesting, thanks. They'd have a better argument if they could find their own paperwork.

According to the entry quoted, there were questions about the legitimacy of the Belovezh Accords at the time. Also, seems there's plenty of dog-ate-my-homework missing documentation to go around in this situation.

The Telegraph (I know, but it had the most text) Feb 2013, no paywall: https://archive.ph/mppXQ
Document proclaiming death of Soviet Union missing

Stanislav Shushkevich, the former leader of Belarus, told The Daily Telegraph that the Belavezha Accords — the agreement which sounded the death knell of the USSR in 1991 – had disappeared from state archives.

The accords were signed by Mr Shushkevich, Russia’s president Boris Yeltsin and Ukraine’s president Leonid Kravchuk in a hunting lodge in the Belovezhskaya Pushcha nature reserve in western Belarus.

It has often been rumoured that the trio were under the influence of alcohol at the time they signed the document which brought down the vast Soviet empire, although Mr Shushkevich has since denied they were drunk.

In a telephone interview, the former Belarus leader said he had requested to see the original document as he prepared to write his memoirs. “The last time I saw it was when I put my signature on it,” said Mr Shushkevich. “I wrote to the foreign ministry where it should be archived but they sent a polite reply saying they don’t have a copy in Belarusian. And then it transpired that they don’t have the original in Russian either. It’s not there.”

I have no expertise in any kind of law either, but I find the whole situation curiouser and curiouser.