The first interview of Volodymyr Yelchenko, Ukraine’s newly appointed permanent representative to the United Nations, raises a number of questions, in particular, regarding both his professionalism and his capability of using Ukraine’s temporary membership in the UN Security Council in 2016-17. For how else can one interpret his following statement: “I would like, immediately on arrival [in New York. – Author], to look my Russian colleague Mr. Churkin in the eye and candidly discuss this very issue. … Without personal communication, without frankness this work can hardly succeed. So far, I have no recipes. First, I need to talk to my Russian colleague. Proceeding from the sentiment that I will hear, we will plan our further work.” This was the ambassador’s answer to a question by an UNIAN reporter: how should we internationally confront the lies, which Russia spins on the tracks of its tanks in Donbas? It appears that the ambassador has neither instructions nor own vision of how the UN tribune could be used to bring Russia to account as an aggressor.
The Day requested Professor Volodymyr VASYLENKO, former authorized representative at the UN International Court, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Ukraine, to comment on Yelchenko’s interview and share his ideas as to how indeed Ukraine could defend its national interests via the United Nations’ mechanisms.
“I HAVE A STRANGE IMPRESSION OF THE INTERVIEW IN WHICH HE EXPRESSED A HOPE TO INFLUENCE CHURKIN”
“I have known Volodymyr Yelchenko for a long time, and I know him well. He is an experienced diplomat. There is nothing surprising in his being appointed Ukraine’s permanent representative at the UN. However, I have a strange impression of the interview in which he expressed a hope to influence Churkin by looking the latter in the eye and giving the account of all the dramatic events caused by Russia’s armed aggression against Ukraine. The Russian Federation’s permanent representative to the United Nations’ Security Council did not arrive there from Mars. And he is very well informed about everything, but he is an absolutely dependent figure and blatantly denies the obvious: the fact that his country is involved in aggression. He fulfills (and even overfulfills) the instructions from Russia’s top leadership. However, the Kremlin’s behavior today does not at all imply that Russia’s government is prepared to take any steps at the relieving of the effects of armed aggression against Ukraine.
“One could quite understand Yelchenko’s urge to use human communication with Russians on the personal level and his desire to contribute to the restoration of peace by negotiating, using the UN mechanisms. However, it would be unrealistic to hope to relieve the effects of Russia’s aggression by means of conversations with Churkin, rather than consolidating solidarity of the UN member states in their support of Ukraine and imposing sanctions against the aggressor.
“Yelchenko is right when he says that the main reason for the UN’s inefficiency is the power of veto, vested in permanent UNSC member states. Today Russia, the aggressor country, is abusing this power. It could be canceled, with the agreement of all the five permanent UN Security Council members, but some will never give up such a privilege.
“Ukraine’s national interests could be defended at the UN via its other authorities, in particular, the UN General Assembly, which is not subject to veto power. Here I mean the mechanism provided by the UNGA Resolution 377, known as Uniting for Peace and passed in 1950, when North Korea committed an act of armed aggression against South Korea, and the Soviet Union sabotaged the Security Council meetings. This document says, in particular, that if the Security Council fails to pass a decision necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security, the General Assembly shall be able to pass a relevant resolution by two-thirds of votes. And such a resolution was indeed passed. It became the foundation for the creation of the UN armed forces, and the occupation of South Korea by North was averted. Later, this resolution was used in the UN practice several times. In my opinion, Ukraine’s diplomatic effort should concentrate exactly on involving the mechanisms of UNGA. It is complex, hard, exhausting work, but it is necessary. Besides, the UNGA could pass a resolution to request the UN International Court of Justice (which Ukraine could propose, and the simple majority of member states would support) to provide an advisory opinion concerning the legitimacy of holding a referendum in Russia-occupied Crimea and the subsequent annexation of the peninsula by the Russian Federation.”
Why was it never done?
“Lots of things never get done in Ukraine. For instance, we still do not have an authority, which would work on Ukraine’s consolidated claim to the RF as the aggressor country. Such a claim, if it were prepared, should be officially lodged to Russia via official diplomatic channels and disseminated as the UN official document among all member states. But this opportunity was never used.
“Yelchenko is right when he says that it will take long to bring Ukraine’s relations with Russia to normal. However, it is not so much a matter of time as of terms under which such a normalization could take place.”
“NORMALIZATION OF UKRAINE-RUSSIA RELATIONS IS POSSIBLE UNDER A WHOLE SET OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS”
What do you mean by this?
“Normalization of Ukraine-Russia relations is possible under a whole set of terms and conditions. The Russian leadership must, first, unconditionally cease its armed aggression and restore all occupied territories to Ukraine.
Second, redress all damages to Ukraine, caused by the aggression, and punish the persons guilty of commitment of military crimes and crimes against humanity during this aggression.
Third, extradite Viktor Yanukovych as the person that fostered Russian aggression against Ukraine.
Fourth, apologize for the crimes committed by Russia against Ukraine in the course of its entire history, since the Russian Federation declared itself the successor to the Soviet Union and positions itself as the heir to the traditions of tsarist Russia.
Fifth, settle, in a civilized manner, all the issues concerning the former Soviet Union’s debts and assets and the demarcation of maritime borders in the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait, in particular, with the help of the UN International Court of Justice.
Sixth, restitute all items of cultural value, which were unlawfully exported from Ukraine and ended up on the territory of Russia.
Seventh, publicly and officially acknowledge Ukraine’s right to making a free civilizational choice and support its claim for full-fledged membership in the EU and NATO.
Eighth, cease the humanitarian aggression against Ukraine, first of all, by abandoning the demands of granting the Russian language a status of the second official language, the forcing of Russia’s own version of history, and the anti-Ukrainian propaganda and dissemination of hatred.
Ninth, restore Ukrainian organizations and societies, which were banned in Russia, and ensure ethnic Ukrainians’ rights in Russia in conformity with international standards. Here I mean schools, newspapers, clubs, theaters, in a word, everything which Russians enjoy in Ukraine but which Ukrainians are deprived of in today’s Russia.
Tenth, urge ethnic Russians in Ukraine to respect the Ukrainian language, traditions, and history, and be loyal citizens of Ukraine.
“When these terms and conditions are fulfilled, we could hope to normalize the relations between Ukraine and Russia.
“Today, in order to ensure its national security, Ukraine must keep developing both conventional security and humanitarian security, as well reduce its relations with the RF to a minimum.”
How must all the items listed above be formalized, and who should be in charge of it?
“Ukraine’s leadership must formalized all these demands and send a formal note to the RF with their vision of the ways towards the normalization of bilateral relations. This is public diplomacy, and it must be carried out transparently. Ukraine must give up its Little Russian inferiority complex at last and act with self-respect, as a state which relies primarily on its own strength, realizes society’s vital needs, and is prepared to defend its freedom and independence.”
