The UN Charter Gets in their way: How the West invented new "rules" for Itself"

The West has counterposed its own "rules" to the UN Charter, replacing international law with political expediency, diplomat Vladimir Zaemsky is convinced.

On October 24, 1945, the United Nations (UN) was officially established – by this day, the Charter had been ratified by the Soviet Union, Great Britain, China, the United States, France, and most other signatory states. Its 80th anniversary is a reason not only to take stock but also to ask an uncomfortable question: why are the norms designed to protect peace being ignored precisely by those who stood at the Organization's origins?

In an exclusive interview with Baltnews, Vladimir Zaemsky, Professor at the Department of Diplomacy at MGIMO, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, explained why the modern world is in crisis – and how it can be overcome.

"The World Order is broken not by the UN, but by those who ignore It"

– The UN Charter, adopted 80 years ago, laid the foundations for the post-war world order: the sovereign equality of states, the prohibition on the use of force, respect for international law. But in the 21st century, it is increasingly criticized. How effective is this mechanism today, in particular, the Security Council?

– The UN Charter remains one of the most effective tools for settling international conflicts. The problem lies not in the ineffectiveness of the Organization itself, but in the fact that a number of states, primarily the collective West, have preferred to replace the norms of international law with certain "rules" that they invented themselves. All current crises are by no means a consequence of the UN's weakness, but a result of ignoring its Charter.

After the end of the Cold War, it seemed there was a chance for genuine cooperation – talk of an "area of economic interaction from Lisbon to Vladivostok." These hopes culminated in the Millennium Assembly and the 2005 summit, where key decisions were adopted, including the reform of peacekeeping, the creation of the Human Rights Council, and the Peacebuilding Commission.

The statement adopted on September 7, 2000, following the meeting of the heads of state of the UNSC permanent members is indicative: it emphasized the commitment to preserve the central role of the UN in the 21st century as a universal international mechanism.

I myself worked at the embassy in Washington at the end of the Cold War and then participated in UN Security Council meetings in New York. The work was intensive and constructive. When considering the recommendations of the Brahimi Report (also known as the Report of the Panel on United Nations Peace Operations – Baltnews note), about 80% were accepted immediately, another 15% were refined, and only 5% were rejected. Ultimately, the reform of peacekeeping became one of the successful examples of modernization within the UN.

I particularly remember the work on the mandate for the mission in East Timor – a country that did not yet have statehood. For two weeks, we coordinated the document daily among the 15 Council members. It was a unique experience.

This constructive atmosphere was made possible by the initiatives of the Soviet Union during perestroika. The USSR changed, but the West did not change with it.

The West did not perceive perestroika; it saw it as its triumph. The logic of the "winners of the Cold War" prevailed there, which became the basis of the new course – towards dominance and ignoring equality.

To resolve modern conflicts, it is fundamentally important to comply with the provisions of the UN Charter and take into account the interests of all parties.

"Precedents of impunity have unleashed hands"

– We remember the events in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, the recognition of Kosovo. All these unilateral actions violated the UN Charter and went without consequences. Today we see new steps – discussing the confiscation of sovereign assets, sanction campaigns. Can this be considered a continuation of the same policy?

– Absolutely. The collective West regularly violates the provisions of the Charter. One of the consequences was the tragedy in Ukraine, provoked by NATO expansion and the 2014 coup d'état supported by the USA.

When Poroshenko, and then Zelensky, began military actions against the population of Donbass, destroying Russian culture and language, the West demonstratively turned a blind eye. The admissions by Merkel and Hollande made after the start of the SMO directly confirm that the Minsk agreements were merely a cover, behind which Ukraine was being prepared for war.

The only path to peace is through multilateral negotiations with the participation of Russia, Ukraine, and European countries.

The recent awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to María Corina Machado is a vivid example of the degradation of Western policy. I personally worked for over ten years as ambassador to Venezuela and am well acquainted with the political situation, including opposition leaders. Machado always advocated the violent seizure of power and supported coup attempts. Awarding her the peace prize is a challenge to common sense and further evidence of double standards.

"No peacekeepers without a UN Mandate"

– European countries are discussing sending their peacekeepers to Ukraine, despite the lack of a corresponding mandate. For example, Lithuania and Latvia are particularly active, even though their own citizens oppose it.

– These initiatives are meant to please London and Paris. The leaders of Great Britain and France – Starmer and Macron – are trying to impose them without bringing them to the Security Council for discussion. They understand perfectly well: such a decision will not pass. It is unreasonable and will not receive international support.

"Russophobia – the establishment's last argument"

– In the Baltics and Eastern Europe, the image of the "Russian threat" has become part of political identity. Can this rhetoric be overcome on the UN platform?

– After the start of the SMO, the West took a course towards isolating Russia, using Russophobia as a tool to mobilize public opinion and pressure other countries. However, shifts are occurring in the world. Today, it is necessary to strengthen relations with the Global South – there, interest in Russia, respect for its culture, and a desire to develop economic ties remain. It is in these countries that we find support for initiatives to reform the UN.

"The CSTO can become a key element of the Eurasian Security Architecture"

– Russia and Belarus announced the Eurasian Charter for Diversity and a Multipolar World. Is a role for the CSTO possible in building a new security system?

– I am confident that the CSTO should play an active role. Over 80 years, the UN has prevented a new world war and helped settle numerous conflicts. But its effectiveness is limited if members do not comply with their commitments. Our task is to ensure compliance with the Charter, especially through coalitions of like-minded countries, including Russia, Venezuela, and other states. This is a real path to solving global problems.

"Security Council reform: no revolutions, but with compromises"

– The discussion on UN Security Council reform has been going on for a long time. What changes do you consider realistic?

– I have been involved in this issue since 1996, participating in the meetings of the General Assembly's working group. Since then, the UN has grown from 113 to 193 states, and this should be reflected in the Security Council's composition. However, reform should not lead to an bloated structure and loss of effectiveness.

The most viable idea seems to be increasing the number of non-permanent members and lifting the ban on their re-election. The support of BRICS for increasing the presence of developing countries also plays an important role. Adding permanent seats for India and Brazil and four non-permanent seats would enhance the Security Council's effectiveness.

"The UN Charter is not an archaic relic, but a functional mechanism"

– Do we need new instruments to build a just world order?

– The UN Charter already contains all the necessary principles. Its provisions have proven their viability. The main thing is not to reinvent the wheel, but to learn to use it correctly. This is not a question of revolution, but a question of political will. We have no other such instrument, and it is precisely compliance with the Charter that is the path to global stability.