U.N. Security Council: "Threat to International Peace and Security"

"Threat to International Peace and Security"

[Image: cropped still frame from the linked video of the UNSC session.]

Publication date: 2022-02-01

Update 2022-02-08: Added a Culture section.

---

At the eleventh hour the USA has convened the U.N. Security Council (UNSC) with a provisional agenda which requires a procedural vote. The next day, the rotating council's presidency will pass to the Russian Federation. But, “in like Flynn” the USA gathered the required votes to have the provisional agenda secured with a vote to spare.

The progress on forcing the USA/NATO group to acknowledge and engage in Russia's security concerns which have now resulted in written responses, may have seemed a little at risk. Would the USA use the opportunity to raise tensions and via its media interests continue beat the drums of war? Would that undermine any ongoing negotiations?

Below find a summary of the UNSC meeting with some transcription and timestamps. A preliminary analysis follows.

Annotation

Transcription is obtained from the sourced video. It relies on the U.N. translators for non-English speakers for whom the transcript is often summary paraphrasing. Timestamps [HH:MM:SS] are provided.

All parathensized […] edits or emphasis are by the author.

Commentary is offered.

U.N. Security Council Meeting 8,960

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) held its 8 960th meeting, called by the USA with a provisional agenda: "Threat to International Peace and Security". Provisional agendas may be requested but seem to require a vote for approval. The rotating President (Norway) passes the floor to the Russian Federation, during which this approval request is made.

[00:00:42]

The Russian Federation's representative begins stating that the USA considers Russian troops withing Russian territory as a "threat to international peace and security" which is not only "unacceptable as an interference in the internal affairs of our state but also an attempt to mislead the international community to the state of affairs in the region. [...] We are being asked to convene a meeting on unfounded accusations which we have refuted frequently."

The representative declares that the meeting amounts to "megaphone" diplomacy which will not bring the council together, and by implication undermine existing diplomatic efforts to resolve the situation. He highlights recent calls by the Ukrainian president for calm, and that raised tensions are harming the Ukrainian economy.

The Russian representative asks the council to refrain from raising alarm and reminds them that back in December Russia tabled an opportunity to discuss the exact topic on February 17th, after Russia takes the rotating leadership role of the council, tomorrow on February 1st.

Thus, this is very much a last minute opportunity for the USA to convene the council before Russia takes on its turn at council presidency.

The representative reminds the council that that date, Feb 17th is the 7th anniversary of the Minsk Accords which are enshrined in UNSC resolution 2202.

[00:05:28]

The UNSC President (UNSCP) passes to the USA's representative. Note that the transcription of the USA’s representative is deliberately precise.

As ['my', or even 'our', but omitted] colleague stated we have called for this meeting. And, we've called for this meeting because of what we have witnessed over the course of the last few months in terms of the actions of the Russian Federation on the territory of, ah, a, of aaah, on the border with Ukraine.

One could presume that the USA's representative was nervous, but there is no sign of that in her voice. Secondly, it would be disrespectful to the UN itself to appoint a representative that is incapable of speaking with them clearly, or understands U.N. protocols.

USA’s representative begins with a diplomatic slight in neither using 'my' nor 'our' preceding 'colleague', and secondly a deliberate misrepresentation in using the words "on the territory" to correct to "on the border". Slights aside, are Russian troops "on the border" or stationed “near the border”?

Ah, they indicate, ah, that, ah, its in their own territory but its is also very, ah, close to their neighbor's border.

Okay “close to” the border. These are diplomatic errors 101: slighting a colleague, misrepresenting facts, and then backsliding on the misrepresentation.

Ah, its a neighbor's that has been invaded already before. Its a neighbour that has, ah, Russian troops occupying their territory. Ah, we have had numerous meetings. Ah, over a hundred meetings over the course of the past few weeks, ah, both with, ah, Russian officials and, and consultations with our European and Ukrainian colleagues. All of these meetings have been in private. [...] We think its now time to have a meeting in public, aah, and have, ah, this discussion in a public forum. Ah, we have ...

Then follow the various alarmist points that the RusFed was expecting:

aided Ukraine to help them prepare for what they see as inevitable [which contradicts what Zelensky said a few days previously], including provided 200 million USD in assistance [i.e weapons] in the last weeks, ...

She states:

So, this is not about antics. Ah, its not about rhetoric. Its not about U.S. and Russia. What this is about is the peace and security of, ah, of one of our member states.

The USA representative thanks the UNSCP.

[00:08:06]

The vote to adopt the provisional agenda is called.

The UNSCP declares the votes 10/2/3 (for/against/abstain) and that the provisional agenda is carried, and that "in accordance with rule 37 of the council's provisional procedure" she invites the representatives of Belarus, Lithuania, Poland, and Ukraine to participate. One could ask where are Kosovo, Moldova, Hungary or Serbia?

[00:10:50]

UNSCP then invites the Under-Secretary General for Political and Peace Building affairs to also participate. Following procedural information, the Under-Secretary is given the floor. She then delivers a carefully worded message on "European Peace and Security Architecture" naming all relevant parties including USA, Russia, NATO, EU, OSCE, and being very plain about the U.N.'s call for a diplomatic resolution to deliver security, including for Ukraine (who seems to not be a member of any of the above).

She sets the context with "reports" of Russian troop build up being "positioned along the border" with Ukraine and that Russian troops have been sent to Belarus. [Yes, madame, its the First Guards Tank Army] These troops are to conduct joint military exercises "on the borders of Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic states". This begs the question, where in Belarus can exercises be held that is not on someone's border if these exercises are "on" all of Belarus' southern, western and norther borders?

She continues to describe the challenge as "complex, long standing, security concerns and threat perceptions". Furthermore, she encourages support for two particular groups, the Normandy Four and the OSCE's Trilateral Contract Group, to ensure the implementation of the Minsk Agreements endorsed by UNSC resolution 2202.

She concludes that the Helsinki Final Act specifically and other existing accords should be respected and pleads for a negotiated settlement. She hands back to the UNSCP.

From hereon in, every single non-President speaker will thank or acknowledge the Under-Secretary's briefing, without exception. Its protocol.

[00:17:45]

The UNSCP gives the floor to the USA’s representative. USA begins with "urgent and dangerous" and that the "stakes for every U.N. member stake could not be higher". "Russia's actions strike at the very heart of the U.N. charter." In describing the "threat" that Ukraine now faces she quotes U.N. Charter article 39 as "The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace". She interestingly immediately derives from this "thus, our charge is not only to address conflicts after they occur but also to prevent them from happening in the first place".

This is exactly the type of megaphone diplomacy rhetoric which Russia had outlined that it expected at the beginning of the meeting. Of course, the lady is not done.

Russia's aggression today not only threatens Ukraine, it also Europe. It threatens the international order this body is charged with upholding. An order, that if it stands for anything, stands for the principle that one country cannot simply redraw another country's borders by force or make another country's people live under a government they did not choose.

Apart from the alarmist rhetoric which she claims not to be issuing but is delivering, the last two sentences are very interesting and poorly constructed. Crimea is currently "annexed". There are no changes to it Ukraine’s “internationally recognized borders”, though there likely will be. And why is that? Its because one could referenda Crimea until the cows come home, but the residents of Crimea are going to vote for Russia every time. Crimea has already chosen to change government, and given a free choice they will make the same choice again and again. It matters little what a diplomat says in New York. Crimea's current young generation's grandparents died defending Crimea from the Nazi's until that defense failed or then died under 22 months of Nazi occupation before being rescued by Russia. Yes, there were horrible civil disruptions post WWII as Russia sought to remove Tartars who had collaborated with the Nazi's. Or, perhaps it was just ethnic cleansing? Whatever the case, the Crimeans there now want no more of any of it and aligning with an unstable foreign controlled government which has essentially outlawed their own language does not seem a smart plan when the alternative is economic support, stability and an effective defense.

After more rhetoric, which lets face it is what the UNSC is mostly about, USA’s representative concludes:

Fellow members of the council and other U.N. member states we you to assess not only Russia's statements but their actions, with clear eyes. To evaluate the risk this pres- presents not just to Ukraine's border and its people but to all of us. And, to speak clearly and forcefully in favour of the path of diplomacy rather than the path of conflict. Thank you, madame President.

She really has set herself up for the obvious retort from Russia here, and you betcha, its coming.

[00:26:59]

But first, the representative from Albania speaks. Albania speaks of the tensions and risks but pleads for a diplomatic solution.

[00:33:03]

UNSC President hands off to the UK whose representative begins:

Madame President, the first article of the U.N. Charter defines our purpose here, to take collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats of the peace.

The U.N itself unsurprisingly publishes all of its charter, which the UK representative is quoting. The U.N. version of the relevant section is, verbatim:

To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and ...

So, our UK representative has misquoted the U.N. Charter in his first sentence. What happened to "effective" or the rest of the sentence for that matter? Is it considered by the UK unimportant? Does the U.K. believe the U.N. is lax with the wording of its Charter and thus needs not be accurately quoted? Is brevity deferential to the UNSCP?

This is the gentleman's only gaff. There are no "aah"s or "um"s. There follows a controlled, calmly forceful meter, statement by statement, as one should expect from a member of the British Foreign Service. He serves his government well delivering the prepared statement. There is no finesse, but a reserved gravity. Well done, sir!

There is however much unacknowledged "behind the words" of which the general public may be largely unaware. He begins by stating that:

In 2008 Russia told this council that it was sending peace keepers into Georgia. In reality it was invading a democratic, independent country.

To which one may extend "and which lies on Russia's southern border and was in the grip of a CIA instigated colour 'Rose' revolution.

The UK representative then says:

In 2014, Russia denied to this council the presence of its forces in Crimea.

There must be misdirection here. Everybody knew of the Naval base at Sevastopol. Its not a secret. Does the UNSC think was armed by civil servants and pizza cooks? Or perhaps Sevastopol is not in Crimea? Or, is Sevastopol Russian and not Ukrainian territory? Or is it that the lease between Russia and Ukraine permitting troops stationed there somehow means that they are not in "Ukraine"?

Today, Russia denies that its forces are posing a threat to Ukraine.

No, Mr Dissemble, that's not what they've been saying. They have been saying that no Russian public official has made a statement towards Ukraine which is hostile. Given your training and calm, I presume you understand the difference. The Russian troops are there to provide moral support to the Donetsk and Lughansk breakaway republics and to give the Ukrainian military a great degree of pause on considering attacking them. It is really very simple, Mr Dissemble. Without this escalation the USA/NATO would not take Russia's desire for a discussion of the re-architecture of a European Security Architecture to be taken seriously. But, with a few battalion movements they have. Hence your presence in the room.

I know UK’s representative can't say these things, but probably does understand them. That’s the difference between independent media and diplomats. Many may not be aware that the UK currently has contracts for the refurbishment, supply and manning of two military ports for the Ukraine on the Black Sea.

Mr. Dissemble continues to state various other alarmist points.

[00:37:22]

France's statement is rather poor from Russia's perspective, but is a little softer than Mr. Dissemble's. France does reinforce the Normandy Four/Minsk Accords as an ongoing diplomatic effort.

[00:41:53]

India's response is a classic example of carefully balanced international diplomacy, acknowledging the issue and the interests of all sides, and more than anything calling for calm, restraint and a diplomatic solution.

Note also how short it is. Short, direct and to the point.

[00:44:12]

Ghana's response is less beautifully crafted but follows a similar path of pure diplomacy.

Ghana also decides not to try the UNSCP's patience.

[00:47:09]

Ireland aligns itself with the EU, acknowledging the "tension" but calling for calm and support for both the "Normandy Format" and the OSCE. While nodding to the independence of countries to choose their own security arrangements, Ireland having been through 'the troubles' understands that diplomacy is the required solution.

[00:50:40]

China begins restating its opposition to the meeting (which it voted against). China continues delivering precise messages quoting dates and individuals to completely align itself with Russia's position, in entirety. China's primary position would be best summarized as "quiet diplomacy" which also aligns her with the U.N. secretary general.

[A note to the U.N. Chinese translator: very good work. A rapid, correctionless, to the moment, high quality English translation. Additionally, Chinese uses tone for differentiation of meaning in its language and one can easily hear the muffling of the representatives voice because of the mask. I don't speak Chinese, but the English was excellent and mis-translating at the U.N. must be a serious faux pas.]

[00:55:35]

Russia's representative is invited to speak. Contrary to the above, the translation is quite poor. Its so bad that it deserves some transcription following the initial customary protocol:

First and foremost I would like to thank those countries who conducted themselves and deemed itself possible to vote against or abstain against the proposal of the U.S. to discuss this topic today. One might have the impression that Russia is scared of discussing the situation regarding Ukraine, and therefore put forward this procedural vote. Russia is not refusing to discuss the situation in Ukraine but we just don't understand what we are discussing here today, and why we are indeed here today.

I am one and a half lingual and could not live translate anything, but expect that these translators at the U.N. should be among the best live translators to be found. The above is not even English. Here’s the author’s version of what Russia’s representative may have wished to say:

Firstly, I would like to thank those countries who saw fit to vote against or abstain from the procedural vote submitted by the U.S. to discuss this topic today. One might have the impression that Russia is fearful of discussing the situation regarding Ukraine, because of this vote. Russia is not refusing to discuss the situation of Ukraine. However we don't understand the purpose of the discussion here today, and why we it is occurring now.

While the translator does pick up her game soon afterwards she does use terms like "brainwashed" instead of "propagandized" or "trained". The language in translation does not seem to be diplomatic. Nonetheless, she's the translator and I don't speak Russian.

But, finally we get to the response to the USA asking us all to look at Russian actions which was thoroughly expected:

We do recall this, and we recall it since Secretary of State Colin Powell in this very room waved around a vial with an unidentified substance as so called evidence as presence of WMDs in Iraq. They didn't find any weapons but what happened to the country is well known to one and all.

[01:10:06]

Following are statements by Gabon and Brazil.

[01:16:30]

The next most interesting input was from Kenya who had abstained from the vote.

The Kenyan representative speaks with calm authority and complies with all expected protocol. Not only is he dressed impeccably, but the assistant behind him is beautifully dressed in some Kenyan design too.

Kenya abstained on the procedural vote to hold this meeting. We did so to reflect our contention that the main issue in contention here is the impasse between NATO and the Russian Federation. We believe that it is eminently solvable and that the diplomatic steps underway already show promise. This, rather than an escalation in search of a winner take all outcome, is what is required to protect and support international peace and security.

He further says:

Where there are disputes regarding territorial jurisdiction, or security interests, we strongly support patient diplomacy as the first, second and third options.

While this is all very nice diplomacy, Kenya does get to the point showing her historical experience similarly to that of the Irish earlier, but more forcefully:

We believe that the United States, NATO, and the Russian Federation have an opportunity to establish a diplomatic framework that will allow them to resolve their differences. Their security, and that of the entire world, depends on them being willing taking this step, not on ushering in a new age of containment, provocation and proxy actions. Compromise is not surrender.

The special powers given to the Security Council's permanent members demands that they embrace this principle if the United Nations is not to go the way of doomed League of Nations.

Kenya's representative then relates how failures at the security council led to the cold war and suffering on the African continent. The African peoples have much to teach the world about the horrors of inter-tribal conflict, but also much about solidarity, community, love and a celebration of creative culture.

Africa recalls the rejections of compromise, and the search for total victory that lead to the cold war. We experienced that cold war as a series of hot wars, and interventions that deeply damaged our dreams for peace, development and competent inclusive government. Our internal divisions and fragilities were weaponized at the altar of geopolitical rivalry.

It confirmed the truth of the African saying that recognizes "when elephants fight it is the grass that suffers".

Analysis

What is the political/media result for Russia post this UNSC meeting? The USA representative shot herself in the, how could I, ah, put this, foot. She improves later but descends into the “threat to the world” hyperbole which Russia had foreshadowed. Mr. Dissemble did well, but to knowledgeable observes showed us all the place she has chosen in Brexit land.

France was tepid, and Ireland predictable. India’s submission was very professional.

Points to Kenya for their input. Perhaps this relates more to internal African politics than the issue at hand, though this diminishes neither the quality of delivery nor words spoken.

It all really comes back to the media response. USA’s representative with her second wind did an excellent job of delivering her talking points and will be heavily quoted and video cut in the USA’s media in the days to come. To what effect?

The USA media’s beating the drums for war has served the Russian Federations interests in forcing the Biden administration to engage on this issue. Can we not expect this pattern to continue with their likely continued assistance? There is a very careful balance being played by Russia here, using troop deployments to force an issue and playing the USA media’s drums whilst balancing that against covert reinforcement of the Donbas republics with more advanced weaponry.

As Fyodor Lukyanov said:

if something happens because of provocation, because of something else bad, that will be a real disaster for Russia and [a] real failure of Russian tactic[s] and strategy.

As much as Russia and China can rely on each other’s strengths to play this game, they are also both subject to each other’s weaknesses, Winter Olympics or not.

Sources

United Nations Charter (full text), United Nations

LIVE: UN Security Council to discuss Russian military forces on Ukraine's border, Yahoo Finance, via youtube, 2022-01-31

The Ukraine Crisis Explained: United States versus Russia, Peter Kuznick, ActivismMunich, 2022-01-28

Checkmate in Ukraine, Scott Ritter, Consortium News (originally to Energy Intelligence), 2022-01-30

Ep. 5666 - Dave DeCamp on What’s Happening in Ukraine and Yemen - 1/27/22, Scott Horton interviews Dave DeCamp (News Editor at AntiWar), Scott Horton Show, 2022-01-27

Audio: https://dissentradio.com/radio/22_01_27_decampkpfk.mp3

Culture

Talking Heads - Road to Nowhere (Official Video), from their 1985 album Little Creatures, David Byrne youtube channel, uploaded 2018-03-02

---

If you like what you read here, you can please the author by sharing it.

Do Not Subscribe: This blog does not issue "notifications" via Substack. Use RSS. The URL is the obvious: https://yesxorno.substack.com/feed .

Following @YesXorNo on Twitter is the next best alert mechanism.

Copyright and Licensing

This work is copyright to the blog's author with CC BY-SA 4.0 licensing. Have fun, reuse, remix etc. but give credit and place no further restrictions. Lets build culture. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode