How will the Skripal Enquiry affect Russia in the UN?
Despite its occasionally dubious track record, Russia still holds a very strong position in the UN. In particular, Russia has a permanent seat on the Security Council, which affords it veto power over a number of hugely important peacekeeping decisions. This is what makes Russia’s alleged involvement in the Skripal case an international crime, a violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention and another reason Russia’s place in the UN is under scrutiny.
However, given that no nation has ever been expelled from the UN, not even when the motion was proposed as a response to apartheid, it’s pretty safe to say that Russia is secure in its position at the UN. However, if Russian involvement in the case is proven, their standing and might in the UN will undoubtedly be affected.
The veto that comes as part of Russia’s permanent position on the UNSC is a major issue for the enquiry. The UNSC has the authority to ‘investigate any dispute or situation which might lead to international friction’ and ‘to call on members to apply economic sanctions and other measures not involving the use of force to prevent or stop aggression’ or ‘to take military action against an aggressor’. However, Russia can use their veto to block any such action against them, which would mean that the UNSC would have to remove Russia from the council without UNSC consent, as this would be the only way to stop them using their veto power to prevent action against them or using their veto power to prevent their removal from the council.
Although it could be argued that Russian use of veto power in this situation would cause a public image problem, the Russian delegation has already begun to spin an argument which accuses the UK of anti-Russian bias and attempting to ‘tarnish’ Russian reputation ahead of the World Cup. In fact, the Permanent Delegate, Vasily Nebenzya, argued that British investigators were “coming up with egregious, superficial and unsupported accusations which have far-reaching consequences”, likening them to Inspector Lestrade and adding that we ‘need a Sherlock Holmes.’
They have even gone so far as to argue that since “No scientific research or development under the title Novichok were carried out,” (although ex-Soviet scientists have testified that they did create Novichok nerve agents for the Government), the poisoning must have been an attempt to discredit Russia by the UK. These arguments are significant because they discredit the UK’s testimony, meaning that they could also be used to halt an investigation on the grounds that said investigation is unfair or biased.
This is an issue for the UN because it compromises its ability to solve an international dispute. This inability to solve disputes peacefully was arguably what ultimately undermined the power of the UN’s predecessor, the League of Nations, and which caused its ultimate failure. However, the UN cannot simply take steps to cancel Russian veto; there is no precedent for this action, and Russia has powerful allies, such as China, who would defend it.
This makes it impossible to say exactly what Russia’s future in the UN will look like if it is proven to be guilty; whatever happens will be unusual but will boil down to two simple options. The UN can choose to take unprecedented actions to curb the power of a member state, or it can allow Russia to compromise the values and mission of the organisation.