We can change the rules: how the abolition of veto in the Security Council can stop the war. The UN can impose a no-fly zone and enforce it without triggering WW3

Left: photo of the ‘Knotted Gun’ symbol of peace sculpture in front of the UN Glass Palace in New York . Right: in our view the veto power in the Security Council turned the peaceful mission of the UN into an organisation enabling war.

London, 14 March 2022 – We must no longer allow five nuclear superpowers to keep their guns aimed at our necks. As Russia, US, UK, France and China use veto power in the United Nations Security Council to back each other’s wars. Their own ‘funding principle’ is: ‘I do not stop your war today so you won’t stop mine tomorrow’.

This system is leading us all to a world war, and the actual drama is they all, but Russia, aren’t doing this intentionally:

How to get out of this international mess:

sending 80.000 United Nations army by land, sea and air (as prescribed in Chapter VII of the Charter – the one Russia has right to veto) would have already stopped Russia in time. This, added to US a EU+ arms supply, is the only way to save Ukraine and hundreds of thousands of lives and de-escalate the war and risk of WW3.

Why? Firstly because UN Blue Helmet army of peacekeepers can legally enter Ukrainian sovereign territory without exposing any country to direct backlash from Russia; meaning this won’t expand the war in Europe/NATO territory. If, for instance, a no-fly zone is imposed and enforced by the UN (through legally binding resolution under Chapter VII par 42) and a UN aircraft shot down a Russian one, which country Russia will wage war to in return? Yes, UN forces bear the flag of nations, but, legally, if Russia hit UN peacekeeping forces it can referred as a war crime (e.g. case law of a deadly attack by a militia on the UN mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo) and it would be also illegal to wage war to a country defending Ukraine through the UN forces. It would equate to Russia waging war to the UN. Russia would become immediately a rough state in that case.

Yes, Putin is mad, but not to this point.

Now, as we know, the chances of a UN intervention to stop the war in Ukraine are blocked by the veto power of Russia in the Security Council.

We cannot expect Putin’s regime to give up voluntarily its veto power in the UNSC and allow an humanitarian, military defensive, intervention on the ground right against its own army.

United Nations Security Council – Russian Ambassador Vasily Nebenzya vetoed a resolution to stop war in Ukraine  

Over these hours it’s still circulating the debate around whether the resolution vetoed by Russia last 25th Feb. was under Chapter VI of the UN Charter (Pacific settlement of disputes, the one prescribing (at Art 27 par 3 – source Prof Enrico MilanoLegal advisor at Permanent Mission of Italy to the United Nation), the obligatory abstention when one member is party in a dispute, (right the case of Russia), or under Chapter VII (where the P5 can use veto power).

“The council – Reuters reports – softened the language in its resolution to say it “deplores” Russia’s “aggression against Ukraine” from “condemns,” while a reference to Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which deals with sanctions and authorization of force, was removed along with a reference to “the president.”

As initially proposed under Chapter VII, it would be difficult to impose Russian suspension for having violated the Charter.

But there would be the chance to suspend Russia for having abused use of veto over the years to foster its geopolitical interest and waging war.

There are little chances, by the way, the UNSC started enforcing Charter’s principles or proposing reforms, as it can’t be reformed from within by its own members. As the P5 with veto power legalise war and the rotating 10 members are not backing any reform, the change must be imposed from the citizens of these states via legal action.

The only way to act individually or via collective action is suing in court our own governments for being members of and supporting an international organisation (the United Nations) which constantly exposes their own population to the risk of war, whether in or out their borders, and of its impacts. The Supreme courts of our countries will have to decide whether a state is violating its own constitution by continuing its membership of an international superpower which violates its own Charter and funding principles, threatens global peace and security, and exposes citizens of 193 countries to the plague of war.