UN Charter – The Ukraine War and our commitment to peace

by Michael von der Schulenburg,* Germany

(11 April 2023) To argue again today that peace can only be achieved by force of arms is a throwback to the war-torn times before the UN Charter of 1945. The war in Ukraine is now entering a second year – without even an attempt at a diplomatic solution. Instead of peace talks, the warring and conflicting parties have become further entangled in a dangerous spiral of military escalation using ever heavier weapons systems. As if we were still stuck in the thought patterns of the first half of the 20th century, large-scale military offensives are now supposed to bring the solution.

This will only further destroy Ukraine. Yet, an even more dangerous consequence is that the prestige of the world’s two largest nuclear powers – the United States and Russia – depends on the outcome of such offensives. This increases the risk of direct confrontation between these nuclear powers, which possess about 90 percent of all nuclear weapons in the world.

After World Wars I and II, this would be the third time a war on European soil has escalated into a world war – only this time with potentially significantly more devastating consequences. Already, most of the world’s population uninvolved in the war is suffering the economic consequences of that war; a nuclear war could wipe out all life on earth – whether belonging to a warring party or not. Thus, a war situation has arisen that our forefathers had wanted to prevent through the UN Charter.

The preamble to the UN Charter states that “the peoples of the United Nations (are) determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind.”

Unfortunately, this appeal of the UN Charter seems forgotten today. This is mainly because the actual protecting powers (and UN founding members) of the UN Charter – the USA, Great Britain, France and now Russia – have continuously eroded the principles of the UN Charter, even repeatedly ignoring them altogether. This is possible for them as permanent members of the UN Security Council with veto power. In the Ukraine war, these four protective and veto powers have now become parties to the conflict. As such, they bear primary responsibility for this war vis-à-vis humanity.

The UN Charter is first a commandment of peace and only then a prohibition of war

A constantly repeated accusation in the West is that Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine is illegal under international law and that Ukraine thus has the right not only to defend itself but also to ask other states for help in defending itself. This is indisputable, as this statement is based on the UN Charter. However, does the UN Charter thereby also give the West the right to continue this war at will, to seek a military victory over Russia and to refuse all peace efforts on these grounds? Certainly not!

Because in essence the UN Charter is a mutual obligation of all member countries to resolve conflicts peacefully; only on this is the general ban on the use of military force for political goals based – and not vice versa. The UN Charter is precisely not a global cease-fire agreement, but a call to all member countries to guarantee a worldwide peace by peaceful means. The charter is first a peace commandment and only then a prohibition of war! It is this aspect of the peace commandment which breaks with a military logic which had led to so many wars in the past, especially in Europe. If today, it is again argued that peace can only be achieved by force of arms – i.e., by war – this is a relapse into times of war before the UN Charter.

The UN Charter then also states that the main task is,

“… 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 for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace.”

And then more clearly:

“All members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in a such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.”

The obligation to resolve conflicts peacefully exists not only to prevent wars, but also to end them. For example, the UN General Assembly resolution of 2 March 2022, strongly condemning Russia’s military intervention, calls not only on Russia and Ukraine, but on all states involved to find a peaceful solution to the Ukraine war:

“The General Assembly urges the immediate peaceful settlement of the conflict between the Russian Federation and Ukraine through political dialogue, negotiations, mediation, and other peaceful means."

In many ways, the UN Charter is far superior to today’s black-and-white view of a world between good and evil, or even between supposedly democratic and authoritarian states. For example, the UN Charter knows no terms such as “war of aggression”, “pre-emptive war,” “anti-terrorist war,” or even “humanitarian war.” It does not distinguish between the respective political systems of the member countries, nor does it distinguish between justified or unjustified points of contention between the parties to a conflict. The UN Charter assumes that there are always two sides to every conflict, which are to be reconciled by peaceful means. Applied to the Ukraine war, Russia’s and Ukraine’s security interests would have been equal and should have been resolved through negotiations.

The West’s grave complicity in the Ukraine war

The seriousness of the escalating conflict over NATO’s expansion to Russia’s borders, which has now led to war, has been clear to all involved since at least 1994. Russia has repeatedly warned that admitting Ukraine and Georgia to NATO would violate its elementary security interests and cross a red line. Thus, this is a classic conflict of the kind that often occurs.

In accordance with the UN Charter, this conflict should – and probably could – have been resolved diplomatically. Yet, that did not happen, neither to prevent a war nor to achieve a peaceful outcome to the war once it had begun. This, too, is a violation of the UN Charter.

Nevertheless, Ukraine’s accession to NATO was systematically pursued, especially by the U.S., and Russia’s concerns were simply ignored. This was not without provocations. In the process, the West did not even shy away from supporting the violent overthrow of a legitimately elected (OSCE) president in 2014 in order to install a government in Ukraine that was convenient for NATO accession. According to Victoria Nuland, now U.S. Deputy Secretary of State, the U.S. had funded this overthrow to the tune of $5 billion; in reality, however, it may have been a much higher amount. This was also a gross violation of the sovereignty of a UN member and thus a breach of the UN Charter.

After the recent statements by Angela Merkel and Francois Holland on the Minsk I and Minsk II agreements, the question also arises whether these were negotiated at all in “good faith” on the part of the West or only served the purpose of creating time for the military buildup of Ukraine. Since these agreements became legally binding by a UN Security Council decision, that would be a shocking travesty of any international law.

In December 2021, when Russia responded to NATO’s decision to move forward with Ukraine’s accession by making a threatening gesture and massing troops on its border with Ukraine, it was simultaneously making another attempt to reach a peaceful resolution. This led to a series of diplomatic activities but talks on Ukraine’s accession to NATO were categorically rejected by Western interlocutors. The Ukrainian government even responded in February 2022 with massive bombardments of the pro-Russian rebel-controlled Donbass and the civilian population there.

Even after the war broke out, all peace efforts undertaken were torpedoed by NATO, especially by the U.S. and Britain. As early as the first week of March 2022, the then Prime Minister of Israel, Naftali Bennet, sought a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine. According to his recent statements, Russia and Ukraine had great interest in a quick end of the war. According to Bennet, concessions by Russia had brought a cease-fire “within reach.” However, that didn't happen, because “they (the U.S. and U.K.) blocked a cease-fire, and I thought they were wrong,” Bennet continued.

And then there were the Ukrainian-Russian peace talks, in which both sides agreed on the broad outlines of a peace settlement as early as the third week of March, just a month after the war broke out: Ukraine promised not to join NATO and not to allow military bases of foreign powers on its territory, while Russia promised in return to recognise Ukraine’s territorial integrity and to withdraw all Russian occupation troops. Special arrangements were made for the Donbass and Crimea.

At a peace conference in Istanbul scheduled for 29 March 2022, these outlines were to be further developed. However, then Ukraine withdrew from the peace negotiations under pressure from the United States and Great Britain. Turkish Foreign Minister Ç avuşoğlu later said of the failed Istanbul peace conference: “some NATO countries wanted the war in Ukraine to continue in order to weaken Russia.”

How much suffering, how many lives, and how much destruction could have been avoided if NATO had gotten behind Ukrainian-Russian peace efforts in March? For preventing it, however, NATO countries bear a heavy share of the blame for the casualties of war since then.

And here is a word in defense of Ukraine: President Zelensky had very well tried to find a quick peaceful solution to the war that had now broken out. He had asked Israeli Prime Minister Bennet to mediate with Russia, and it was he, too, who had authorised Ukrainian-Russian peace negotiations. As late as 27 March 2022, Zelensky had shown the courage to defend the results of the Ukrainian-Russian peace negotiations in public before Russian journalists – and this even though NATO had already decided at a special summit on 24 March 2022, not to support these peace negotiations. In the end, Zelensky caved in to NATO pressure and backed a continuation of the war.

This decision has now led to widespread destruction of Ukraine, immeasurable suffering of the civilian population there, and the loss of large parts of Ukraine. Today, Ukraine’s negotiating position would be much worse than it was in March 2022. This certainly explains Zelensky’s current stance of now betting everything on a total victory over Russia.

Yet, even such a victory, should it be possible at all, would come at an enormous human cost and could lead to the complete destruction of Ukraine. It must have become clear to Zelensky and most of his comrades-in-arms by now that they had better not have listened to their friends from the West in March/April, and that by rejecting a peaceful, negotiated solution they are now paying with their own blood for the strategic war aims of others. It will not be the last time that Ukrainians will feel betrayed.

The Ukrainian war teaches the irreplaceability of the UN Charter

Since the end of the Cold War, the West, especially the United States, has repeatedly cast doubt on the validity of the UN Charter. The UN Charter and its principle of “sovereign equality” are simply not compatible with the USA’s sole claim to global leadership. According to the U.S. Congressional Research Service, the United States has carried out 251 military interventions in other countries since the end of the Cold War in order to fulfill this leadership role – not counting secret CIA operations and financing of proxy wars. It can be assumed that many – if not most – of these interventions have been violations of the UN Charter. In almost all cases, they have left only human suffering, destruction, chaos, and dysfunctional governments. Democracies never emerged from them. Is Ukraine now destined for a similar fate?

The war in Ukraine has brought the world closer to nuclear catastrophe than any other conflict since the end of the Cold War – perhaps even since the end of the two world wars. This should have made us all painfully aware of how important, indeed irreplaceable, the UN Charter remains today. To maintain world peace, the only way left is through a voluntary agreement between states to resolve conflicts peacefully.

The UN Charter was once a gift to mankind from the victorious powers of the Second World War – the USA, the then Soviet Union, Great Britain and France. Today, these very states (or their successor states) have discredited themselves so much with the Ukraine War that we cannot expect them to renew the UN Charter.

The torch for a peaceful, cooperative world order must now be carried by other countries, by countries like Brazil, Argentina, and Mexico in Latin America; by India, China, and Indonesia in Asia; by South Africa, Nigeria, and Ethiopia in Africa; and Egypt and Saudi Arabia in the Middle East.

By giving these countries greater responsibility for world peace, another step would be taken toward a multipolar and equal world. What better way than a peace order built on the UN Charter and the principle of “the sovereign equality of all its members”!

* Michael von der Schulenburg, 1948, worked for more than 34 years as a diplomat at the United Nations, and for a short time also at the OSCE. From 2009 to 2012, he was the UN’s high-level representative in Freetown, Sierra Leone, and head of the world’s first integrated peacebuilding mission. This gave him an open view of the whole, of the relations between all the states on this globe.

Source: https://makroskop.eu/07-2023/der-ukraine-krieg-und-unsere-verpflichtung-zum-frieden/, 18 February 2023

(Translation “Swiss Standpoint”)