Since the beginning of the full-scale Russian invasion, the European Commission and the countries of the European Union have provided significant support to Ukraine. In December, the European Council agreed to provide financial assistance to Ukraine in the amount of 18 billion euros, which Kyiv will receive during 2023. Last year, the EU already supported Ukraine in the amount of 19 billion euros.
The EU helps Ukraine not only financially and by implementing economic sanctions against the aggressor country, but also politically, primarily in the United Nations and its institutions. Ambassador Olof Skoog is the voice of the EU at the UN.
The experienced diplomat heads the EU representation at the UN in New York since December 2019. Before that, Skoog was the permanent representative of Sweden at the UN and served as the chairman of the UN Peacebuilding Commission, as well as chairing the UN Security Council. In Brussels, Skoog headed the EU Policy and Security Committee, coordinating the EU's common foreign and security policy.
In a conversation with Iryna Solomko, the permanent representative of the EU at the UN told how the UN opposes Russia, what are the shortcomings of the UN system and why Russia will not be deprived of membership in the Security Council and the UN, as well as about the support of Ukraine from the EU and the UN
Olof Skoog: First, I would like to evaluate these meetings. Yes, in fact, they do not lead to decision-making, but they have value, because Ukraine can present its position regarding what is happening in the real life of Ukrainians. And although there are different views among the members, I think it is very important to see how isolated Russia is. And while not everyone is saying all that needs to be said about condemning Russia's actions and supporting the UN Charter, there is no one in the Security Council who is quoting or supporting what Russia is saying.
As for the resolutions, they will be considered by the General Assembly closer to February 24, the anniversary of the invasion. It is important to have tactics and to understand exactly which provisions will be supported by a wider range of countries. What will happen in Ukraine is also important for voting.
If the Russian offensive against civilians continues, it is logical to adopt decisions that increase responsibility for crimes. We believe that the General Assembly is an expression of international public opinion that condemns what is happening and also gives a clear understanding: those who commit these crimes will pay the price for them, I hope, including in Moscow. Therefore, the next step, in my opinion, should be to vote for the resolution on responsibility for committed crimes.
I.S.: This is an important issue, because Ukraine has been negotiating this resolution since last year, however, not all EU member states have publicly expressed their support for it. Why?
U.S.:There are various explanations here. By the way, I am not saying that the resolution, which would also touch on the peace initiative or the ten-point plan of President Zelenskyi, could not be put to a vote. Everything will depend on what the situation will be in February. Regarding the position of the European Union, we, 27 countries, have said that we believe in prosecution: whether through a special tribunal, or a mixed tribunal, or whatever. We are still negotiating with Ukraine regarding the format. Therefore, the European Union has no question at all whether we should move forward in this direction. However, it is also true that apart from this debate about the crime of aggression, there is very important work being done by the International Criminal Court. And we do a lot to support her. And also help Ukrainian authorities to collect and document evidence, which will eventually be presented to the International Criminal Court. Therefore, it is a question of nuances. Is it best to create a new tribunal? Should it be a hybrid tribunal? And there are ongoing conversations around this.
IS: Do you think the UN is doing enough to hold Russia accountable?
U.S.:I think we could do more. And, of course, given that Russia, instead of reducing and reducing its attacks, is actually increasing them, we're obviously not very effective. But I have always believed that there are limits to the capabilities of the United Nations, given that Russia has veto power in the Security Council. Because the Security Council has powerful powers. But it will not be able to use them because of the right of veto, which blocks the steps that the UN can take. Our ambition, together with Ukraine, is to try to do as much as possible to oppose the actions of Russia through the use of international public opinion. In particular, to show that Russia is isolated. That's part of what we tried to do. However, we already have tools, including the International Criminal Court, already in place, and we need to give them practical and political support, so they can do their jobs. And then we will see how far we can advance with the next resolution.
I.S.: You already mentioned the Security Council debate on the rule of law that took place last week. But listening to them, Ukrainians, first of all, see a representative of Russia, and the Russian Federation refuses to comply with the decision of the UN international court, which is part of this system. What kind of responsibility can we talk about then?
US: When the Security Council is blocked, there are limitations. After all, it is a body that usually ensures the implementation of decisions. Therefore, we have a missing element in international architecture. But this does not mean that we are without tools.
0 Comments