Un calls for immediate russian withdrawal from ukraine

Un calls for immediate russian withdrawal from ukraine

Resounding vote before anniversary of war sees 141 countries condemning Russian invasion with seven against and 32 abstentions.

The UN has overwhelmingly voted to call for Russia to immediately and unconditionally withdraw from Ukraine, marking one year since Moscow’s invasion by calling for a ‘comprehensive, just and lasting peace’.

Applause broke out when the result was announced.

The resolution on Thursday night saw 141 countries in favour with seven against and 32 abstentions, including China.

Russia had worked hard to try to end its isolation by blaming the west for pouring arms into the region and by pointing to the growing hunger crisis it blamed on western sanctions.

But Ukraine’s allies for their part had tried to maximise consultations, and in the resolution put a heavy emphasis on the willingness of Ukraine to seek dialogue. Ukraine was also persuaded to remove planned references to taking the Russian leadership to a special tribunal for committing war crimes. Several speakers said such a move would only make the search for peace more elusive. However, Ukraine’s allies failed to improve on numbers seen in the last vote on the issue in October immediately after Russia annexed republics in the east of Ukraine. In that vote 143 countries backed the resolution, with five against and 35 abstentions.

Ukraine’s foreign minister, Dmytro Kuleba, said: ‘By voting in favour of today’s UN general assembly resolution 141 UN member states made it clear that Russia must end its illegal aggression. Ukraine’s territorial integrity must be restored. One year after Russia launched its full-scale invasion global support for Ukraine remains strong.’

Among the big countries abstaining on Thursday, Thailand said it did not want to become involved in a morality play, adding that billions of bystanders were bearing the brunt of the war.

South Africa stressed that the principles of territorial integrity in the UN Charter were sacrosanct, and applied in the case of Ukraine, but claimed the resolution would not advance the cause of peace.

The Chinese deputy envoy to the UN, Dai Bing, said the west was throwing fuel on to the fire by arming Ukraine. That would only exacerbate tensions, he said.

Leading the abstention camp, he claimed: ‘One year into the Ukraine crisis, the conflict is still grinding on and growing in scale, wreaking havoc to countless lives. A spill over effect is intensifying. We are deeply worried about this. China’s position on the Ukraine issue is consistent and clear. The sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries should be respected. The purposes and principles of the UN Charter should be observed. The legitimate security concerns of all countries should be taken seriously.’

His remarks provoked a powerful rebuttal from Annalena Baerbock, the German foreign minister, rejecting his claim that the west was indulging in military spending at the expense of other priorities more important to ordinary people. She said it was specious to claim the military aid was worsening the crisis since if the west did not supply aid, the aggressor would be free to capture Ukraine and destroy the UN Charter.

Because the UN Security Council, which is charged with maintaining international peace and security, is paralysed by Russia’s veto power, the General Assembly has become the most important UN body dealing with Ukraine. Though General Assembly resolutions are not legally binding – unlike Security Council resolutions – they serve as a useful barometer of world opinion. Catherine Colonna, the French foreign minister – one of many European foreign ministers to travel to New York for the debate prior to the vote – warned that those that abstained would in fact be siding with the aggressor.

She said none could sleep easy in a world in which a great power – one with nuclear weapons and a permanent Security Council member – could, at its own discretion, decide to attack its neighbours.

‘Russia is trying to convince some of you that its attempts to upset the world order and impose a strength-based order will work in their favour. This is an illusion. The facts bear this out. It was Russia and Russia alone that wanted the war.’