As the United States and our friends and allies respond to Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, we must ask and answer a critical question: Why should this aggressor be allowed to participate in — and disrupt — the workings of the institutions established after World War II to maintain peace and security, advance human development and promote economic stability?
Let’s start with the United Nations, where the Soviet Union was granted a veto in the Security Council along with the United States, France, the United Kingdom and China in 1945. Russia recently used its veto to prevent the Security Council from approving a resolution condemning its aggression in Ukraine, forcing the sponsors to use a legal device to have the General Assembly approve it.
{mosads}It makes no sense for an aggressor nation to have the power to block the U.N.’s most important peacekeeping entity from taking any action that could promote and preserve peace and bring conflicts to an end, including authorizing the use of force and the insertion of peacekeepers into conflicts.
This is not the place to outline the legal and procedural devices that stand in the way of depriving Russia of its Security Council veto as an aggressor nation. But this is the time for the United States and its allies and partners to make a solemn declaration that they will widely consult U.N. members to begin the process of reforming the Security Council in order to suspend the veto right of any permanent Security Council member deemed to have committed aggression against another U.N. member. This process might be triggered by a super-majority vote of the Security Council and the General Assembly. Russia should not be expelled from the U.N., since the organization is an important component of diplomacy and dialogue.
The U.S. and its allies should urge the suspension of the employment of any senior Russians who were nominated and placed in leadership posts at the U.N. by their government. And since Russian President Vladimir Putin cited uniting Russian speakers as a motive for his aggression, the U.S. and our allies should ask the U.N. secretary-general to cease having Russian be one of the six official languages for all printed documents and translated sessions of U.N. proceedings.
—
RELATED OP-EDS FROM THE HILL
- James M. Dubik: Putin’s war exposes the cracks in the world order — can we fix them?
- Dov S. Zakheim: What will it take to end Russia’s war in Ukraine? Creative diplomacy
—
In 1944, confronting a destroyed Europe and a shattered global economy, the Allies moved to create the Bretton Woods institutions — the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) — to promote international economic cooperation and advance postwar reconstruction and development. Since their founding, these institutions have adapted to the needs of an evolving global economy.
The Soviet Union showed little interest in promoting the economic development and well-being of other nations and stayed out of the IMF and World Bank. Once Moscow became a member, its primary interaction with the IMF was not as a contributor but as a recipient of a $22 billion financial bailout in 1998. Today Russia’s economy is suffering severe economic costs as a result of the sanctions its aggression has prompted. The United States and other stakeholders should ensure that Russia does not receive one penny of economic assistance from either the IMF or the World Bank. It is welcome that the Biden administration has signaled its intention to rally stakeholders in support of denying Russia any tangible assistance from these financial institutions. We need to go further.
The international community will need to make full use of both Bretton Woods institutions to support the rebuilding of Ukraine and to formulate and help finance economic recovery strategies for the world economy. Russia must not be permitted to obstruct such work. A suspension of Russia’s participation rights in these institutions would be an appropriate punishment for Russian aggression and the best way to ensure that Russia doesn’t disrupt rebuilding assistance to Ukraine and global economic recovery.
{mossecondads}Similarly, the consultative forum called the G-20 has played a crucial role for conversations among the world’s largest economies to coordinate economic recovery strategies. The G-20 will play a similarly important role in coordinating assistance to rebuild Ukraine’s economy and to ensure stability of the world economy, as well as dealing with possible energy issues emerging from this conflict. Russia should be expelled from the G-20, just as it was expelled from a smaller economic forum, the G-8 (now the G-7), after its illegal seizure of Crimea. We were pleased to hear President Biden say in Brussels that he favors this position.
G-7 countries agreed a few days ago to rescind the extension to Russia of normal trade relations, a central benefit of Russia’s accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO). On this issue as well, the Biden administration, with support from the G-7, is leading the way.
Russia’s aggression against its neighbor and its conduct of warfare against Ukrainian civilians in violation of international law are reason enough to take the steps we propose. These measures do far more because they preserve the credibility of these institutions and enable them to carry out programs and policies for which they were designed at the end of another monstrous war. The United States, its allies and friends need to protect the U.N., the World Bank and the IMF, as well as the G-20 and the WTO, from a nation that subverts their purposes, obstructs their work or could seek undeserved benefits from its membership.
Daniel Spiegel served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, 1993-1996. Alan Larson served as under-secretary of State for economic affairs, 1999-2005, and ambassador to the OECD, 1990-1993.