By Atilio A. Boron -.
This Thursday, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution suspending Russia’s participation in the UN Human Rights Council (photo). This result disappointed the United States government, sponsors of the initiative, because Washington hoped that the overwhelming majority would repeat support for two resolutions passed in March condemning the Russian invasion of Ukraine. At that time, 141 countries voted for the first and 140 a few days later.
extreme blur
On that occasion, however, Washington’s proposal was supported by 93 countries, while 24 voted against and 58 abstained. The resolution was passed because it exceeded two-thirds of the valid votes, i.e. yes or no votes, without taking abstentions into account. But it is no mystery to anyone that almost half of the countries represented in the General Assembly did not support the US initiative. One possible reason for this behavior is the extreme vagueness of the United States’ proposed resolution. She says like this:
“This brief revolution expresses grave concern at the ongoing human rights and humanitarian crisis in Ukraine, particularly at reports of human rights abuses and violations and violations of international humanitarian law by the Russian Federation, including violations and flagrant and systematic human rights violations. “
The strange thing about the case is that neither the General Assembly nor the UN Human Rights Council had an objective and impartial account of the alleged events. In other words, Russia’s participation in the HRC has been temporarily suspended due to “reports” not prepared by any responsible body of the United Nations system and almost certainly by the media or communication platforms related to – or dependent on – the United Nations governments States and Europe. In short, the Irurzun Doctrine has been applied internationally: someone, in this case a country, is suspected of violating human rights and a sanction is imposed while the evidence reports are being prepared. In the Argentine case: a crime by a disruptive politician or official is suspected and while it is confirmed that it has been committed, preventive detention is ordered. The same thing was done today at the UN: In the absence of previous reports, a member state was suspended and, on top of that, a permanent member of the Security Council. A true legal monster and an increasingly serious damage to international law.
White House initiative
Unfortunately, the Argentine government backed this White House initiative. Our country holds the pro-tempore presidency of CELAC and the bloc was split on the vote. Eighteen countries voted in favor (Antigua, Argentina, Bahamas, Colombia, Costa Rica, Chile, Dominica, Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Dominican Republic, Saint Lucia and Uruguay); eleven abstained (Barbados, Belize, Brazil, El Salvador, Guyana, Mexico, St Kitts, St Vincent/Grenadines, St Cristobal, Suriname and Trinidad/Tobago) and three voted against: Bolivia, Cuba and Nicaragua. Venezuela could not vote because it is behind in paying its membership fees due to the blockade, but it is obvious that it would have voted against the initiative. A serious mistake by our government. They could have taken note of what Brazilian MP Ronaldo Costa Filho said: “Brazil has decided to abstain from voting in today’s vote because it believes the Commission of Inquiry is allowed to complete its independent investigation so that responsibilities can be established . His warning was ignored by our representative, who agreed to sanction a country without reliable evidence. I suppose Washington’s pressure on all Latin American and Caribbean countries must have been very great, but that’s no excuse. If he was unwilling or unable to vote against the US proposal – due to Argentina’s external debt vulnerability – he would have had to abstain. And for several reasons.
On the one hand, due to the lack of reliable evidence, which constitutes a fundamental breach of due process that is as valid in international affairs as it is in domestic politics. Second, because in October 2020 the Argentine government signed an extremely economically and diplomatically convenient “Strategic Association Agreement” with the Russian Federation, which now risks being shelved or expelled. In exchange for? “Will North American investment rain now” for the major public works that this country needs and for which it counted on Russia’s cooperation? And third, because of the undermining of the presidency. Recall that a few months ago President Fernández Vladimir Putin said that Argentina could be the “gateway” to deepening Russia’s economic ties with Latin American countries, which is now being seen, and none of that favors us as a nation .
Pyrrhic victory
My conclusion: a pyrotechnic and dubious victory for White House diplomacy. A serious setback to his ultimate goal: to exclude Russia from the Security Council and the G-20, which several countries, including Argentina, appear to have opposed. And a mistake that could prove very costly to our government, with no benefit in sight, which, like nearly half of CELAC members, could have opted to abstain.