The vote is symbolic, but this symbol counts. The United Nations General Assembly adopted a very large majority, on October 12, a resolution condemning the last annexations of Ukrainian territories conquered by force by Russia. Precipitated by the Russian setbacks on the ground, grossly legitimized by junk referendums, these annexions are, should it be remembered, just as unilateral and illegal with regard to international law as that of Crimea decreed by Moscow in 2014.
They had already aroused massive rejection within the Security Council, where Russia, as a permanent member, had been able to use its veto on September 30. Vladimir Putin was only supported this time by North Korea and Nicaragua, in addition to its Biélorusian and Syrian compulsory, an addition of rejected regimes. We have the supports we deserve.
Two lessons can be learned from this vote. The fact that 143 countries have condemned Moscow’s coup de force, if necessary, that the rejection of the aggression of Ukraine is not only the affair of a reduced Western camp, whose mobilization would be observed At a respectable distance by a “global south”, which would camp on a prudently wait-and-see position.
In the wake of Brazil and Mexico, Latin and central America expressed a very clear majority against annexations. The Middle East did the same, while Africa and Asia were divided between convictions and abstentions (thirty-five in total). The resolution collected two more votes compared to a previous text adopted by the same general meeting, in March, to condemn the border violation and the integrity of a Member State just as largely.
After the massive bombing of which Ukraine has been theater since October 10, and which deliberately targeted residential areas and infrastructure, in complete violation of the laws of war, one would have expected a even more massive conviction on the part of countries that dispute the international standards in force, deemed too favorable to the Western camp.
Once again, the great power that intends to play the world’s leading roles, China, took refuge in an unclear abstention, and India has done the same. What additional crimes could Moscow commit for these large countries to decide to condemn it?
It is perfectly legitimate to judge that the international order implemented on the initiative of the United States at the end of the Second World War has had its day, and that it requires adjustments taking into account the new reports of global strength. But, to date, what alternatives do its detractors offer?
As the diatribes of a Vladimir Putin locked up in an obsidional complex have shown on September 30, the message of the Russian-Chinese “revisionist” axis is mainly anti-writer. The Ukrainian example shows that it is reduced to imperial ambitions. This axis would give them free rein within areas of influence on uncertain borders, in defiance of all elementary principles that have become standards for the common good after a long work of conviction. This vision of the world is no more a promise of international stability than the exaltation of authoritarianism is a guarantee of equilibrium for the countries which submit to it.