Anna Shelest: Ukraine needs observer missions for testimonies in the international court

Why doesn’t Ukraine invite UN peacekeepers for resolving its inner problems and what help is it expecting from the international community?

These questions EuroBelarus Information Service discussed with Anna Shelest, senior scientist of the National institute for strategic studies in Odessa, Ukraine.

- A lot of analysts in Belarus see the introduction of UN peacekeeping forces as the best way out in the existing situation. How acceptable is this step for Kiev and why is it hard to do?

- This problem should be treated from the two sides. The first question is what functions exactly we want to delegate to the peacekeeping operation, and the second – is how we can legally start this operation.

The first question is the hardest one. Peacekeeping operations is not a very correct term to use in the Russian language, as it presupposes 4 types of UN operations – peacemaking, peacekeeping, peace building, and peace enforcement. UN Charter doesn’t define them clearly, and only says about the responsibilities the sides bear. However, over the years clear principles and traditional functions have been formed, as well as the differentiations between these types. Peace building is usually the last stage, and in the current situation time for it hasn’t come yet.  Peacemaking and peacekeeping are usually used when the two sides have signed an agreement to cease fire, which Ukraine hasn’t reached yet. Thus, the only variant that remains is the peace enforcement foreseen under chapter VII of the UN Charter, which is traditionally made by a coalition of states after the corresponding UN resolution. This is a radical measure; and though the situation in Ukraine is tough, fortunately, there are no ongoing hostilities and hypothetically, there is enough strength to cope with it independently.

But what Ukraine really needs are observers, who would write down all the violations so that this list could be used in the international court in the future. Ukraine needs professional mediators, certain international sanctions – but all these are other actions than the peacekeeping operation. And some actions are already going on – there are OSCE observers, including those within the framework of the Vienna document, and groups of UN human rights observers.

As to the mechanism of the operation, we should realize that such issues are under the jurisdiction of the UN Security Council, where Russia is a permanent member and has a right of veto. We can’t guarantee that Russia won’t block the mission, as it happened with UN mission in Georgia back in 2008.

There is also one complicated mechanism of operation’s authorization through UN General Assembly, the adoption of the so-called resolution “United for peace”, which resolves that “if the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in any case where there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately with a view to making appropriate recommendations to Members for collective measures, including in the case of a breach of the peace or act of aggression the use of armed force when necessary, to maintain or restore international peace and security.” Though back in 1950 this term wasn’t used yet, in modern language we would call it a peacekeeping operation. This provision was only used several times in the UN history; but the devolution of this matter is a procedural question, and no one from the permanent members can block the matter submitted to UN General Assembly.

The second nuance is that according to the rules, both sides of the conflict should give their consent for disposal of such UN mission only when it becomes legitimate. Imagine that Ukraine gives such consent or even sends the invitation to direct the mission at its territory. Who will give this consent without the united coordinated centre and the coordination of actions? Thus, the situation with the OSCE observers can be repeated – everyone gives his consent, they are staying at the territory legally, but for whatever reason they were seized by the gunmen and were held hostage for almost a week.