Photo/Illutration U.N. Security Council members cast votes during a meeting on the third anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine at the U.N. headquarters in New York on Feb. 24. (REUTERS)

Sovereign states, regardless of size, are equal, and the forceful seizure of territory and dignity is never justified. Three years after the onset of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, this fundamental principle continues to resonate strongly with many U.N. member states. Its importance cannot be overstated.

Resolutions have been passed by both the U.N. General Assembly and the Security Council in an attempt to end the conflict in Ukraine. Both advocate for peace, yet they differ substantially in their specifics.

The General Assembly resolution explicitly condemns Russia’s “full-scale invasion of Ukraine” and staunchly supports Ukraine’s territorial integrity. In contrast, the Security Council resolution adopts a “neutral” approach, omitting any mention of Russia’s responsibility.

The General Assembly’s resolution was spearheaded by Ukraine and countries in Europe, while the United States drove the Security Council resolution.

The Trump administration has shown a consistent reluctance to address the responsibilities of the aggressor and the rights of the victim. Consequently, the usual “U.S.-Britain-France versus China-Russia” dynamic in the Security Council shifted to a “U.S.-China-Russia versus Britain-France” configuration.

However, it is noteworthy that the Security Council, often deadlocked on issues like Syria and North Korea, expressed its commitment to seeking “a swift end to the conflict.”

Yet, the abstention by European powers such as Britain and France from voting on the Security Council resolution proposed by the United States reflects a deep-seated mistrust in the Trump administration. There is concern that President Donald Trump might engage in unprincipled agreements with Russia, bypassing Ukraine and European allies.

These suspicions are not unfounded. Trump has implemented a slew of policies predominantly designed for unilateral gain. From a pro-Israel perspective, he has called for land concessions in Gaza, while simultaneously shielding Russia from international censure and pressing Ukraine on resource distribution.

The underlying theme in all these actions is a tendency to coerce weaker parties into accepting agreements dictated by more powerful nations during conflicts. This approach could be seen as Trump’s interpretation of “peace through strength.”

At the U.N. General Assembly, the United States introduced a resolution that mirrored the diluted Security Council version, independently from Ukraine and its European allies. However, following input from numerous countries, the assembly included amendments to the U.S. proposal, emphasizing adherence to the U.N. Charter, which led to its adoption.

Clearly, the two resolutions passed by the General Assembly more accurately represent the international community’s stance than the Security Council resolution.

The Trump administration also opposed including terms such as “aggression” in the draft statement for the Group of Seven summit. The divide between the United States and Europe, which has existed since the Iraq War in 2003, has grown more serious now that the conflict is unfolding within Europe. The future of the transatlantic alliance is increasingly tied to efforts aimed at securing a “free and open Indo-Pacific,” grounded in the rule of law.

The undeniable reality is that Russia, a permanent member of the Security Council, has violated the U.N. Charter. In light of international consensus advocating for adherence to this Charter, Europe and Japan must intensify diplomatic efforts to establish an international order based on rules, not force. Furthermore, they must strengthen their efforts to ensure the United States remains committed to shared values.

--The Asahi Shimbun, March 1

Related News