Was this the day the UN died?

Telegraph

25-02-2025

Nothing could be simpler than the procedure for casting a vote in the United Nations Security Council. Fifteen ambassadors gather around a horseshoe table, beneath a mural of a phoenix escaping the ashes, and raise their hands like obedient pupils.
Until Donald Trump regained the White House, the easiest duty of America's representative was to vote alongside Britain and France to denounce Russia's invasion of Ukraine as exactly the kind of bloodsoaked tragedy which the UN was created to prevent.
But no longer. When the Security Council marked the third anniversary of the onslaught on Monday, there was stunned silence in the chamber as America's acting ambassador, Dorothy Camille Shea, raised her hand not with her allies but with Russia and China, supporting a perfunctory three-paragraph Resolution devoid of any condemnation of the Kremlin, as if Ukraine's calamity was a natural disaster for which no-one could be blamed. Britain and France, abandoned by their companion, were left to abstain.
Next door in the UN General Assembly, America's behaviour was still more extraordinary. A roll-call of US allies, ranging from Australia to Japan and a raft of Nato members, including Britain and France, co-sponsored a Resolution denouncing the 'devastating and long-lasting consequences' of Russia's aggression against Ukraine.
Faced with a carefully drafted text, designed to reflect the founding principles of the UN as expressed by its Charter, even China and Iran decided to abstain rather than oppose. And America? Suddenly the red lights on the membership board disclosed how Washington had lined up not just with Russia but with North Korea and Belarus to vote against.
Previous resolutions on Ukraine have passed the General Assembly by thumping majorities, causing delegates to break into applause. On five previous occasions since 2022, about three-quarters of the entire membership voted to condemn the invasion, with Russia's supporters reduced to the fingers of one hand.
Yet on Monday, America joined their number and the latest resolution limped through with only 93 countries in favour – down from 141 in 2023.
The scenes at the UN Secretariat building in New York are visible proof of Trump's transformation of US policy towards Ukraine.
But was this a tactical move designed to maximise the chances of securing a peace agreement between Russia and its neighbour? Or does this episode betray something deeper: that America has turned its foreign policy upside down and joined the countries striving to destroy the post-1945 international order and wreck the organisation symbolising its principles?
American diplomats who spent their careers voting alongside allies and against the likes of Russia and North Korea reacted with incredulity. 'Even Cuba abstained on the resolution denouncing Russia's invasion of Ukraine,' noted Michael McFaul, a former US ambassador to Russia.
He added that America's decision to side with 'rogue states' was 'humiliating' for Marco Rubio, the new US secretary of state.
As for the official explanation for this decision, the American representative assured the Security Council that peace was the only goal. 'Rhetorical rivalries in New York may make diplomats feel vindicated, but it will not save souls on the battlefield,' said Shea.
But a close look at the Resolution that America voted against suggests that the Trump Administration was also opposing the foundational principles of the UN, casting a shadow over the organisation's future.
The Resolution emphasises the 'obligation of all States…to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force' and to settle any 'international disputes by peaceful means'.
This carefully mirrors Article 2 of the UN Charter which states: 'All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.'
The Resolution also reaffirms the 'sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of Ukraine', a passage that was clearly drafted to reflect the Charter's 'principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members'.
All of which raises the question: can America be against the text but still, somehow, in favour of the UN Charter? And if America, which did more than any other nation to found the UN, has turned implacably against its creation, how can the institution expect to survive?
A recently retired and newly downcast American official, Jim Townsend, formerly deputy assistant secretary for NATO, told the BBC that the Trump administration's decision had been 'shameful', adding: 'I can't think of any other word… it stunned this town.'
He said: 'It's just something that we never thought we'd see: this day… I can assure you my colleagues inside the government were saying the same thing.'
But unusual scenes can be over-interpreted. Did president Trump read the draft resolution, compare it to the Charter, and decide to oppose it anyway as a calculated assault on the principles of the UN? A simpler theory is that he seeks peace in Ukraine and is determined that nothing should stand in the way.
Jeremy Hunt, the former foreign secretary, says this is the most likely explanation. 'Trump is trying to get Russia to sign a peace deal with Ukraine – that's all he cares about. If he can make that more likely with a vote in the UN, then that's what he'll do. It's purely a tactical move,' he argues.
Even so, this is one tactical move that no previous US Administration would have considered.
There are numerous precedents for countries choosing to display their contempt for international organisations. When Japan's delegation stalked out of the League of Nations in Geneva in 1933, following a vote to condemn the invasion of Manchuria, no-one doubted that the assembly had finally lost its struggle against expansionist tyranny.
Nikita Khrushchev, as Soviet leader, once denounced his foes at the UN while hammering his shoe on the table.
Trump has neither walked out of the UN nor banged his shoe. Yet by voting alongside the enemies of the principles of the Charter, he has given the impression that America has joined their ranks. If so, Monday could yet come to be seen as the day the UN died.