Russia

Confrontation between the US, Russia, & China on the Crisis in Venezuela

/ WIT / Leave a comment

The Security Council convened, by request of the US, for an emergency session discussing the Venezuelan crisis. While the meeting began typically, with briefings on progress and problems, the morning took a turn once US Vice President Mike Pence came to speak. After arriving late, Pence turned the conversation from humanitarian needs to the need for democracy and the rule of law. He blamed the crisis on the Maduro regime, which he claimed to, in the midst of deprivation and suffering, use violence against those who oppose it, killing protesters and jailing journalists. He called the international community to remove Maduro and recognize the interim president appointed by the national assembly, Juan Guaidó, which the US attempted to do in a resolution vetoed by China and Russia. Pence blamed these two nations for directly supporting the Maduro regime out of personal interests.

Russia retaliated, saying Russia would take as much time as it needs to speak, regardless of time. Russia denied Pence’s allegations and blamed US sanctions on Venezuela for the crisis. He claimed that US desire for intervention had to do with its own geopolitical interests, citing US involvement in Latin America going back to the Monroe doctrine. He questioned how the US can speak of humanitarian assistance when it still has own damage from Hurricane Maria. He ended saying that if American is trying to make itself great again, Russia is watching.

China also responded, insisting against intervention while also saying that while “On the one hand we hear tall talks about helping the people of Venezuela, on the other hand we keep seeing more sanctions.” China called the allegations unfounded, and said that China never interferes in other countries’ internal affairs, nor does it impose its will, leaving unsaid the suggestion that the US does exactly this.

Meeting​: United Nations Security Council: The Situation in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela

Date/Location​: Wednesday April 10, 2019; 10:30 to 1:30; Security Council Chamber, United Nations Headquarters, New York, NY

Speakers​: Secretary-General António Guterres, USG for Humanitarian Affairs, Joint Special Representative of the UNHCR, Dr. Kathleen Page, a professor at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Medicine, US Vice President Mike Pence, Russia, China,  France, UK, Peru, Dominican Republic, Belgium, Equatorial Guinea, Indonesia, Venezuela

Written by: WIT Representative Bertina Kudrin

Points of Ukraine: Putin’s Widening Grip

/ WIT / Leave a comment

Vitaly Klitschko talks with pro-European integration protesters at the site of clashes with riot police in Kiev.

Today, Ms. Holland began the panel discussion by introducing the agenda of the event, which concerned examining different perspectives on the continuing conflict between Ukraine and Russia.  Then, Mr. Karatnycky provided an overview of the history of the conflict and the potential obstacles that may impede a negotiated settlement to it.  He elaborated that though President Vladimir Putin is using hard tactics to maintain control over Crimea, he has triggered the latent sentiments of a large contingent of Russians and elites that never wanted Ukraine and Crimea to separate from Russia.  Additionally, he mentioned that the main problem regarding using diplomacy to end the conflict stems from Russia’s unwillingness to reach an agreement with Ukraine.

Next, Dr. Nikolayenko spoke of the effect of the conflict on the civil society and citizens of Ukraine.  She stated that with over 8,000 Russian soldiers present in Ukraine and 9,100 human casualties that have resulted in death, the conflict has led to a growing number of internally displaced persons (IDPs) in the country and a slowdown of Ukraine’s economy.  Additionally, she mentioned that the Russian government’s influence over the Russian media has led to misrepresentations on the reporting of the conflict and swayed public support in President Putin’s favor.  Lastly, Ms. Arno talked about fleeing Russia after protesting President Putin’s inauguration in 2012 and the punishments other pro-democracy Russians face in the country due to their political views.  She also reinforced the idea that President Putin’s control over Russian media outlets have helped to build support for Russia’s actions in Ukraine. Additionally, she mentioned that the Free Russia Foundation that she founded seeks to give a voice to pro-democracy Russians and Ukrainians embroiled in the conflict.

Meeting: The Panel Discussion on “The Continuing Conflict Between Russia and Ukraine”

Date/Time/Location: Monday, April 18, 2016; 18:00 – 20:00; New York University (NYU) School of Law, Vanderbilt Hall, Room 210

Speakers: Ms. Mary Holland, Moderator and Director of the Graduate Lawyering Program at New York University (NYU) School of Law; Mr. Adrian Karatnycky, Senior Fellow and Co-Director of the Ukraine in Europe Program at the Atlantic Council; Dr. Olena Nikolayenko, Associate Professor of Political Science at Fordham University; Ms. Natalia Arno, President and Founder of the Free Russia Foundation (FRF)  

Written By: WIT Representative Shubhangi Shukla

Edited By: WIT Representative Alex Margolick

Photo: Reuters

Legality and Occupation: Civil Rights in Crimea

/ WIT / Leave a comment

The Permanent Mission of Ukraine organized a meeting today on human rights in occupied territory, specifically in the case of Crimea. Crimea is a peninsula on the Northern Coast of the Black Sea that has been facing deterioration in the free practice of human rights since March 18th, 2014, when the Russian Federation illegally occupied the area. This meeting, led by Ms. Holland, was initiated with a statement by Mr. Sergeyev about the present problem. Ms. Bilych introduced the project and its four parts: the history and context of the situation, a description of the human rights at hand, the remedies for people whose rights have been violated, and the recommendations for organizations worldwide. The Russian Federation has attempted to seize the Ukraine Peninsula, and the goal of the Organization as an international community is to ensure the civil, political, social, economic, and cultural rights of Crimeans.

There have been various organizations that have aided the country and this meeting provided a method of addressing the situation as well as an understanding of the legal framework in the situation. The Organization suggested specific solutions: the United Nation’s special mechanism to monitor fundamental freedoms, such as that from torture or any other inhuman treatment; ways to enable organizing religious meetings; and methods to save confiscated books and access electronic communication. Ms. Sharven discussed the recommendations to demand action, aid, refrain, and act in specific scenarios by working with the UN and the countries involved, and of the creation of Special International Tribunal, special database, and ad hoc markets. The speakers also provided their personal testimonies and individual cases of the injustice they faced. Today’s comprehensive meeting shed light on this occurring crisis on the persecuted people in Crimea by providing a full review on the problem and detailed, feasible solutions.

Meeting: Crimea: Human Rights, Global Security and International Order

Date/Location: Wednesday, December 9th, 2015; 10:00-12:00; Conference Room 11

Speakers: Ms. Mary Holland, Director of the Graduate Legal Skills Program at New York University School of Law, Yuriy Sergeyev, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Permanent Representative of Ukraine to the United Nations, Ivanna Bilych, Victor Chinedu Okpara, Ajitha Pichaipillai, Olena Sharven, Matheus Sena

Written By: WIT Representative Jin Yoo

Edited By: WIT Representative Alex Margolick

Photo Credit: HBInretrospect

Review of the efficiency of the administrative and financial functioning of the United Nations

/ WIT / Leave a comment

6365386329_f24a5e7976_zThe 5th Committee discussed the proposed UN budget outline for the 2016-2017 biennium. The chair introduced the Secretary General’s plan, which aimed to reduce the budget 3.1 million less than this year’s, while utilizing maximum strength. The eight priorities addressed were: sustained economic growth, sustainable development, human rights, justice and international law, disarmament, drug control, controlling terrorism, and increasing economic activity in Africa.

Bolivia, speaking on behalf of China and The Group of 77, focused on promoting transparency within the budget and stressed the importance of providing adequate resources to member states. Bolivia, Japan, and the European Union were concerned with the expansion of the budget. Bolivia and the European Union wanted a clear benefit realization plan to be approved. Bolivia opposed the mechanical request to change funding without jurisdiction.

The representative of Morocco spoke on behalf of 55 member states including Mexico, Switzerland, and Sweden, and was concerned with the resources needed for human rights mandates. Morocco and the European Union believed the budget should sustainably cover the UN’s mandates, and Morocco wanted an increase in the budget for human rights. The European Union believed there should be an evaluation of resource needs. Japan wanted to review the proposal to ensure efficiency.

The representative of the United States stated that the budget should ensure effective implementation of mandates after review. All funds provided to the UN must be effectively spent on what they are outlined for. The U.S. expressed its concern about re-costing and noted that the reduction does not go far enough for identifying efficiency and opening up resources. The representative of the Russian Federation requested clarification about diverging from previous approaches to the budget. The Russian Federation also wished that member states would study the benefits from implementation of certain projects before implementing of the budget.

Meeting Topic: Review of the efficiency of the administrative and financial functioning of the United Nations (item 131)
Date/Location: Wednesday, November 19, 2014; 10:00 am- 11:30 am; 5th Committee; Conference Room 3
Speakers: Representatives of Bolivia, Morocco, European Union, Japan, United States, and Russian Federation
Written by WIT Representatives: Brian Lee, Ellie Guner, and Paige Stokols

Edited by WIT Representative: Aslesha Dhillon

Security Council Demands Access to MH17 Site

/ WIT / Leave a comment

security council

The Security Council met yet again to discuss the downing of flight MH17 following the improper treatment of the crash site by the separatists in Eastern Ukraine over the weekend. The Council unanimously passed Resolution 2166 demanding armed groups to give international investigators “safe, secure, full and unrestricted access” to the site. The agreement also insisted on the dignified treatment and recovery of the remains of the victims.

Ambassador Samantha Power of America stated that the resolution was passed because there are “armed thugs” walking on the site with “debris crunching beneath their feet.” She added that, “If Russia is not part of the solution, it will continue to be part of the problem,” when commenting on Russia’s finding Ukraine culpable for the incident. Ambassador Churkin of Russia responded that the literary track chosen by Ambassador Power made the meeting controversial and turned “the discussion of a tragedy into a farce.” He also made further claims, alleging that Kiev is drawing on the shock of the incident for self-serving purposes and that evidences submitted by Ukraine have been tampered with. In response, Ambassador Surgeyev of Ukraine stated that his government has been forthright with the investigation process and has invited representatives of four countries, including Russia, to examine the site according to international conventions.

The Foreign Ministers of Australia, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, whose compatriots were victims of the flight, were present. Ms. Bishop of Australia said her country “will not rest until we bring them home.” Portraying the emotions of his nation, Mr. Timmermans of the Netherlands stated that the grief of the Dutch nation turns into anger when child victims’ toys are “being tossed around.” He stated that the impeded access of the rescue workers is an example of “the political game that someone is playing.”

Meeting Title: 7221th Meeting of the UN Security Council

Speakers: Representatives of Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Chad, China, Chile, France, Germany, Indonesia, Jordan, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, The Netherlands, NewZealand, Nigeria, The Philippines, Republic of Korea and Rwanda, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, The United States, Ukraine and Vietnam to the United Nations

Location: Security Council Chamber, United Nations Headquarters, New York City

Date: 21 July 2014

Summary Written by WIT Representative: Harrison Chung

Edited by: Suzy Hallak

Law of the Sea meeting turns into South China Sea Dispute

/ WIT / Leave a comment

The delegate of Vietnam opened the meeting with criticism towards China for illegally placing vessels and commencing deep-sea mining in the continental edge of Vietnam. Vietnam accused China of infringing sovereignty as they invade the economic zone and shelf of Vietnam including the use of military ships to fire canons at Vietnamese fishing vessels. A delegate of the Philippines fully supported statements by Vietnam. The delegate of the Philippines also emphasized that maritime zones are declared and mapped so that there is greater certainty of sovereign rights and jurisdiction. These mappings, he continued, should be based on charts, historical evidence of sovereignty as well as conventions.

lost_law_of_sea_treaty

A delegate of the People’s Republic of China responded to these remarks explaining that commissions on the limits of the continental shelf give China sovereignty over the region. In particular the Xisha Islands that are an inherent part of China’s territory despite Vietnam’s claims that historic evidence gives Vietnam sovereignty over the islands and surrounding waters. China explained to the meeting that as Chinese companies started gas exploration drilling in the region armed Vietnamese boats attacked the operation undermining stability of the waters. The delegate of Russia expressed that this bilateral dispute is inappropriate to discuss on the Law of the Sea multilateral platform, Sri Lanka agreed with Russia in hope that the states would in their own time find a peaceful solution.

Delegates of Malaysia, India and Kenya all expressed concerns for long-term sustainable fisheries and conservation of the natural sea environment. A delegate of Pakistan shared that there are over 1.5 million seafarers each year, many of whom are migrating by sea and there continues to be significant safety concerns. Despite the ever increasing human, technological and financial capacity of the world today, legal frameworks and human rights regarding international waters continues to be a fragmented system needs to be repaired.

 

Meeting Title: United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea – 175th Meeting
Speakers: Delegates on behalf of: Vietnam, India, Philippines, Kenya, Indonesia, China, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Costa Rica, Russia, Japan, El Salvador, Somalia, Haiti, an Cyprus; Director of the Secretariat
Location: United Nations HQ, Conference Room 1, New York
Date: 13 June 2014
Written by WIT representative: Sophia Griffiths-Mark

 

Peacekeeping where “there is no peace to keep”

/ WIT / Leave a comment

unp_logo

The incumbent president of the Security Council, Russia, held an open debate on the new trends in UN peacekeeping operations. The Secretary-General opened the debate by recognizing the increasingly dangerous circumstances confronting peacekeeping, stating that very often “there is no peace to keep” where missions are dispatched. At a time when both the demand for peacekeeping and its cost increase, he urged the Security Council to renew their commitment to this core mission of the UN.

Jordan pointed out the challenge to peacekeeping rests on declining contribution of troops and policies from member states. Quoting the words of former peacekeeping chief Brian Urquhart, the Ambassador said that peacekeeping missions may be better served by a standing army if the low contribution from members persists. However, many in the council echoed the Secretary-General in recognizing the changing landscape for peacekeeping. In response, Luxembourg and Nigeria called for cooperation among peacekeeping missions and regional organizations as possible solutions to the problem. Britain pointed out that in the face of the changing demands of peacekeeping, attempts should be made on tailor-making mandate and apparatus for individual missions instead of codifying a universal standard.

The council was divided on the future of the mandate and capacities of peacekeeping. For instance, China stated that use of force must be limited to the self-defense of the mission in contrary to the Australian and American view that use of force is justified and needed to protect civilians. Further, while Chad and Rwanda were wary of technological advancement such as unmanned aerial vehicle, Nigeria, Russia and Lithuania pointed out the need to equip the Blue Helmets with appropriate equipment to facilitate their mission and alleviate budgetary concern. Concluding the initial round of discussion, the President stated her wish to produce an outcome document in light of the debate.

Meeting Title: Contributions of Human Rights and the Rule of Law
Speakers: Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations, Members of the UN Security Council and other Member States
Location: Security Council Chamber, United Nations Headquarters
Date: 11 June, 2014
Written By WIT representative: Harrison Chung

Voices of Women, Children and Youth with Disabilities at the UN

/ WIT / Leave a comment

HRWThe moderator, Nancy Maguire started the panel discussion by highlighting the importance to acknowledge that the ‘disability’ group is not like one homogenous group and is subject to different perspectives and experiences on the basis of where they are from.

Ambrose Murangira, then shared his personal experience in Uganda. He highlighted the discriminatory practices from childhood to the community level; and faced these challenges by performing, cooperating with his friends and leading his cause. Teachers are also very important in influencing young people. Apart from disability organizations, it is important that all people take the responsibility of ensuring that the disabled community gets their rights. The post 2015 agenda in his opinion, would give this cause the right platform to be heard.

Andrea Mazzarino shared her research on children with disabilities in Russian and Japanese state orphanages. In the case of Russia, the children are abandoned by the sate. According to UNICEF at least, 305,000 children lived in Russian orphanages, which is 2-5% of Russia ‘s total child population. The children with disabilities are victims of violence, neglect and isolation in Russian orphanages. Although a vast majority of these children have one living parent, due to the doctors stating that the children will never be able to develop like normal children under immense pressure from the society, those parents give up their children. In the case of Japan, 25% of 39000 Japanese children live in state institutions; group homes for independent living and foster care have a disability. The lack of inclusion in the educational system has severed consequences in the overall development of these children.  She recommended, that these children should be provided adequate support from communities, parents and foster parents, collectively and to create independent mechanism to ensure institutionalization is used as the only resort.

Finally Rashmi Chopra, shared her research and study on women and girls with disabilities. Women with disabilities are profoundly vulnerable to abuse and often their choices are not heard and abuses remain hidden. The social stigma and exclusion impacts their multiple rights such as health education and a family life. Chopra highlighted the stories of three women from Zambia and India, respectively. Mary and Charity from Zambia were both victims of HIV AIDS and rape. They were abused by their husbands and got limited schooling. Rekha from India suffered from an intellectual disability. Her mother, without any consent and knowledge from Rekha, sterilized her, to protect her from sexual violence. These cases represent the vulnerability of disabled women and girls to abuse and violence.

Meeting Title: Voices of Women, Children and Youth with Disabilities: from Uganda, Zambia, India, Japan and Russia
Speakers: Nancy Maguire, UNICEF Global Youth Council Member; Ambrose Murangira, Executive director, Uganda National Association of the Deaf; Andréa Mazzarino, ACLS Public Fellow, Europe & Central Asia Division, Human Rights Watch; Rashmi Chopra, Fellow, Disability Rights Division, Human Rights Watch.
Date: 11 June 2014
Location: Conference room 5, United Nations Headquarters, New York.
Written by WIT Representative– Aslesha Kaur Dhillon

 

International Law and Crisis in Ukraine: A Roundtable Discussion

/ WIT / Leave a comment

Recent events in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine have raised an array of challenging issues related to self-determination, secession, international intervention, and annexation. The panel aims to explore the legal and policy implications of these issues.

Note: It was recorded that no representative were present from the Russian Federation or from the 11 nation states that were against UN General Assembly Resolution 68/262 that was adopted on 27 March 2014, entitled “Territorial integrity of Ukraine”

In the pursuit of conducting a balanced debate on the issue of Crimea, participants were shown a video of the Republic of Nicaragua delegation providing the UN General Assembly their reasoning for voting against resolution 68/262. The main point highlighted related to the issue of self-determination. This Managua believed validated both – the referendum itself hosted in Crimea on March 16, 2014 and its outcome to join the Russian Federation.

H.E. Yuriy Sergeyev strongly posited that the referendum was illegitimate as it was inspired by Russia and the plebiscite took place while Russian soldiers occupied the peninsula. A similar view is shared by the 100 nations states that were in favour of resolution 68/262 on respecting the territorial integrity of Ukraine.

Image

Christopher Borgen, acting as a legal advisor on the panel, stated that Moscow’s rationale of categorizing the events, as humanitarian intervention too did not have any legal biases, as matters of intervention do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Crimean Constitution [Article 1] as granted by the parent state; Ukraine. Furthermore, he argued that even if the idea of self-determination is condoned in this scenario, it by no means gives any right to entirely dismember the state.

H.E. Ambassador Yuriy further denounced Moscow for violating the 1994 Budapest Agreement and for acting in a manner inconsistent with international law and thus “creating an imbalance in the international security environment”. As part of the agreement of ‘94, Ukraine had given up its nuclear weapons “on the basis of an explicit Russian guarantee of its territorial integrity”. However by breaching this guarantee, President Putin has undermined the foundational framework of the international order by disrespecting historical obligations that take expression in the form of treaties, pacts and agreements.

 Image

Meeting Title:  International Law and Crisis in Ukraine: A Roundtable Discussion
Speakers: Bettina B. Plevan Proskauer Rose LLP, Chair, Council on International Affairs; Ambassador Yuriy Sergeyev, Permanent Representative of Ukraine to the United Nations; Christopher J. Borgen, Associate Dean for International Studies and Professor of Law, St. John’s University School of Law; Mark A. Meyer, Honorary Consul of the Republic of Moldova in New York, Herzfeld & Rubin, P.C.
Location: The Council on International Affairs of the New York City Bar Association
Date: 4 June 2014
Summary by WIT representative: Apurv Gupta
Edited by WIT representative: Sophia Griffiths-Mark 

 

Evolving Crisis in Ukraine and its Global Implications

/ WIT / Leave a comment

NYU panel discussion

The Razom Sponsored ‘White Papers’ were put together in a collaborative effort to assist government, media and civil society to understand what has happened in Ukraine from a legal perspective and to predict and prepare for what will happen next.

Ms. Ivanna Bilych, co-author of the white papers, reiterated the illegality of the Crimea referendum, which breaches the Ukraine Constitution, territorial integrity and voters’ rights. The referendum was completed in just ten days, holding citizens at gunpoint, clearly violations of democracy and international law.

Mr. Alexander Gudko explained that the closest precedent is the Turkey and Northern Cyprus annexation, which was not recognized by the international community as a separate state and therefore this legal framework and response should be exercised again for the Crimean situation.

Mr de Moura Sena reminded the meeting of the energy ties between Russia and Ukraine as Russia builds a new pipeline for natural gas. Russia would face much higher development costs if the pipe were built along the deep seabed, rather than using the Crimean coast. The tensions surrounding European energy needs and Russia’s ability to provide this energy are central to this Crisis.

Image

A key element to the Crimean situation is Russia’s violation of the Budapest Memorandum on security assurances, signed by all members of the Security Council and Ukraine. It was issued to ensure Ukraine would forfeit its nuclear weapons in return for complete political independence and freedom from threats or use of force against territorial integrity.

Dr. Paul Goble declared that Vladimir Putin has disregarded international law and human rights on his own personal agenda for power and expanding the Russian empire. Dr. Goble emphasised that a major step for western nations should be to provide alternative Russian language entertainment and news, to replace the existing Moscow TV. Moscow TV, being the Russian language entertainment monopoly, is manipulated to destabilise neighbouring countries in subversive attacks ordered from the Kremlin.

 

Meeting Title: Evolving Crisis in Ukraine and its Global Implications
Speakers: Mary Holland of NYU School of law, Ivanna Bilych General Counsel for Razom, Paul Goble expert in the post-Soviet region, Alexander Gudko and Matheus de Moura Sena co-author of the White papers, Giorgi Kvelashvili Senator Counselor for Georgia at the UN and Adrius Kalindra from the OSCE.
Location: NYU School of Law, New York
Date: 29 May 2014
Written by WIT representative: Sophia Griffiths-Mark