Human security and nuclear weapons: the role of the United Nations Security Council in the Russia-Ukraine war

After the implosion of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), an event that marked the end of the Cold War and the defeat of the communist bloc, the international order underwent a complete restructuring towards a new world order. Within this new facet, the power declared the winner, the United States, stated that the new universal aspirations for prosperity in the world must necessarily be oriented towards peace, security and without the threat of communism.

Within the construction of this new order, certain features of the bipolar order of the Cold War can still be seen to prevail, especially in the military and economic discourse that characterizes the victorious powers of World War II. The effort of these powers gave rise, among other United Nations agencies, to the Security Council. Said Council, born in 1945, was conceived under the idea of seeking a balance between nations and the maintenance of peace and security.

The Security Council has five permanent members: China, the United States, Russia, Great Britain and France (powers declared the victors of World War II and who have the right to veto), in addition to 10 non-permanent members who are elected by the General Assembly for periods of two years.

It has only been a month since the start of the confrontations between Russia and Ukraine. At the end of 2021, Russia deployed more than 100,000 soldiers on its border with the Ukrainian country. On February 21 of this year, its President, Vladimir Putin, recognized the independence of the separatist republics of Donetsk and Lugansk, initiating the military operation, justified by the Kremlin, to "demilitarize" and "denazify" Ukraine. The Western response focused on economic sanctions, in an attempt to stop the advance of Russian troops.

Following the invasion, Putin justified it by two controversial reasons: denuclearize and denazify Ukraine. As for the claim of denuclearization, Russia refers back to the end of the Soviet Union when Ukraine was considered a nuclear power. In 1994 the Budapest Memorandum was created, in which the United States, the United Kingdom and Russia itself agreed to ensure Ukraine's security after the latter made the decision to get rid of its nuclear weapons.

This guarantee, signed by these three countries, was broken when Russia violated the agreement. In 2014, with the situation in Crimea, the Kremlin argued that this Memorandum had been signed with a different government and thus, Russia's responsibility to ensure Ukrainian security was left without legitimate international criteria.

The other term used by Russia is denazification. Putin alleged that the Ukrainian government is openly neo-Nazi. This qualification is used by the Kremlin as a continuation of the role of the USSR in the Second World War. In the supposed fight against Nazism, Russian propaganda supports the discourse that the Nazis in Ukraine are anti-Russian and not anti-Jewish. The fear of Russia that justifies the action of "denazifying" is that they fear a fascist resurgence in the region.

The consequences of this invasion have been serious. Firstly, the forced displacement of the Ukrainian population to neighboring countries, which up to now has meant more than 3.2 million refugees. Secondly, the innumerable military attacks that have destroyed entire cities or parts of them, including the capital, kyiv, or the burning of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant.

For this reason, the security of the largest nuclear plant in Europe (Zaporizhzhia) jeopardizes the future of human security. In the first instance, Ukraine gets most of its electricity from the plant's 15 reactors, six of which produce 6,000 megawatts of electrical power, according to the International Atomic Energy Organization.

The capture of Zaporizhzia by Russian troops means risks to the health, life and safety of Ukrainians, which, in the event of a nuclear accident, would trigger an environmental disaster, releasing radioactive particles that could spread throughout the European continent. Other fears for Ukraine are that the electricity grid in the country will be disabled, gas pumping and food refrigeration will be lost.

uman security in the context of the current war between Russia and Ukraine acquires crucial value when reading the context between both countries. The threat of the use of nuclear weapons puts the future of the world in jeopardy. In order to have a broader perspective of the war between Russia and Ukraine, an interview was conducted with Dr. Sandra Kanety Zavaleta Hernández, professor of International Relations at the Faculty of Political and Social Sciences of the National Autonomous University of Mexico, expert in Human Development and Security, as well as in Militarization.

Dr. Kanety declared that human security is a security concept far from the traditional paradigm that tries to group the various threats and risks that are not found in the traditional idea. It was born in the 90's, from the Report of the United Nations Development Program published in 1994.

Human security is then about preserving the safety of people in their daily lives. It covers issues beyond the State, territorial space and national borders, as it integrates broader issues such as food, health, the community, etc., that is, a comprehensive and multidimensional vision of security

Learning to mean security is a complex issue. It is necessary to take into account the difference between the discourses and practices of international politics and the actions emanating from the United Nations. In this sense, this organization has had a clear idea of expanding the concept of security. Dr. Kanety assures that it is important to keep in mind freedom from fear and from necessity, as part of the power discourses that prevail in the practice of International Relations.

The praxis of international politics, through the dominant discourses of power, has justified the different military interventions in the world, such as in Haiti, Syria or Palestine, legitimizing them through the idea of the responsibility to protect and provide humanitarian aid. Expert internationalists in international politics have described peace, security and development as the perfect triad; however, it depends on the logic and meaning given to the three previous concepts to build an alternative vision to traditional security. In the International Relations of the 21st century, Dr. Kanety points out that peace continues to be understood through war, development through material wealth and security through global militarization.

The context of the recent confrontations between Russia and Ukraine invites us to rethink the ways in which international events are read. The reading depends on one main reason: whether it is determined as war or as conflict. In this regard, Dr. Kanety pointed out that it is possible to minimize the causes and consequences of the conflict, depending on the appointment that is given. The foregoing is based on the fact that Russia has not made a formal declaration of war, while Ukraine does call it as such.

Russia seeks to reposition itself globally through its political strategy in Ukraine. The breakaway regions of Lugansk and Donetsk have been important to Russia since 2014, as both regions are part of its expansionist and annexationist strategy, that is, its "geopolitical chess", claiming them as its zone of influence in Europe. Thus, the Russian government has not liked Ukraine's request to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), in addition to its application for membership in the European Union (EU).

Right now, Russia holds the presidency of the United Nations Security Council, which has served as a complementary strategy throughout the war. He has the right of veto, as an exclusivity of being a permanent member of the Council since 1945.

The question is why is it still like this? In this regard, Dr. Kanety commented:

One would have to think about why it continues like this, if there is no longer the order of the Cold War. It is a power strategy to maintain a certain advantage over the other members of the UN in matters of peace and security, by maintaining the right of veto, a much more decisive power is maintained in the decision-making of the Council. Russia can veto any policy or sanction for the armed conflict with Ukraine. When you want to intervene in a country, there are many ways to justify it by the members of the Security Council.

From this perspective, there is a double standard in international politics. It is contradictory that the five permanent members of the Security Council, who claim to ensure peace and security, are the five most armed countries on the planet. Analyzing this situation implies seeing how these countries understand peace and security. If the traditional conception of security that still prevails is taken into account, then peace is built with war through militarization.

The systemic logic of arms companies is part of the capitalist production system, which is reproduced with various strategies, especially global militarization. As long as the capitalist scheme continues, few International Relations actors will continue to benefit, such as military corporations, oil companies, corporations with diversified services, among others.

In this sense, the war economy cannot be left aside. The link between both concepts is part of the strategies of capitalism of the global configuration in the 21st century. It is about seeing war as a means of maintaining global hegemony and securing capital.

In 1968 the possession of nuclear weapons was legalized by International Law. As a consequence, Russia has also been able to exercise its arms possession to deter the West in war. In general, the way in which the discourse of peace and war of the five permanent members of the Council is reproduced is supported by militarization and their nuclear power, in which they legally have the right to have nuclear weapons and be used at any time. .

Over the years, since the creation of the United Nations in 1945, the functionality of the institutions that seek to preserve peace, including the Security Council, has been questioned. Regarding the importance of continuing to maintain this type of institution, which in the development of the confrontations between Russia and Ukraine have left more doubts than solutions, Dr. Kanety highlighted that:

The perception of peace and security within the Security Council has not changed. Peace and security have always been pillars of global order and functioning. The Council has been retained because it is perfectly convenient to maintain an uneven status quo that prevails today.

In other words, the five permanent members of the Council have a common objective: to safeguard their interests. Regarding the questioning of the nuclear issue, Dr. Ella added that, ** as long as there is nuclear weapons, there is the possibility of starting a war **, which for Russia would mean a strategy of deterrence and containment against the West.

In conclusion, human security is being affected in its multidimensionality in the Russia-Ukraine war. To exemplify the above, Dr. Kanety commented: “it is necessary to carry out further studies of the environmental impact of global militarization”, since it is also a direct threat to human security. The exodus of Ukrainians, which in the first month of the war exceeded 3.2 million displaced to neighboring countries, is one of the main threats as a result of the ravages of the war.

In the 21st century, national security prevails more than human security. Traditional theoretical and conceptual constructions of security with expansionist perspectives still prevail. All States have a national security doctrine where the national interest prevails, under a logic in which the capitalist system supports the traditional ideas of national security.

For the academy, it is an important task to know how to question the concepts, that is, to define from a personal perspective, what is security, what is the nation, what is peace for the discourse of the power structure and what they really are. during practice. Militarization has been part of the scheme of unfair and unequal capitalism that endures today. The institutions created under the values of preservation of world peace and security, such as the United Nations and the Security Council itself, must be kept in sight, the same ones that legitimize the capitalist order.

In the current context, Russia seeks to retake its position as a global power based on the construction of a new Russian foreign policy and a restructuring of its concept of security in the 21st century. Putin's diplomatic-military strategy has been based on dragging out negotiations with Ukraine. If Putin continues with this strategy, and the escalation of tensions with the Ukrainian president Zelensky continues, the international community could be under unforeseen scenarios and the possible use of nuclear weapons would mean the scenario of mutual assured destruction.

Finally, it should be emphasized that both Russia and the United States are the two countries with the greatest possession of nuclear weapons globally. At the same time, each holds a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council. This represents an incongruous action that calls into question the objectivity and functionality of the United Nations to face the new challenges of the 21st century. In short, it is necessary to unite the interests of the institutions that ensure peace and their member countries to promote the guiding principles of human security.