I dunno how they're gonna go about that considering Russia could just veto that attempt to strip them lol and citing PRCs permanent security councils seat is just silly.

[–] Tankiedesantski@hexbear.net 11 points 11 months ago

There is, however, precedent: the UN General Assembly in 1971 stripped Taiwan of the veto power it held as the representative of China, handing it instead to the communist government of the mainland.

Strip Russia of its veto power and give it to the PRC. Xi can have two vetoes, as a treat.

[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 4 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Because that is not Russia's seat. It's the Soviet Union's seat. They left the Soviet Union in 1990. In fact, Ukraine left after them, so they have a better claim to the UN seat.

[+] Duplodicus@sh.itjust.works 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

[deleted]

[–] jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 11 months ago

Good thing we already have a precedent to change what state the UN recognizes as representative of a country without going through the security council then.

[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

They got the seat because they said they did, and no one challenged it:

Boris Yeltsin, the Russian President, informed the United Nations Secretary-General that the membership of the Soviet Union in the Security Council and all other UN organs would be continued by the Russian Federation with the support of the 11 member countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Union

The UN could kick them off the Security Council if they want. They are not the same country and they are not contributing to world security. This their membership on the Security Council is tenuous.

Russia is breaking current rules that outline which wars are legal and which are not. Wars of aggression are illegal. Even Putin agrees with me. Here's Putin's opinion on war and the UN:

Russian President Vladimir Putin, in a televised conference before a meeting with the US envoy to Iraq, said on 19 December 2003 that "The use of force abroad, according to existing international laws, can only be sanctioned by the United Nations. This is the international law. Everything that is done without the UN Security Council's sanction cannot be recognized as fair or justified."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War

[–] Dienervent@kbin.social 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

If by "debts and obligations" you mean nukes. That makes total sense.

[–] dannoffs@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 11 months ago

That argument might have made sense if it were being made in like 1992 but it's been Russia's seat for over 30 years

[–] emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago

Kazakhstan will rise again!