"Deplores in the strongest terms." That's it? Seriously?

So here we go again. Another blatant violation of international law, unfolding in full view of the world – not only in the mainstream media, but streamed live to every cell phone on the planet. We can all see what's happening, up close and personal – the distress of the Ukrainian people, the terror of war, the incomprehension of citizens uprooted from comfortable, 21st century lives in a large, civilized European city, watching their world being blown apart around them. And yet the United Nations, charged above all with "maintaining peace and international security" seems not only powerless to do anything about it, but unable even to call the situation for what it is.

For the time is long past for 'deploring'. People are dying now, and this is only the start of it. What Russia is doing, whatever the provocation, the grievance, the justification in the mind of Vladimir Putin, is clearly against everything that the United Nations stands for. No matter that Russia would veto any resolution the Security Council came up with. As a point of principle it should not only condemn Russia's action explicitly, but demand that they withdraw from Ukraine on pain of military action taken against them by the UN in the name of the world.

Would there be any point, though? As things stand, it's almost as if the UN was set up to fail, as the existence of the veto means that no real action can be taken unless all five 'permanent members' of the Security Council agree. This has been the stumbling block to action from the very beginning: as of yesterday, the 'P5' have used their dictatorial veto powers a total of 263 times (and the threat of it on many more occasions) over the last seven decades to protect their 'interests' – with all the consequences for human misery that has entailed.

And yet there is a way around it, should we choose to use it. Although little known except to international lawyers, Resolution 377, the so-called 'Uniting for Peace' resolution – which dates back to 1950 – allows the General Assembly not only to vote again on any resolution vetoed in the Security Council, but to make recommendations, including military action. It has rarely been used. But when it has, it was effective: the British, French and Israeli invasion of Egypt in 1956 to take back the Suez Canal from the Egyptians was stopped, despite vetoes by Britain and France at the Security Council, because the General Assembly mandated the creation of a UN Emergency Force made up of troops from 11 countries – which forced the British, French and Israeli forces to withdraw. 

Now is the time to dust it down again, and here's why it matters: without it, Ukraine is on its own. NATO is hesitant to intervene, not only because Ukraine is not a member country,  but because it would put it in direct conflict with Russia, and threaten the escalation of the conflict into a nuclear confrontation between nation states. That’s because as a local (if still extensive) force acting only on its own authority, NATO would have little more legitimacy than Russia itself – and Russia would then have some justification in launching attacks on member countries.

But if the UN were to mandate an Emergency Force, and this force (or the threat of it) were used to help repel the Russian invasion, Russia would have no pretext – or even a target – to attack. You can't bomb a principle, and if the world were to vote together to stop Russian aggression, it would be over the principle enshrined in the UN Charter, to which Russia itself is a signatory, that "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."

There would be a corollary to that, however. Arguably, the reason we are where we are today is that Russia’s concerns about the eastward expansion of NATO have been ignored for decades. In qualifying its decision to abstain from yesterday’s vote, China was quite correct to point out that this issue needs to be addressed. But the proper place to do that is in the UN Security Council, not on the battlefield. And the reason it has not been so addressed is once again because of the veto – a veto that in this case would be used against Russia. 

The logic is clear: the veto has to go, or be circumvented. Because this problem is not going to go away. If Russia is allowed to get away with invading Ukraine, Taiwan is next in line. And it won’t stop there. Either we have an international agreement prohibiting the use of war to resolve disputes, or we don’t.  So what are we going to do, sit on our hands again?