NEW YORK (dpa-AFX) – One year after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Federal Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock called on the world community to send a clear signal for an end to the war of aggression. “Today each of us has to make a decision: stand in isolation with the oppressor – or stand together for peace,” said the Green politician on Thursday in her speech at the UN General Assembly in New York. At the request of Ukraine, Baerbock spoke as the last regular speaker before voting on a resolution – the vote is also seen as a global mood test on Russia’s war of aggression in the neighboring country.
The plan for peace is laid out in the UN charter, Baerbock said: “Every one of us here today has the opportunity to contribute to this peace plan. By telling the aggressor that he has to stop.” The vote on the resolution presented by Ukraine must make it clear “that it is not peace – when an aggressor tells his victim to simply give up”. And that there is no peace when an aggressor is rewarded for his “ruthless violence”.
The resolution in the UN General Assembly contains the demand for peace and the withdrawal of the Russian armed forces. The draft reaffirms a number of previously agreed positions of the body, such as the principle of maintaining Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Kiev and its supporters want to build on similar voting results from last year with more than 140 “Yes” votes – this should also counteract the impression that there is war weariness in parts of the world and crumbling support for Kiev.
In March of last year, shortly after the war began, the assembly of the 193 member states rejected Russia’s invasion with a historic majority of 141 votes – so many votes had never been gathered in the body. In October, 143 nations condemned Russia’s illegal annexations in Ukraine. Brazil, Turkey and Saudi Arabia also voted in favor – only four other countries stood by Moscow’s side. With China and India, however, two powerful states with a population of around 2.8 billion abstained. A number of African countries such as South Africa also abstained.
Baerbock rejected criticism of German and Western arms deliveries to Ukraine on Thursday: The federal government would much rather invest time and money in education, social justice and the fight against the climate crisis, she said. They don’t want this war and didn’t choose it. Nevertheless: “If Russia stops fighting, this war will end. If Ukraine stops fighting, it will be the end of Ukraine.” The suffering caused by the conflict – kidnapping, rape and torture – would then continue, Baerbock said. And the world’s “gaping wounds” caused by hunger, inflation and energy shortages could not heal.
Russia’s UN Ambassador Wassili Nebensja had criticized Germany and other Western countries for their arms deliveries on Wednesday and accused them of similar motives as in the Second World War. “This is a war that, as was the case 80 years ago, involves a treacherous and powerful enemy who wants to take over our country and subjugate us,” Nebensya said. Among other things, the West wants to achieve the end of Russia by arming Ukraine. “The German tanks will kill Russians again,” said Nebensia.
China’s UN representative Dai Bing also said in New York on Thursday that arms deliveries would not create peace, but would only fuel the war. He did not present Beijing’s eagerly awaited peace plan for Ukraine, but called for the conflict to calm down. “The top priority is to facilitate a ceasefire and an immediate cessation of hostilities,” Bing said. There must be direct talks between Moscow and Kiev again as soon as possible.
Behind the scenes at the UN, discussions have been going on over the past few months about how substantial a resolution on the anniversary of the invasion could be. According to UN sources, Ukraine had been working on resolutions outlining a war crimes tribunal and text that would translate a ten-point peace plan by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy into a UN document. Both ideas were ultimately abandoned for the vote scheduled for Thursday.
The text that is now available contains rather vague formulations about the end of the war: Achieving a comprehensive peace, which is necessary, would “make a significant contribution to strengthening world peace and international security,” it says. It also calls for a full exchange of prisoners of war and stresses the need for those responsible for the most serious war crimes to be held accountable.
UN chief António Guterres was pessimistic about the path to peace on Wednesday: “In the past year we have not only seen suffering and devastation grow, it is also becoming increasingly clear how much worse things could get.” The possible consequences of a conflict spiral are a clear and immediate danger. “In the meantime we have heard implicit threats of the use of nuclear weapons. The so-called tactical use of nuclear weapons is absolutely unacceptable.”/scb/DP/he