Above photo: British Ambassador to the U.N, Barbara Woodward. U.N. Photo / Eskinder Debebe.
The U.S. abuse of its veto power at the U.N. to continue the Gaza genocide has intensified interest in cracking open the structure of the Security Council.
Here’s the tool.
Scottish Independence is an extremely attractive prospect to states at the United Nations, and for reasons that you might not expect.
Every state knows that the current U.N. structure is outdated and indefensible, with five states – U.S., China, Russia, U.K. and France – having a permanent seat and a total veto on the Security Council.
U.S. abuse of the veto directly to continue the Gaza genocide has been flagrant and caused outrage.
Africa and South America have no permanent representation or veto. The prominence of the Imperial powers of the U.K. and France is anachronistic.
The difficulty is, that any change to the veto is subject to veto. So there has been stalemate, and during the genocide in Gaza the U.N. itself has been outraged, maligned, abused and practically useless.
States, and particularly the entire developing world, are desperate for a lever to crack open the P5 [as the “permanent five” members of the Security Council are known].
Scottish independence is that lever.
[In the event of Scottish independence] there is an entirely false assumption that England and Wales (assuming the Welsh have not also escaped occupation) would be the successor state and automatically take the U.N. P5 seat. That is absolutely wrong. It is in fact extremely unlikely that England would retain its P5 status.
Here are some of the reasons why:
1) Russia assumed all of the national debt and all other obligations of the former Soviet Union. This was a fundamental requirement for successor state status.
In the 2014 referendum and since, the U.K. government has made it crystal clear England would not do this and would seek to offload debt onto Scotland.
2) Russia left its nuclear and chemical weapons facilities in situ in the other Commonwealth of Independent Status (CIS). The nuclear weapons in Ukraine and the chemical weapons in Uzbekistan were then dismantled under international supervision.
There is no indication London would leave Trident in Scotland to be dismantled under international supervision.
3) The other CIS states all specifically agreed, under the Vienna Convention on Successor States, that Russia would be the successor state and specifically agreed that Russia would take the P5 seat.
There is no requirement for Scotland to do this – and indeed international recognition of Scotland may depend on not doing it, because the large majority of states want a lever for P5 reform.
4) Russia taking over the P5 seat was subject to a “no objections” mechanism in a letter to all General Assembly states from the secretary general, enclosing President Boris Yeltsin’s letter of claim. There were no objections.
There would certainly be objections to England.
5) Russia had huge international sympathy, as the Soviet Union split amidst hopes for a new era of world peace.
By contrast the U.K. is extremely unpopular. It is viewed by the large majority of states in the world as complicit in genocide. The attacks on Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are not forgotten.
Do not underestimate the resentment caused by the massive cut in U.K. aid budgets under austerity. Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s echoes of racist rhetoric have not gone unnoticed. The EU no longer can be counted on for automatic support.
Any attempt by England to take over the P5 seat would, after objections to the secretary general’s letter and at the U.N. Credentials Committee, have to go to the U.N. General Assembly. There England would lose the vote. Even if it did succeed, the change would need to be approved by the Security Council — and, with the most delicious irony, would be subject to Chinese or Russian veto.
If England were not accepted as the successor state, the P5 reform question would perforce be blown wide open. How it would be shut again is unpredictable. Most conservative would be to substitute a new P5 member — such as India, Brazil or South Africa. A regional grouping may be used as a replacement, such as the African Union. Or best of all the entire system would be shaken up.
I have been thrice this year to the U.N. discussing why Scottish independence is important with various national delegations. All of the above ramifications scan instantly through the mind of diplomats as soon as I mention Scottish Independence and P5 status. Which is why I can put my hand on my heart and tell you I am yet to encounter a single negative reaction.
It is vital to understand that, though states operate within a framework of international law, in introducing Scottish independence to the decolonisation committee as a concept, this is a political question amongst states and not in any sense a judicial process. That is a fundamental misunderstanding.
I have never heard anybody contend that Scottish independence can be achieved through the United Nations without support for it in Scotland. That is a ludicrous Aunt Sally that is used to denigrate what I am doing at the U.N. in combination with Liberation Scotland and Salvo.
But once Scottish independence is declared in Scotland, we are going to need the support of the international community. I have never believed that London will willingly relinquish Scotland’s resources, and I still do not believe it. Independence will have to be achieved in the teeth of London opposition, through robust assertion and control at home and recognition abroad.
Here the work at the U.N. is vital.
At the U.N. Security Council, the U.K. permanent seat was already on a shoogly peg. Scottish Independence gives it a tug. The world is cheering.
Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He was British ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and rector of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010. His coverage is entirely dependent on reader support. Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.
