The United Nations was the nerve centre of global diplomacy this week, with many Foreign Ministers in New York. The main purpose was to discuss and vote on a resolution in the General Assembly that put the spotlight on who is responsible for the war against Ukraine as well as setting out the principles for a just peace.

On Wednesday at an emergency session of the General Assembly, Ukraine tabled the text and I spoke on behalf of EU member states. I stressed that the war was not ‘a European issue’, but affected core global principles like sovereignty, territorial integrity and the right for countries to live in freedom and security. Everyone would be less safe in a world where the illegal use of force would somehow be normalised.

“It is clear that the world wants peace and that Ukrainians deserve peace. But not just any peace”, I said, “we want a just peace, based on international law and respect for the UN Charter”. Supporting Ukraine and searching for peace go together. It is not either or, but both end.

The next day, the resolution was put to a vote. This was a key moment for every UN member to take a stand and be counted. Frankly speaking, there was a lot of speculation whether we would be able to reach a similar level of support as previous Ukraine-related UNGA resolutions (in February 2022 condemning the aggression and in October 2022 on the illegal annexations). These had passed with majorities of 141 and 143 respectively. Was there ‘Ukraine-fatigue’ and resentment over ‘double standards’ among the so-called Global South, as some argued? Would Russia be able to peel away support with its disinformation campaigns? In the end, the result was impressive: 141 vs 7 with 32 abstentions. Russia was only supported by Belarus, DPRK, Eritrea, Mali, Nicaragua and Syria, which is quite a remarkable club…

The outcome was a resounding success, sending a clear message that the world wants the war to stop – and to stop now. It was a vote for a just peace in Ukraine and for upholding international principles against Russia’s systematic attacks. It was also a success for EU diplomacy: we played a key role in New York but also doing outreach around the world, with good coordination among member-states. At the stake out to the press after the vote, I was glad to be joined by the many EU Foreign Ministers present in New York: showing this was collective success of ‘Team Europe’.

The next day, which marked exactly one year since the start of the war, there was a special session in the Security Council, again with many ministers present. Secretary General Guterres opened and he did not mince his words, making clear that Russia’s invasion was illegal and a direct breach of the UN Charter. He recounted the horrible costs this war entails, for Ukrainians first, but also for the wider world, through rising prices for food, energy and fertilisers. He recalled the clear call for a just peace as enshrined in the UNGA resolution passed the day before.

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Kuleba reminded everyone of the Russian lies that had preceded the invasion and the horrors that followed. He underlined that how and why Ukraine had resisted and would continue to do so, with the support of all its partners. Ukraine’s victory would also mean the victory of international law, the UN Charter and the principles it contains. He called for a minute of silence to mark the victims in Ukraine. Everyone stood up, apart from the Russian delegation. They said they would only agree to a commemoration of all victims - and only then did they join the rest of the audience in marking their respect.

After that, 13 members of the Security Council echoed many of the points made by the SG, with understandable nuances. Russia for its part launched yet another diatribe, mixing baseless accusations with historical fabrications. It only showed, once again, how the Russian leadership is living in a parallel universe. China introduced its ‘position paper’ on a political settlement. It is not really a peace plan and mostly reiterates well-known Chinese positions, some of which we share while important ones are missing. Of course, we will analyse it, but it is already clear that the key problem is that it does not really distinguish aggressor from the victim, putting the parties at an equal level.

From my side I underlined two points: why Russia’s war of choice matters to all of us and how we should get to peace, building on the UNGA resolution and President Zelensky’s peace plan. I also reiterated that the EU is committed to uphold international law everywhere and that we would continue our global engagement to reduce suffering and work for peace around the world.

The broader picture

These three days in New York confirmed the old saying that the UN is a pretty good mirror of the state of the world. If we look beyond Ukraine, it is clear that global crises are accumulating but the global response is either blocked or inadequate. Leadership and unity are lacking. The Russian war and tensions between China and the US are tearing at the fabric of what we often refer to as the “rules-based international order”.

But equally, a vast major of countries still look to the UN to provide solutions. Like us, they are keen to see multilateral action. Many of them see potential in a stronger role for the EU. They see us as a preferred partner, be it as a counterbalance to China or a more reliable and consistent partner than the US. They see us as more faithful to international norms and the multilateral system and more mindful of the interests of the developing world. 

Many also see an international system that they regard as outdated, paralysed and unequal. They want more action on climate finance, reform of the multilateral development banks to leverage more risk and more effective debt relief and restructuring and a better African representation in global decision-making including the G-20, Security Council and in the Bretton Woods institutions. Many are looking to the EU to help deliver at least on some of this long list. The urgency with which we addressed the pandemic or the war in Ukraine is seen by many as an example of the kind of commitment they want to see on other, urgent issues. 

We need to think hard what we can do more on this broader agenda. The EU has been flexible on SDRs and shown leadership on the loss and damage issue at COP27.  But how do we move forward a reform of the global financial architecture that is more equitable, fair and effective? We should not forget that this is not all about solidarity, it is also about our enlightened self-interest and geopolitical positioning. I will put these issues on the agenda of the upcoming informal meeting of EU development ministers in March to forge a joint way forward.

In addition, we need to keep reminding people just how much the EU does to support the UN around the world. When others are backing away from multilateralism, we keep investing in multilateral solutions everywhere, financially and politically. For this reason, I was glad to brief the Security Council on Thursday on the full range of EU-UN cooperation. 

I pointed to our track-record of being the largest collective contributor to the UN budget; the biggest source of public climate finance at € 23 billion a year and that we have more than 5,000 women and men deployed on 21 crisis management operations on three continents, always working with the UN as their main partner. The most recent missions we launched are a partnership mission in Niger and another in Armenia.

There are not many crises on which we are not active and that are no other partner is offering more systematically support to the UN’s work than we do. Of course, judged against the needs, it is never enough, but it is something and maybe more than we tend to get credit for.

I leave New York encouraged by the strong resolve and support that the world has shown for Ukraine. But also convinced that there is a broader global agenda on which we need to be more proactive and attentive to the growing needs and expectations of a world that is full of crises.