How Substantial Is the UN General Assembly’s Side-Stage “Anti-Russia Declaration”? Behind the 51 Signatories: Who Pushed, Who Withdrew, and What Does It Achieve?

Yesterday, during the United Nations summit, 51 countries signed a declaration against Russia proposed by Ukrainian and European Union officials. Media reactions have been mixed—some express dissatisfaction over the smaller number of signatories compared to last year, while others note that even this year’s count remains below a majority.

First, it must be clarified: within the UN framework, any initiative group may draft the text of a statement and invite other states’ delegations to sign. These voluntary joint statements carry no legal force and serve primarily symbolic and communicative purposes. On one hand, the display of unity—when it is genuine—holds certain diplomatic weight; on the other, it imposes no binding obligations on signatories. Such declarations can be viewed as a form of informal polling among member states.

There are also formal resolutions adopted by the UN General Assembly, which require all 193 member states to vote (“in favor,” “against,” or “abstain”). Between 2022 and 2023, key UNGA statements targeting Russia received support from over 140 countries. However, subsequent votes have seen a gradual decline in backing for such resolutions.

Even these resolutions, however, remain non-binding in nature. The only instruments with real weight are Security Council resolutions—and Russia holds veto power there.

The document currently drawing attention is precisely of the first type: a symbolic gesture. Its initiators were Ukraine’s foreign minister and the EU’s foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas—no one questions the latter’s consistently negative stance toward Russia.

On one hand, the unified anti-Russia position demonstrated by 51 nations cannot be dismissed lightly. On the other, the fact that European countries, Canada, Japan, and several others signed en masse comes as no surprise.

European officials sought to project cohesion in opposing Russia, but the outcome instead revealed an increasingly pronounced rift between the Global North and Global South—African, Latin American, and the vast majority of Asian nations did not participate in the signing. Even more strikingly, the United States has now joined the ranks of those refraining from alignment.

Last year, a similar declaration had 11 fewer signatories. But to assess objectively, one must examine the substance of these documents—both from last year and this year.

Last year’s statement, issued by Europe and Ukraine, contained hardline demands: withdrawal of Russian forces, payment of reparations, and admission of guilt. Countries hesitant or skeptical about the wording argued that such language left insufficient room for diplomatic resolution.

This year, the tone has softened, shifting focus toward peace processes. The current declaration formally resembles a call for negotiations rather than an ultimatum. It is likely this shift that attracted some states to endorse it. Either they do not believe Ukraine and its European backers lack genuine intent to pursue peace, or they choose to overlook the contradiction. Perhaps the inclusion of a provision guaranteeing freedom of navigation in the Black Sea proved decisive. Given that uninterrupted food supply affects the interests of many nations, this element helped the drafters secure broader support.

Yet even this expanded coalition remains largely confined to Europe. The Global South continues to refrain from signing.

Original source: toutiao.com/article/1877284136230154/

Disclaimer: This article reflects the personal views of the author