War on Ukraine: The state of the global response

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG KC

Well, welcome to all of you, those of you here in Chatham House and those of you online, for this discussion on The State of the Global Response to the war in Ukraine. I’m Elizabeth Wilmshurst, a Fellow at International – at – in International Law at Chatham House, and I am delighted, so privileged and with such pleasure, to be chairing here tonight. We not only have two of The Elders here on the podium, but also some of the other Elders in the audience, including Mary Robinson, their Chair, so, welcome.

Two points before we begin. First, the meeting is on the record, not under the Chatham House Rule, and second, if you’re online and have a question, put it in the Q&A function whenever you wish. So, thank you so much to our discussants this evening. Just a very few words to say who they are, to remind you who they are, in case you need reminding. President Juan Manuel Santos, who is of course the Former President of Colombia and was heading the very complex negotiations to end the 52-year conflict in Colombia and was made Noble Peace Laureate in 2016. He joined The Elders in 2019 and visited Ukraine in August this year with Ban Ki-moon.

And then Zeid Raad Al Hussein, Ambassador of Jordan to the US and then Permanent Representative to the UN. Along the way, he became a central figure in the establishment of the International Criminal Court, as I well recall. He was UN High Commissioner for Human Rights between 2014 and 2018, and he joined The Elders, too, in 2019.

And finally, Chatham House’s own Orysia Lutsevych, who is Research Fellow with the Russia and Eurasian Programme here, and manages the Ukraine Forum. Before she joined Chatham House, she was Executive Director of Open Ukraine Foundation.

So, in this too short a time, we want to discuss how a more effective and more unified response to the Russian aggression can be built, that aggression which still continues in total contravention of the UN Charter and with untold humanitarian consequences. I want to begin by asking each of our panellists, jumping right into the specifics, I want to ask each of them, what has been done well and what could be done to have a better and more effective response? Juan Manuel, perhaps if there are any comparisons with the Colombian experience that you can share with us; over to you.

President Juan Manuel Santos

Well, thank you. It’s a great pleasure to be here in this famous house again and discussing a very, very complex situation we have right now. I don’t think that, since the UN was created, that we have had a situation so complex as the one we have right now. Of course, every conflict has its own characteristics. There’s no common denominator between conflicts, and specially the war in Ukraine and the Colombian peace process are very different. However, there are some lessons that can be extracted. We discussed that with President Zelenskyy when I was there in August. He invited me precisely to ask me my experience and what could I share with him.

First, I was very well impressed by Zelenskyy. I usually am quite negative in the sense of my expectations, and the persons the I finally meet usually are higher than what I expected. In the case of Zelenskyy, it was the contrary. He was much better than my expectations, and I think he was – he immediately gave me the impression of being a very good war leader. Maybe it’s because of his background on communication. He communicated extremely well and the questions he asked, and he was very, very interested in how was it that I made war, and at the same time, started to make peace. Even though he was very careful of not giving any kind of signal that he wanted negotiations at this moment.

And I think he still has that exact position; “No, don’t talk about negotiations. That would show to whoever some kind of weakness.” But I did say to him, “Sooner or later this is going to end in a negotiating table, and don’t wait until the circumstances are ripe, which they are not right now, and they were not in August, but don’t wait to start thinking about how these negotiations are going to be, and to establish a framework, a mental framework, at least.

There is something that has happened to me, which was very, very important eventually. When I was – because I had the experience of making war and then making peace. When we were making war with Ministry of Defence and the Commander of the Army, a former Commander of the Army came to me and said, “Listen, I know that you, in the end, want peace. Don’t treat the FARC as your enemies, but as your adversaries.” I said, “What is the difference?” “Oh, there is a big difference; enemies you eliminate, adversaries you beat because you’re going to have to live with them for the rest of your lives.” Well, Ukraine is going to have to live with Russia for the rest of their lives, so, think about that.

Now, a very different situation, in my case, I – what I did was tell my Soldiers, my army, to “humanise the war, respect the human rights of even your adversaries.” In the case of Ukraine, he – that is not the case, because Russia is the one who is violating every human right. But anyway, the moral high ground of, for example, giving disability to the victims of the war in Ukraine gives a lot of moral strength, moral high ground and a lot of legitimacy for whatever action afterwards is going to be taken, for example, a special tribunal, reparations or what is coming sooner or later, hmmm. Giving the victims visibility and a voice and a high profile is extremely important.

About making war and thinking of peace at the same time, and we discussed a lot about the issue of communications, the different audiences that you need to address. You’re waging war, you need to maintain the enthusiasm of your Soldiers and your people. The international community, you were asking what could have been done better? I think that more effective diplomacy with regions, and we said that, with Ban Ki-Moon. Latin America, Africa, some countries in Asia could have been pressed by having a more outright position, a more – a stronger position, and so, improve the diplomacy around, to get more support and be ready to change those audiences.

I said, “Be careful, I know it’s very difficult for me to say it at this time, you want to raise your bar very high, which is the normal thing to do when you’re in war, but when you switch to making peace, you’re going to have to lower the bar and that has a very high political cost, internally. Think about how you’re going to do that eventually.” I think it was – he was very receptive, very encouraged, but again, what I saw was a leader leading his country at war with great enthusiasm, great optimism. He was, at that time, and I think right now, also, thinking that he’s winning the war. The Russians – at the same time, that makes negotiations very difficult, when both parties think they’re winning, but sooner or later, that has to end up in a negotiation. When will that time come? Maybe Zeid would have the answer.

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG KC

That’s interesting. Zeid, what more can the global response be?

Zeid Raad Al Hussein

So, I too, want to thank Chatham House for inviting me. I think this is my third visit here in four or five years. I’ve never experienced the Rule. It’s never applied to me, somehow, or maybe it has when we – so, I’m delighted that these remarks are made in public. I mean, what was so astonishing was the strength and the fierce determination of the Ukrainians to defend their territory. Maybe it shouldn’t have been as astonishing as it was, but we became rather inured to other experiences where territory was given without a stalwart defence of it. And so, I think it was remarkable that that was complemented by this colossal effort to back the Ukrainian Government.

But it wasn’t at the behest of the international structures that were in place. They were stymied by the very weaknesses, unfortunately, that have just expanded over time, whereby you have a perverse situation where the Russian Federation can violate the customary norm, a customary law enshrined in the UN Charter’s Article 2(4), and yet, insist that the provisional rules of procedure in the Security Council be observed. I mean, a complete – I mean, it’s almost an astonishing absurdity and it showed the extent to which the international body best charged with the primary responsibility of preventing conflict, was unable to do so.

When you ask me “What could be done better?” there’s only one response to this and that is moral consistency. You know, rights, the rights that Juan Manuel spoke of are not a tradeable option. They’re not options, you know, in terms of stock or in the futures market, that you can just buy and sell. A law which is part of a superior body of law is not like drawing a card, you know, in a card game and seeing, “Oh, it’s a three of clubs, well. We’ll just ignore that, and I’ll chuck it away and pick up a card that I can use.” You know, laws must be observed and norms must be observed, and the lesson we’ve learned is that if we try and, sort of, play fast and loose with these norms, then ensuring that we can convince the globe to stand completely behind the Ukrainian Government would be an easy proposition.

Now, we have secured, in the last vote, 143 votes in favour of the Ukrainian Government, which is really fantastic, but we still have some 35 countries, or if you take away those who are opposed, 30 or so countries that need to be convinced that what we’re seeing is a desecration of international law, and that must, therefore, be opposed. But we have to deal with the issue of, you know, double standards and the way in which we approach some conflicts silently, and others we’re vociferous in our denunciation, when the conduct in certain cases can be, basically, almost the same. And I think this is something that we’ve learned and this is something that we have to improve on.

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG KC

Thank you, and you were referring then to the General Assembly Resolution just recently…

Zeid Raad Al Hussein

Yes.

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG KC

…refusing to accept the Russian annexation…

Zeid Raad Al Hussein

Annexation, yeah.

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG KC

…which was just announced. Yes, so, that was a slightly higher majority in the General Assembly, wasn’t it, from the previous one, but 35 abstentions. Orysia, what can you add to the international response? And the reference, also, was here to, African states have not been, on the whole, or at least a lot of African states, have not been willing to vote against the Russian aggression.

Orysia Lutsevych

Thank you very much, Elizabeth. It’s an honour to be on a session with people who know so much about war and peace, I hope not just about war. I think it’s interesting the President mentioned Zelenskyy’s determination and importance of human value and search for peace, and I think he’s somebody who came to power, actually, very much with that mandate; human-centred approach, and there were roughly 88 rounds of diplomatic negotiations before this unprovoked aggression exploded. So, there’s something in him, clearly, that speaks to that desire, but unfortunately, it’s eight months now since we see this horrific human suffering that we have not seen on the European Continent since the Second World War.

But I would like to remind that it’s eight years ago, not eight months ago that this all has started, and eight years ago we were talking about 1.5 million of internally displaced Ukrainians. Today we are talking about 4.8 Ukrainian refugees, that they had to flee Ukraine, right? Previously Ukraine was able to absorbed all those people, because the conflict remained quite regionalised and not as destructive as it is today, with the strikes on central cities and playgrounds and civilian infrastructure.

But I think, you know, to be honest, the stumbling block to a more effective international response and respect to the UN Charter is aggressor state, Russia, that is itself a Member of the UN Security Council. And if we look at the way Russia behaves in many multilateral organisations, be it UN or Organisation for Security or Cooperation in Europe, it is obstruction to achieve its, what I think Putin’s very aggressive, militaristic revanchism, you know, in the region, and this is not new. This is a consistent policy starting from war in Georgia, annexation of Crimea.

And within the UN Security Council, I mean, the maths says that since 2009 Russia, for example, vetoed 26 times and 12 of those times was joined by China. So, we have this alliance within the UN Security Council, and United States, for example, only four times vetoed any resolution within the UN. So, it tells you the kind of behaviour Russia employs, and this directly reflects on how UN is perceived, and for example in Colombia, your home country, only 33% of Colombians think that the UN response to war in Ukraine is good and effective. In UK it’s 24%, and surprisingly, in Ukraine it’s 50%.

I think it is because we see the presence of Secretary-General being out there, trying as hard as he can, also because Ukraine puts blame exactly on Russia, right, not so much on UN as an institution, which is good, it gives peace a chance. But it is really troubling, like, Elizabeth, you mentioned 143 countries joined that Declaration at the UN General Assembly, only plus two compared to March, because in March it was 141, but 35 is this very solid bloc.

And why is it, right? I mean, when – I don’t know so well Africa or Latin America or East Asia, but from what I can tell, it’s the revolt against the Western dominance, right? These countries believe it’s not their war, it’s something that the West has to settle with them and Russia, and they somehow hope that this will create a multipolar world, right? They want to see how this all ends and they do hope that this will either break this Western dominance and create – see, it’s a very strong emotional legacy, I think, to what they faced in the past.

And, also, based on that Russian propaganda really permeates there in societies, and Russia is working hard to exactly make this clash last. And it’s quite striking in Putin’s speech after the annexation of these territories, when he spoke that he’s liberating Europe from American imperialism, right? He’s also liberating Africa from Western imperialism and Latin America from American imperialism, and he’s taking on that agenda, which I imagine resonates with some audiences there. And I was actually struck by what seems to be in the region, and in South Africa, Nigeria and even India, acceptance that Russia has the right for the sphere of influence. And Kyiv, for example, would be in that greater sphere of influence, something that West, European Union, United States, UK rejects, right? This is why the West backs Ukraine, because we don’t want to go back to the spheres of influence.

So, we still have a lot to do in the region. How do we break that narrative? And the consequences of that, and I’ll just wrap up quickly, is, of course, Russia is not fully isolated. It’s able to sell its harbocydra – hybo – hydrates to all the other countries, and this China-Russia axis, in a way, sustains its war chest economy. We will have prolonged war because of that, clearly. It enables quite genocidal war. Unfortunately, I have to use that word, because we see Putin’s determination and policy on the occupied territories that he currently controls to exterminate everything Ukrainian, and it’s unfortunate that we already have UN Commissioner on Human Rights reporting that there are instances of war crimes.

They visited 27 towns around Ukraine and they do say, from using explosives of wide range, is, basically, violation rules of war. Also, sexual violence of victims between the four to 82-years-old. Horrific things are happening there, and that is why I think we, in a way, failing on that capacity to bring back justice back from eight years ago, and Ukrainians were struggling back then to use International Court of Justice in its effort to hold Russia accountable for financing terrorist-type organisation in the occupied Donbas. But that never stopped Russia’s behaviour.

And finally, what we face now is the food security, where, you know, we have the grain deal, which is very fragile, but it’s just such a small amount of grain that can get exported. It’s one-fifth of what Ukraine usually exports, it’s nothing, you know, to feed the world. Ukrainian grain storages are full and the world is starving and, you know, for example, this morning the sunflower oil storage was attacked by an Iranian drone, and we have another, you know, disaster, environmental and food disaster.

So, all of this also means that the nuclear – is the first time the way nuc – civilian nuclear objects are being used for war purposes, to blackmail Ukraine into submissions and International Atomic Energy Agency is struggling, not able to establish demilitarised zone around any nuclear power station. This is, I think, is a clear failure.

So, I don’t have many things on the plus side, but I’m just pointing these four hot points of possible, you know, escalation and damages. But I’ve look at the interesting survey global issues conducted by Open Society Foundation in 22 countries around the world, and the good news is that the world, overall, rejects that large powers should be taking over smaller and less powerful. There’s consensus here that war crimes are mostly committed by Russia. There is a global consensus here, and there’s a withdrawal – that Russia should withdraw of all parts of Ukrainian territory. This is also a very clear position, and only 13% of those 22 countries believe that Ukraine should cede its territory to Russia.

So, there’s something to work about, but we are nowhere there that we could use these multilateral international institutions to resolve issues that I’ve just outlined. Thanks.

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG KC

Thank you. That’s hugely wide-ranging and I’m just wondering which of the various matters to pick up here. A question I have, but we’ve partly covered it, is the conflict changing the ability of the multilateral system to address global challenges? Well, Zeid, you more or less said that the institutions weren’t able to address global challenges before, and this is merely confirming it. Do you think that there’s any hope from the institutions we have?

Zeid Raad Al Hussein

Well, it – yes, it could be an inflection point. We have, for example, for the first time really, in my own experience of the UN, which goes back 22 years, a very serious discussion on the veto, which previously, or hitherto, we never had. And it – we’ve almost reached the point of complete paralysis in the Security Council, unlike anything we’ve experienced, and that has prompted thinking which is new, and I think this could lead somewhere.

In the meantime, the General Assembly, you know, has been dynamic. It has – there was this automatic referral once the vetoes were used in the Security Council, such that the General Assembly convened and debated the issue of the annexation and came up with a very strong result, I think, given what it was that Orysia was saying. At the same time, one understands there was lobbying, sure there was, but the effect of 143 is still quite a powerful, sort of, and robust response to what it is that President Putin has been saying. Is it enough? Probably not. We still need to see, I think, much more from the independent bodies within the UN. So, one forgets that the Secretary-General and the Secretariat is a principal organ of the UN, you know. Article Seven of the UN Charter and Chapter 15 gives it powers that are distant or, let’s say, independent of the membership, so, Articles 98 and 99.

Here, if the Secretary-General speaks forcibly, and Orysia said that he did recently, indeed he condemned the annexation decision, it provides cover for the membership that feel squeezed by either side, to say, “We are siding with the Secretary-General.” And that aspect of the UN’s work we need to see more of, not just in Ukraine, but across the range of crises that we face.

I think the central malady affecting the UN is, one has to think, almost, of a football game, where the Referee is not well-known, certainly not known in the way that the star players are known and are paid, and at the end of a major game in, let’s say, the Premier League, the Referees and the Linespersons get onto the bus, or they jump onto the tube and go home, and the star players go home with their fancy cars. But for the game to be played, all power is given to the Umpire or the Referee and the Linespersons and the power exists with them.

The UN is a soft – is a sort of, regulator of soft power, and let’s say it’s a soft regulator and we’ve reached a point, I think, over many years now where the positioning and standing of the Secretariat, relative to the member state, is so weak and it needs to be reversed, it’s unhealthy. I mean, we have, essentially, if you take the football analogy, we have a game that’s, sort of, played, where fouling is occurring at regular intervals. The Referee’s blowing the whistle occasionally, not always, and half listened to and half not, and that’s the metaphor to use in understanding why the system is weak at the moment.

President Juan Manuel Santos

In the case – in my case, there’s a paradox. When we started the peace process, we were thinking about the peace process, there was a lot of apprehension about allowing the UN to come in. I remember many of my Ministers saying, “The UN comes in and never goes out. Watch it.” Well, thank God that came in. There’s a statistic that is very impressive. Since the U – the Security Council was created after World War Two, there has not been an event that has had more unanimous resolutions of the Security Council than the Colombian peace process, and the UN has been extremely, extremely effective in earning the trust of Colombians, but this is Colombia.

In the rest of the world, we have to be realistic. The multilateral system has been losing ground for many reasons, and losing trust, and losing what any institution needs, which is the backing of the people. And to answer your question quite bluntly, does this war – is that diminishing even more the trust of the world in the UN, for example? I’m sorry to say, but the answer is yes, that is the truth.

How can we reverse that? This is now – I think that when history tell – teaches you that you reach an inflection point where, for example, the reforms that have been proposed for so many years – probably this is the time to say, well, it’s time for the reforms, everybody to accept. Hopefully, because I am a great believer in the multilateral system, that something of that sort would be possible.

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG KC

One looks for thing that are hopeful. Just as you, Zeid, mentioned the fact that now if a veto is cast, the question has to go to the General Assembly for a debate and an explanation of why the veto is cast. Also, for the first time I saw the Americans giving a speech, did you see that, the Permanent Representative to the UN, saying, “We will refrain from the use of the veto except in rare, extraordinary situations”? I haven’t seen the US say that before. Also, “We will advance efforts to reform the UN Security Council,” that was the US. Well, alright, maybe not the reforms that some people would want, but perhaps that’s just a little bit, and of course, we haven’t heard Russia say that, but it’s something. Do you – yes, please.

Orysia Lutsevych

There is a curious legal glitch where Ukrainians are now arguing legally that Russia did not – was not voted to take seat at the UN Security Council after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and they are bringing the case of Yugoslavia. After it ceased to exist, there was a vote at the General Assembly to accept Serbia, for example, at the UN, and Russia’s rights to remain on the UN Security Council are questionable because they were, in a way – they proceeded in the violation of UN Charter. So, there is a group of Lawyers, and the Ukrainians are campaigning to review that decision, especially in view of the violation of the UN Charter now by the Russian Federation.

So, people are trying, you know, in a way, to find ways to bring back justice, because every time there is an injustice somewhere, it’s injustice everywhere, right? And then, we know that that quite powerful Nobel Peace Prize that went to three human rights organisations from Ukraine, Belarus and Russia, and especially Ukrainian Centre for Civil Liberties, that says that “Why we don’t have peace” because there is a cycle, vicious cycle of impunity that is, in a way, continues. And many in Ukraine would argue, from the totalitarian system of the Second World War, where Nazi system was destroyed, and there was due process and trial, the Soviet totalitarian system that killed none less people than Hitler was never put on trial and perpetuated now in this reincarnation of Putin’s regime.

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG KC

Thanks, Orysia, and perhaps before I go to questions, we could have a word about justice. There are, of course, a great many efforts to collect evidence for war crimes trials and many countries and the International Criminal Court are helping Ukraine, or taking the responsibility themselves, in that regard. There is also the proposal, the initiative, to have a aggression tribunal. Who can I ask to say a couple of words about that?

President Juan Manuel Santos

Well…

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG KC

Juan Manuel?

President Juan Manuel Santos

…every situation like this one, or every conflict, when you’re going to resolve it, boils down to where you draw the line between peace and justice, that’s the basis of it. How much – and this is what I did to my negotiators, “Go and seek as much peace as possible that will allow you – as much justice as possible that will allow you to have peace.” And no matter where you draw the line, you will always have some people saying it’s not enough, from the justice side, or some people saying it’s not enough from the peace side. So, that’s why every resolution of a conflict usually is unpopular; they become popular afterwards.

Now, here, I agree with Zeid that you need to have some principles that you’re going to defend, and there’re some red lines, because otherwise, the precedent for future conflicts will become very weak. However, when you have a situation like this one, I would say, how much justice would Ukraine be willing to sacrifice in order to have peace? It would be – the moral authority of Ukraine in this case is, for me, extremely important, the victims, and then the rest of the world would fit in, and that’s a very difficult decision to…

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG KC

That is a very difficult question, indeed. Zeid, you’re longing to answer this one.

Zeid Raad Al Hussein

So, I don’t know, Mary Robinson, can we disagree as Elders? I don’t actually – in a public event. So, I think it’s a question of scale and gravity. On the issue of creating a tribunal, I mean, who would not, in their right mind, support that? What we saw is the commission of the supreme international crime, war of aggression, unprovoked, on a sovereign state. I mean, it’s – it was so brazen that who would not think that this is a classic example of a leadership crime for which the leader, i.e., President Putin, needs to be prosecuted?

But I have to confess, I had my misgivings about going out public on this too early, because it would be easy – the legal part of it is actually not so difficult to achieve. It’s fairly easy to sort out, but when you don’t have the person in custody, are you just creating a bargaining chip? And what Juan Manuel was saying was exactly right. I mean, if the Ukrainian Government, at some stage, not now, but found itself that it may have to give something up, you know, should it, or could it, give – or, let’s say, should it give this up, when what we’re dealing with is a crime of concern to the entire international community, an international crime?

And I’m wondering the extent to which this issue should be seen as something potentially tradeable. It should be beyond it, it should be something that we, as an international community, will decide, and not saddle the Ukrainian Government and the brave Ukrainian President with this issue of what and should he, at some stage, give this? It’s not something that will be discussed now, it’s something that comes later, but I think one needs to be a little bit cautious. Collection of evidence, yes. Protection of witnesses I worry about. There’re so many organisations working there, and we’ve seen in other contexts witnesses come to a dire end, depending on the ebb and flow of the military operations.

And then, one other thing, the rights of the accused. I think it’s absolutely fundamental that the Ukrainian Government and President Zelenskyy hold themselves to the highest mark of conduct. It’s all too easy in conflict, and we’ve seen this time and again, as Nietzsche warned us, “When fighting a monster, beware not to become one yourself,” that the standards have to be extremely high. I would like to see, for instance, President Zelenskyy invite international – like the ICRC, and perhaps one or two others, to have observers in those areas that are liberated, as an assurance that that, indeed, is being done, because I think that has to be guaranteed, almost.

So, these are difficult issues, but I think we are learning and I think, in the main and in the majority, there is a willingness to see justice done. I worry about the trade-off here and so…

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG KC

So, war crimes trials, yes, but Ukraine must be careful about standards. Aggression tribunal, let’s wait and see…

Zeid Raad Al Hussein

Well, there I just…

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG KC

…so that it doesn’t get traded away.

Zeid Raad Al Hussein

That’s what I worry about. I think that it has to be – it almost has to be kept off the bar – it cannot be on the bargaining table. It has to be beyond the remit of the Ukrainian Government, because I think it’s a protection for them in the long term, and that’s what I believe.

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG KC

Orysia, a quick word.

Orysia Lutsevych

Just to say that Ukrainian peace formal asset was presented to the UN General Assembly in September by President Zelenskyy, includes specifically accountability for crime of aggression, and this is one of the building blocks of future peace, the way his administration and, I must say, Ukrainian public, supports very much. It’s quite interesting that this comes as number one in his proposal, the way he spoke to the UN General Assembly.

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG KC

Okay, thank you. Well, now hands are going up, and there is a microphone, so, there are two here. If you wouldn’t mind giving your name and affiliation in the normal way.

Anis Qadri

My name is Anis Qadri, I’m a Chatham House member. There is absolutely no doubt that what Putin has done in Ukraine is atrocious, inhuman, you know, you can’t describe it in any other way. But what I have not seen, and I think a lot of us are thinking about, is, why has the West not addressed the core issue, why is Putin doing this? After the fall of Soviet Union, what did the West do? They surrounded the Russian Federation with NATO members, and this is at the – in our – in my opinion, it is one of the core issues of this problem. Why have the West not addressed this?

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG KC

Okay, thank you, and just behind?

John Wilson

John Wilson, I’m a member of Chatham House, a Journalist, and a child of the 1930s. I see Mr Putin repeating the policies and practices of Adolf Hitler with his salami-slicing. The United Nations is a busted flush and will go the way of the League of Nations in the 1930s. Power is the only thing that dictates what will happen here, and if we negotiate with Mr Putin, we’re already giving away some of it to him. The answer is to adopt the policy of the West that we adopted at the end of the Second World War, unconditional surrender of the enemy.

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG KC

Thank you. I’m going to read a question from online, from Alexander Patterson. “What opportunities are there for others, NGOs, networks of individuals, for example, to improve the situation?” So, I’m taking the “no negotiation” as a comment, not a question. Why haven’t we addressed the core issue of NATO surrounding Ukraine and the question of what can others do to help? Orysia, I…

Orysia Lutsevych

I’ll just briefly say that it’s very important that we understand the origin of this war and don’t confuse it with NATO enlargement, EU enlargement, or for the same matter, the choice of Ukrainian people. I mean, Russia has been captured, unfortunately, by a group of people affiliated with security services, led by President Putin, who has an ambition to restore what he considers land of historical Russia. It’s a pure colonial war and Ukraine is fighting to have full sovereignty, not limited sovereignty like President Putin would like to have, for the same matter, for Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia and Belarus and South Caucasus. So, NATO has nothing to do with it, it’s the nature of Russian autocracy that has led to this bloody war in the centre of Europe.

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG KC

Thank you. Any other comments?

Zeid Raad Al Hussein

Well, I’m rather amazed when I hear that argument, because it’s as if we’ve forgot, you know, the mid-1990s and the way that Grozny was attacked and flattened, absolutely flattened by the Russian military. And if I had been a neighbouring state, newly independent, and I saw that and I saw this is the way that – the same old style in which the Russian authorities are going to deal with issues, which is not un – let’s say, not simplistic or not simple, I mean, these are issues of separatism and so forth, but also could be a matter of autonomy, then I think the warning is out there.

On – just on the issue of the – going the League, I mean, I think you could be right. The League actually disappeared in 1946, after the war, not before, but it was, sort of, abandoned by eight countries and they weren’t being, of course, held to account. In Italy’s case, when Mussolini invaded Abyssinia, you know, there was such a, sort of, weak response, and so the fecklessness of the League was highlighted. But it had resolved 17 other crises in the meantime, and so, one has to pay attention to that.

But one needs to also ask oneself, I mean, if we saw the collapse of everything, which may well happen, I mean, if the UN goes, you won’t be able to travel anywhere, weights and measurements couldn’t be decided, you wouldn’t have any decisions on maritime law, on communications. I mean, we’d go, basically, back to zero, and so, that almost is impossible to conceive of. But we – does it need repair? Yes, it does.

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG KC

The role of civil society, was that a good thing in the Colombia peace process? Can – what can be done in Ukraine for – I mean, can they help?

President Juan Manuel Santos

The role of civil society, yes, it was extremely important. Civil society even participated, indirectly, in the negotiations. That gave the process tremendous legitimacy. The people wanted to feel represented, especially the victims, and we made an effort. And that ended in something which was unique of the Colombian peace process, a chapter on gender, a chapter on the ethnic communities, the most vulnerable of the victims, with a special recognition and affirmative action, and that has been applauded worldwide as a precedent that should be followed.

So, yes, the civil society – even – I lost a referendum. When I put the peace process to a vote, the civil society – well, that was a bit more like what happened here with Brexit, you know, a lot of fake news and things like that, and I lost it. But again, civil society went to the streets to say, “No, you cannot abandon this right now,” and we didn’t abandon it. We renegotiated, we followed our legal system of not a second referendum, but going through Congress, the courts, and we had a better agreement, and when we renegotiated, we had a better agreement than the original one, which right now, has tremendous backing of the population in general.

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG KC

Great, so, Orysia, civ…

Orysia Lutsevych

I just want to add a little bit on civil society, because this is something I’m particularly passionate, and I know that in our region, a lot of change comes exactly from civil society. You know, the government, you know, especially from that Soviet legacy, wasn’t the best, the most innovative and efficient. That changes with generation, but I think what now is very much needed, and that transborder co-operation of various charities, organisations, to actually support Ukraine home front. Because you see what is happening today again, the attack on the centre of Kyiv and you have massive displacement within Ukraine, as I said, 6.5 million inside Ukraine, roughly four million in the European Union.

There will be more movements of people and those people will need support, protection. You know, they’re eager to come back home, believe me. So many want to come back home, from the UK, from Poland, from Romania, but they may have to bear another winter being away from home. But that also means lobbying for funding inside the countries that received Ukrainian refugees, for education, for mental health assistance. There is a whole range of things that could be done that, you know, governments simply don’t have a pair of hands and the time on their hands to do, and I think civil society and charitable sector can actually be very helpful.

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG KC

Thanks. Another question? Yes, here in the front, and back there.

Member

Thank you, I’m a student and I’m doing my PhD at Kings College, War Studies Department. My question is, how we can imagine finish this war without Russia’s clear political and military defeat in Ukraine? If we imagine any negotiation, how do we think, we will face or not after a few decades the same problem what we are right now?

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG KC

Thank you, and the lady behind you in the pink.

Natalia Mykolska

Natalia Mykolska, Ukrainian businesswoman, temporarily displaced in London with my two boys. Former Trade Minister of Ukraine, and CEO of the largest aggregated database for videos and photos from the frontline and eyewitnesses.

So, my question is, we are collecting these videos and photos and eyewitnesses’ statement in order to for the history never to be rewritten, and actually to be used in order to back up cases against Russia and Russian top official, maybe in the tribunal or private cases. Based on your experience, actually, and, you know, like, your vision, like, how organisation like ours could support and, you know, make the voice of Ukrainian victims heard louder in the world, and to support the idea of actually establishing this international tribunal, if we come to that part of history later?

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG KC

Thank you very much. Now, Zeid, I’m going to go first to you, if I may.

Zeid Raad Al Hussein

Okay. So, it – first of all, can we imagine an outcome short of Russia’s total defeat that will – basically, where we can imagine an outcome whereby peace becomes permanent? The truthful answer is that – and I served on the UN Security Council, and we had a very strong, rich, debate about this, is that we don’t know how to make peace properly. You know, the way we construct peace is through cement. We throw cement at the problem. We rebuild, we train, we train officials, we train military, but the deep issues that affect the mind, the historic narratives that have gone in all sorts of – if you ask how many countries, for example, have national archives, where they have the documents of state vetted and released, you know, you would be surprised how few have. So, we do the superficial, we never go deep enough and – but who is to say that maybe in this case, given the experiences of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which still is on a precipice so many years after the Dayton Peace Accord, that Ukraine may be a change in the way that we approach this?

In terms of collection of evidence, I think it is very important that one has a connection with the International Criminal Court, that the chain of custody is well established, the evidence is protected, and that one understands that if it couldn’t be admissible in the International Criminal Court, it should be, or helpfully would be, in other jurisdictions. But the admissibility, a threshold has to be met, and I think it is good that evidence is collected like this.

One always has to be careful, because I have no doubt, also, that the other side is planting evidence left and right, right, so, you have to be extremely careful with that, because that can upset and completely throw out a case that may be in the making. So, I applaud you for doing it. I think it’s important, though, that witnesses are protected. Again, if you have battle lines shift, someone has given testimony, it’s well established that this is somewhere – a recording somewhere and then we begin to see people disappear, which we’ve seen in other conflicts and we don’t want to repeat that in the context of Ukraine.

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG KC

Thank you very much. Other questions? Yes, Mr Ban Ki-Moon in the front, and then…

Ban Ki-Moon

Yeah [pause]. Hello, yeah, I’m the newest member of The Elders. I am from Mongolia, I love freedom, I like Ukraine, I have studied in Ukraine, I have lived in Ukraine and there is only one country between us. I believe that every bit of human heart is a call for freedom and for peace. Nobody can take that right from people’s heart. Ukrainian calls against brutal invasion is a call for all of us. Brave Ukrainians, you are not alone. The better part of humanity is with you. We all feel Ukraine’s pain. that fighting frontline of war runs through all of us.

Never should – that war – this war should not go nuclear, enough is enough. The shameful and obsolete ideology of war must be defeated. The masterminds of unhumane crimes must be punished. That senseless killings and destruction should have stopped yesterday, but today and tomorrow we all shall help Ukraine by every means. We shall demand our governments to do more for Ukraine.

Ukrainians are not only defending their country, their homes, they are fighting for all of us. They are paying the ultimate price for our security, for our freedom and for everyone’s right to exist. We have no right to lose. I believe in the wounded hills of Ukraine, the life will thrive again. The destroyed homes and the streets of Ukraine will be restored again. Ukraine shall triumph again. Heróyam sláva. Thank you.

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG KC

[Pause] Thank you so much. Another word from one of The Elders. Now, there was someone here who had – yes, please, thank you, and then, the last is right over there, because he’s had his hand up for a while.

Malena Cabra

Hi, I’m Malena Cabra, a second-year student at Queen Mary University of London and a member of Chatham House. I – would I be able to ask two questions, or – okay.

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG KC

Sorry? No, we only have two minutes, so just one.

Malena Cabra

Okay, my question is, as an institution with primarily dysfunctional accountability mechanisms, and Russia as a permanent five member with veto power, how can the United Nations hold the necessary parties accountable?

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG KC

Thank you very much, and over there, and that’s the last one, I’m afraid.

Alexey Gusev

Thank you. My name is Alexey Gusev, and I would say, I’m a former Regional Deputy from Russia, and I had to leave the country a year ago. I’m also very, very interested in Ukraine, in the Ukrainian history, because I was researching and teaching the Ukrainian history a long time ago, I would say. And I would like to ask you the real question that actually makes me afraid for the future. I understand that this conflict, this conflict that Putin has begun, it will be a conflict, like, for generations, I don’t mean military conflict, but I mean, the conflict between the nations.

And what I think is important today to say is, what are the conditions for both sides to begin the negotiations, because what I see, for instance, that Zelenskyy mentioned that he will never have negotiations with Putin, and on the other hand, I also realise that it is always possible that there is some red line, after that Putin will use the nuclear weapons or something like this. What are the real conditions for the real negotiations to stop this war, how do you think, what would you say about that?

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG KC

Thank you very much for that question. So, the first one is on accountability, which I think we’ve more or less covered, but we can have another word, but the second one is the difficult one. What are the conditions for peace?

President Juan Manuel Santos

Well, the first condition is for both parties not to think that they’re winning the war. If both parties think they’re winning the war, there’s going to be no negotiation. I would say that more international pressure on Russia. Countries like India, Brazil, South Africa, China, would tilt the situation right now in favour of Putin thinking that he should negotiate.

There is a big question mark that the world is having right now, this nuclear situation. The Russian strategy – and this has been historical, and the Russian reaction is, “If you think you can hurt me, I can hurt you more,” and that is what they are doing right now. And at the same time, in Russia, not in the US, for example, the Commanders have the power to use strategic nuclear weapons. I cannot imagine that any Commander will do that without Putin’s approval, but to what extent the world should recognise this situation and those countries that are right now neutral or abstain, say, “We better start pressing because otherwise we will all be in big trouble”?

So, I think that more international pressure on Russia is another very important condition for having the possibility of peace.

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG KC

Zeid, but how does one press Russia any more than is happening already?

Zeid Raad Al Hussein

Yeah, it’s a very profound question you’re asking, for which there’s no immediate answer. I think what happens, though, is that openings that will occur – I mean, one doesn’t know what will happen in Russia. If the prosecution of this war continues to the advantage of the Ukrainians, at some stage there may be turmoil, at some stage Putin himself may be arrested, may be transferred to Ukraine, may be given up to the International Criminal Court. You know, it may sound almost fanciful at this stage, but stranger things have happened, and so one has to at least look at all the possibilities and clearly it’s incumbent on the independent parts of the UN to speak out forcefully in defence of norms.

And I think here one has to say, and be clear about this, that the UN, the independent mechanisms, have to speak out forcefully on all conduct committed by all states, without exceptions, and we need to be morally consistent. If we start to play that game of trading with rights and laws, then we are in a very difficult, sort of – we have many difficult years ahead, and we’re going to make it even more difficult for ourselves. So, I think that’s the point that we need to, sort of, focus on.

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG KC

Thank you. Orysia, you’re going to finish for us, because we’re already over time.

Orysia Lutsevych

Yes. So, at first, I would like to thank you for your kind message with the solidarity with freedom, and that directly connects me to the gentleman who studied Ukrainian history from Russia. And if you’ve studied that history, you would know that Ukraine is very freedom-loving nation, and it was a big challenge to all Russian imperial projects, and if Putin had studied a bit better history instead of writing it, he would have never, ever invaded Ukraine the way he did on the 24th. And I must say, the way we will have peace in Europe is that when Russia will stop being an empire and will become a nation state, this is the whole panel we can have.

But I think by defeating Russian – the peace starts by defeating Russian military in Ukraine. There’s no other pathway to peace. Once that is achieved, the world will, by then, I hope, understand, really, the nature of Putin’s regime, like they did not understand the nature of Hitler’s regime. And here I think the whole appeasement was put in place, something that they’ve thought, no, this is just renewing Germany’s strength after the Versailles treaty. But no, by that time, there will be that waking up, and I think on the nuclear, there has been a very clear message that there’s no difference between strategic or tactical nuclear weapon, and this will be the last mistake if ever, and I pray God not President Putin does.

Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG KC

Thank you [pause]. Well, now you will have to clap again because we have finished the evening. Thank you very much, all of those who attended here and online. I’m sorry I haven’t answered all your – or we haven’t answered all of your questions. We could go on for several hours on this topic, but thank you for coming, and thank you so much to the panel.