By Joyce Bukuru, Amnesty International’s Senior Advocate and Representative to the UN, and
Ben Linden, Amnesty International USA’s Advocacy Director for Europe and Central Asia
The scene at the United Nations earlier this week was remarkable: the United States sided with Russia and against its closest allies and partners by issuing competing UN General Assembly and Security Council resolutions marking the third anniversary of the war in Ukraine. Here’s what happened, and what it means for both human rights and peace in Ukraine.
What happened?
On Monday, the UN General Assembly adopted a Ukraine- and EU-drafted resolution marking three years since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The resolution, like past UNGA resolutions that were strongly supported by the Biden Administration, called out Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and the need for accountability for crimes under international law and justice for all victims.
This year, however, the United States voted no on the Ukraine- and EU-drafted text, joining a small group of opponents that included Russia, North Korea, Belarus, Nicaragua, and Sudan. The United States also introduced a competing resolution totaling barely seven lines of text that made no mention of Russia’s aggression, the human rights violations stemming from Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, or the need for accountability.
In a stinging rebuke of the U.S. initiative, three European amendments to the U.S. text were adopted by the General Assembly. The first replaced “Russia-Ukraine conflict” with “the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation.” The second inserted a preambular paragraph reaffirming the General Assembly’s commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity within its internationally recognized borders, including its territorial waters. The third added language to the operative paragraph to ensure that the General Assembly calls for a “just, lasting, and comprehensive” peace in accordance with the UN Charter and the principles of sovereign equality and territorial integrity of states.
Meanwhile, a Russian amendment on the U.S. text to add the need to address “root causes” of the conflict failed to be adopted.
The final, amended U.S. draft was adopted by the General Assembly, with the United States itself abstaining.
Later on Monday, the United States introduced a UN Security Council resolution that was identical to its original General Assembly text. In a remarkable break from past cooperation, the United States voted against a UK and French effort to delay a vote on its resolution and ultimately joined with Russia and China to pass the original U.S. text, which again failed to call out Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. European members of the Security Council had attempted again to propose amendments to bring the U.S.-drafted text in line with the General Assembly version adopted earlier in the day, but these efforts were thwarted due to Russia exercising its veto power on the amendments themselves.
Why it matters
President Trump’s recent pronouncements on the war hew closely to Russia’s narrative and negotiating positions heading into peace talks, including by appearing to falsely blame Ukraine for starting the war. The U.S.-drafted UN resolutions demonstrate that these pronouncements now form the basis for official U.S. positions in multilateral spaces.
If the G7 fails to agree on text for a joint statement marking the third anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion – also apparently due to U.S. opposition to language on Russia’s aggression – it would be yet another indication that U.S. policy has shifted dramatically and for the foreseeable future. Any hopes that Secretary of State Rubio or other high-ranking U.S. foreign policy officials would meaningfully push back on this approach have been dashed, at least for now.
Failure to call out Russia’s aggression against Ukraine jeopardizes efforts to hold accountable those suspected of human rights violations and crimes under international law. We know from other conflicts that continued impunity for those suspected of human rights violations and war crimes only encourages additional crimes under international law, setting the stage for new violations. Justice and accountability are therefore critical to achieving what Rubio has noted is a need for sustainable – not temporary – peace in Ukraine.
What now?
The United States should change course and work with its partners in multilateral and all other diplomatic settings to ensure that Russia’s aggression against Ukraine is acknowledged and condemned, not downplayed or denied.
As Amnesty International USA and Amnesty International Ukraine wrote to President Trump last month, there must be accountability for Russia’s war of aggression and all other crimes under international law committed since the start of the conflict in 2014, an end to all ongoing human rights violations, and the provision of economic and humanitarian assistance to those in Ukraine who have lost or stand to lose the most as a result of the violence.
Only a peace process that prioritizes justice, accountability, and human rights will lead to a sustainable peace agreement. That is what the United States, and all parties involved, should want for Ukraine and the region.