Zimpapers Logo

Wallace Musakanyi, Opinion
The Russia-Ukraine conflict has been on-going for a year now and its impact has been dire and its consequences have been severe.
The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) has been one of the domains utilised by sovereign states to either pacify or amplify the conflict especially through a number of resolutions which have been adopted up to date. Above all, Zimbabwe has been strategic in its approach to this conflict, guided by the tenets of quiet diplomacy. It has chosen to be a spectator rather than an initiator of the war.

The UNGA has become an extension of the Russo-Ukrainian’s battleground; member states have been aligning their foreign policy interests towards war-mongering or peace-making UNGA resolutions.

On 23 February, the UNGA at its 11th emergency special session adopted a new resolution calling for an end to the war. As per tradition, member states voted for this resolution; 141 member states voted in favour of this resolution, seven against and 32 countries abstained, amongst them Zimbabwe.

Russia-Ukraine conflict

The manner in which the United Nations has handled the Russo-Ukrainian conflict has contaminated its mandate which is expressly pronounced in section 1(1) of the United Nations Charter, as it is obliged to maintain international peace and security. It has deviated from being a peace-making machine into a war incubator and all its so-called peace-making resolutions have had boomerang effects of intensifying the conflict which has so far left nearly 200 000 people dead.

Zimbabwe’s decision of abstaining from these UNGA resolutions can also be understood from an international law perspective particularly because these resolutions are part and parcel of soft law, which is generally developed in the form of resolutions, guidelines, technical manuals or opinions from informal or inaccessible institutions.

Moreso, the resolutions are not legally binding on all the warring parties, which is one of the major loopholes of international law in general and soft law in particular, grounded on the precepts of idealism.

The world order is realist-driven and from a realist window, voting at these UNGA resolutions which seek to end the war, foster peace and make Russia pay ‘war’ reparations is a mere political ritual which does not have any legal implications. Rather, it is a utopian inspired phenomenon which is utilised by the UN member states to either express their sympathy towards Ukraine and bitterness towards Russia and does not go any further than this.

Zimbabwe’s foreign policy under the New Dispensation is hinged on mending bridges among the four corners of the world rather than harbouring grudges since the Government is peace-making and reformative in scope.

Furthermore, the engagement and re-engagement drive is work in progress and the Government has resisted the temptation of being divided along the Russo-Ukrainian lines as it is focusing on its broader mandate of engaging with all progressive countries across Global North and South.

One of the major factors that have shaped Zimbabwe’s decision of abstaining from the UNGA resolutions emanate from its wealth of experience and knowledge on international relations, based on its own history.

The imposition of crippling economic embargoes and sanctions against Russia has been one of the top priorities of the West in order to check-mate Russia to withdraw from Ukraine, in that regard they have also been utilising the UNGA resolutions.
Zimbabwe is fully cognisant of the evils that are brought about by unilateralism because of sanctions that were imposed on the country in the early 2000s.

Likewise, it chokes development, it furthers isolation and enhances a divided responsibility. As an ardent believer of multi-lateralism, Zimbabwe stands ready to unapologetically oppose, reprimand and boycott any arrangement that jeopardises the peaceful coexistence of republics in a multilateral framework.

The passing of various Western authored and inspired UNGA resolutions, which meant to either restrain or crucify Russia, is part of the West’s strategy of dramatising the conflict so that it can gain international limelight which is a pre-requisite for them to pursue their narrow and egocentric interests.

It is not a public secret that the conflict is not going to be ended by these fashionable and fancy resolutions which are authoritative in text yet paper tigers in practice.

Dialogue is the starting point and any initiative that restrains dialogue between these warring parties has a multiplier effect which can sustain and prolong the war.
l Wallace Musakanyi can be contacted on [email protected]