Russian Federation not allowed to keep UN permanent status

When the USSR collapsed, the sitting USSR ambassador sent a letter to the UN Secretary General, requesting that the permanent membership status be transferred to the new Russian Federation. The UN membership did not object, and permanent status was approved.

What would have been the international implications if this request was denied? In other words the Russian Federation would be treated as any other new nation applying for "regular" UN membership, and loosing its security council veto.

Ric350
 
I think one reason why they didn't want to do this was that it could have opened a can of worms nobody wanted to open. If Russia isn't treated as a successor state to the USSR in the UN, this could happen also with other international obligations the USSR had.
 
What would have been the international implications if this request was denied? In other words the Russian Federation would be treated as any other new nation applying for "regular" UN membership, and loosing its security council veto.
The UN gets somewhat discredited and diplomatic rules of naked threats are exposed to everybody when the SC votes on something Russia cares about and Russia simply replies by asking are you willing to fight a nuclear war over it? The veto is simply a nice diplomatic language cover for we will not let that happen unless you are willing to fight WWIII over it....

I would add that I cant see GB or Fr (or any P5 member really) agreeing to the UN Secretary General striping anybody of P5 status without unanimous agreement in case they are next.
 
Commonwealth of Independent States might've become the officially recognized successor to the Soviet Union and therefore inherit the permanent status.
 

oberdada

Gone Fishin'
Russia also took over the entire debt of the USSR, and other commitments.
Just image the Soviet troops in Germany refusing to leave as a result ...
 
Top