Through diplomacy and power-broking, the USSR was able to secure for itself separate seats at the UN for itself, Ukraine, and Belarus, even though the latter two countries were not fully independent but part of the USSR. This would have been comparable to the UK getting a seat not only for itself but also for Scotland and Northern Ireland.
I’m wondering, did Ukraine or Belarus ever cast different votes than the USSR on UN resolutions? Or did the USSR always use Ukraine and Belarus as two extra votes for itself? Each of the fifteen Soviet Socialist Republics were nominally autonomous, so I’m curious if they ever disagreed with each other in UN votes, even if they were about minor issues.
For that matter, did any of the Warsaw Pact countries vote against the USSR, particularly in the Stalin era?
What the heck does this have to do with my question? Did you just type the title of the thread into Google and post a random snippet of the first page that came up?
Well under the Soviet constitution the republics were sovereign states with the right to secede at anytime . Also the Soviet Union suffered the most casualties of the major Allied Powers, and with the USSR the United Nations was doomed to failure.
OK, thanks to Wikipedia’s list of United Nations Security Council Resolutions, after eight years I’m finally able to answer my own question. Yes, on at least three occasions, one of the two independently franchised SSRs did not vote in line with the USSR itself:
[ul]
[li]United Nations Security Council Resolution 61, concerning a truce in Palestine, was voted against by the Ukrainian SSR, whereas the USSR itself abstained.[/li][li]United Nations Security Council Resolution 75, concerning reimbursement for countries helping in commissions in Indian, Pakistan, and Indonesia, was voted against by the Ukrainian SSR, whereas the USSR itself abstained.[/li][li]United Nations Security Council Resolution 76, concerning the cost of UN observers in Indonesia, was voted against by the Ukrainian SSR, whereas the USSR itself abstained.[/li][/ul]
I can’t be sure what the point of these were, but I suspect it was a way for the USSR to express disagreement with the resolutions without going so far as block their passage entirely (which, due to the rules concerning Security Council votes by permanent members, would have happened if the USSR had cast a dissenting vote).
Of course, the above information concerns the UN Security Council only. I’d still be interested to know about any Ukrainian/Byelorussian/Soviet discord in UN General Assembly votes.
Western Propaganda aside , the reason the USSR got the two seat’s was since the European powers were quite keen on getting their own colonies in. The UK got India and the US the Philippines. This was a way to even out.
To bring back the western propaganda for a minute, the difference was that both India and the Philippines were on the verge of independence, and that, while neither were fully independent in 1945, both were on the verge of independence (and the Philippines would get independence in 1946 and India in 1947.) The USSR had no intention of doing the same to Ukraine or Belarus.
Cannot say anything about the Philippines, but certainly was not the case for India. As late as the Autumn of 1946 the British were still attempting to and planned to retain control of foreign affairs.
Of course, the Soviets also had (not unreasonably) issues over the white Dominions, such as Canada and Australia (New Zealand home government was not competent for foreign affairs until later) as they would basically give additional free votes to the W Allies, and that had been an objection raised by many at Versailles, including the Americans.
Never understood why the US did not permit Puerto Rico to get a seat.
Unlike the Philippines, as of 1945 Puerto Rico was in the same status with the other US territories as lacking any level of devolved competencies of sovereignty. Upon the 1952 passage of our “commonwealth”, the foreign affairs and defence status suffered absolutely no change. We gained Home Rule for purely domestic administration purposes. Contrary to common perception, our “commonwealth” is not de-jure a quasi-independence: it’s a quasi-statehood.
It has been historically the norm for the US that the Territories be legally and politically inferior to the States, so they would not seek to give us a standing that they could not give a State.
The UN in 1953 took Puerto Rico off the list of colonies that metropolitan powers have to report on, based on the US representing that the new constitution meant the process of decolonization was under way. Had they gone in with that presentantion in 1963, they would have probably been refused.
In the case of the Philippines, in 1934, the US government passed a law, the Tydings-McDuffie Act, which told the Philippine legislature to write and pass a constitution for the Commonwealth of the Philippines, to take effect once it’s passed, and that in 10 years in 1944, the Philippines would be granted complete independence. Obviously, they missed that date due to exigent circumstances, but, the idea was to grant independence as soon as possible afterwards.
I am not sure what you mean by that (or if it is meant to be some sort of joke), but the United Nations is still going strong and has been a reasonable success in terms of its relatively unambitious aims. After all, there has not been another “world war” since it was set up. Certainly, however, if the Soviet Union had been excluded from it, it would have have been an utterly pointless organization and a complete failure.
Stalin’s original demand was for each of the SSRs to have it’s own seat at the UN; Truman countered with a demand for each of the 48 states of the Union to have their own memberships. Giving the USSR 2 extra seats to assign to 2 of it’s SSRs was a compromise. The US was also allowed to grant 2 states memberships, but that was never acted upon.
Well it’s been 8 years, but I’m pretty sure I originally mean to type “without the USSR”. :smack:
. Also the Soviet Union suffered the most casualties of the major Allied Powers, and with the USSR the United Nations was doomed to failure.