Statement by Ambassador Vassily A. Nebenzia, Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations, at the Security Council meeting on the Middle East
I had wanted to congratulate you, Mr. President, on beginning your duties on 9 January, at our first regular Security Council meeting of the new year, but the United States delegation has left me no choice but to do it today. That also applies to the Council’s new members, whom I am glad to see in the Chamber.
I hope our collaboration will be close and productive. I would also like to thank those of my colleagues who have just left the Council whom I also see here today.
Today, unfortunately, we are once again witnesses to the misuse of the forum of the Security Council by the United States. Why is the United States, a permanent member of the Security Council and one of the authors of the Charter of the United Nations, undermining the authority of the Council as the principal organ responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security? After all, it is obvious to anyone that the subject of today’s meeting does not correspond to the Council’s prerogatives under the Charter. And the references made today to Article 34 of the Charter with regard to the situation are completely inappropriate. That should be obvious to anyone reading Article 34 again.
We have repeatedly drawn attention to the impermissibility of using contrived pretexts for including purely internal political matters on the agenda. Why has the United States resorted to this ploy today, when the internal situation in Iran is already being normalized? Incidentally, we should thank Washington for that, considering that its energetic messages of encouragement and motivation to the people of Iran have gone a long way to helping to unite Iranian society on a basis of anti-American feeling. It would seem that an irrational allergy to Iran has blinded the United States to what is actually going on there, replacing reality with wishful thinking.
Needless to say, we deplore the loss of life that has resulted from the less than peaceful protests. But let Iran itself deal with its own problems, particularly since this is happening now. The Council’s energy is being dissipated. Instead of directing it towards resolving the serious crisis situations in Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Iraq, Yemen, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Africa, the United States is proposing to interfere in the internal affairs of States. But we do not want to participate in the destabilization of Iran or anywhere else. We would do better to conduct an objective assessment of the situation with regard to a settlement in the Middle East, including of the question of Palestine.
If we were to persist in this logic, we would have had to convene a Security Council meeting after the notorious events in Ferguson, Missouri, or when violent methods were used to drive out the Occupy Wall Street movement in Manhattan. Or perhaps we should call a Council meeting when some Western country experiences a wave of demonstrations? We do not have to delve very deeply into history to cite many examples that have resulted from shortsighted actions involving interference in internal affairs and attempts to change objectionable regimes and impose recipes for democracy.
Unfortunately, owing to numerous instances of violations and disregard for the founding principles of the Charter — such as the independence and sovereign equality of States, non-interference in their internal affairs and the peaceful settlement of disputes — the situation in many Middle Eastern countries that until recently were stable has become a horror. The occupation of Iraq on an openly false pretext, the results of which are still a heavy burden to the people of Iraq to this day; the crude manipulation of the Security Council’s mandate unleashing destruction and unremitting chaos in Libya; the methodical incitement to internecine strife in Syria and flirtations with terrorists there; the war in Yemen — all of those gaping wounds will continue to remind us of the pernicious ideology of geopolitical engineering and attempts to control the destinies of other States and peoples.
However, they prefer not to remember such things, and when we recall them, to pretend that they have nothing to do with them. We are sometimes asked why we maintain a cautious approach to the concept of the prevention of violent extremism. The United States delegation’s attitude to what is going on in Iran is an apt example, because it illustrates the essence of our concerns. The source of the problems is said to be the suppression of peaceful protests and the cruel and undemocratic regime. Parallels are drawn with the events in Syria in 2011; a threat to international peace and security is declared; grounds are thereby established for the necessity of outside interferences in Iran’s internal affairs. In this way, the outline is laid down for the vision advanced by the United States and a number of other countries of violent extremism and its drivers.
Meanwhile, incitement from outside and calls for so-called changes can themselves contribute to radicalization and violence, whether in Iran or somewhere else. The real reason for convening today’s meeting comes not from efforts to protect the human rights and interests of the people of Iran but from a veiled attempt to exploit current events in order to continue the policy aimed at undermining the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) for resolving the situation regarding the Iranian nuclear programme.
Similar assessments of the current situation were voiced earlier in Berlin and Paris. In our view, deliberate attempts to weaken and undermine the international community’s adherence to the JCPOA are unacceptable, considering that it represents the fundamental achievement of the past few years in the area of nuclear non-proliferation and diplomatic efforts to preserve regional and international peace and security.
This is particularly true when the International Atomic Energy Agency has been consistently confirming Iran’s full compliance with its obligations. Instead, the United States continues to introduce unilateral restrictions that run directly counter to international law.
We continue to ask whether it has any means in its diplomatic toolkit other than sanctions. Instead of trying to involve the Council in interfering in States’ internal affairs, it would be a good ideal for the Council to support helpful initiatives for expanding the regional dialogue on security issues, in a framework that could enable answers to be found to many questions and concerns. Russia has proposed an initiative for establishing confidence-building measures in the Persian Gulf region.
The relevant provision of resolution 598 (1987), which directs the Secretary-General to formulate measures for security and stability in consultation with regional stakeholders, is still unfulfilled to this day. It would be helpful to consider the Secretary-General’s ideas for launching a political dialogue process for resolving existing differences between key countries of the region.
I would like to think that there will be no more meetings such as this one during your presidency, Sir, nor during the next, and that the Council will occupy itself with the work it is mandated to do under the Charter of the United Nations.
