Statement by Ambassador Vassily A. Nebenzia, Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations, at the Security Council meeting on purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations in the maintenance of international peace and security
I am pleased to see you, Sir, presiding over the Security Council. We know the significance of today’s date and that it coincides with a momentous occasion.
We are also grateful to the two Secretary-Generals for their participation in today’s meeting. I am very happy to see Mr. Ban Ki-moon among us. We thank you, Mr. President, for organizing today’s meeting.
The topic that you have proposed is extremely relevant within the context of the current state of international relations and the role that the United Nations and Security Council play in that regard. The purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations — the independence and sovereign equality of States, non-interference in their internal affairs, and the peaceful settlement of disputes — represent the basis for neighbourly relations among States and their mutually beneficial and constructive cooperation for the benefit of all.
Unfortunately, throughout the history of the United Nations, the world has witnessed numerous examples of open disregard for the Charter, right up to the illegal use of force, blatant interference in the affairs of States, destruction by outsiders of traditional social principles, violent regime change and the imposition of alien cultural and social norms. In order to achieve those ends, we often see the manipulation of concepts such as the responsibility to protect, the rule of law, human rights up front and other intrusive instruments that do not necessarily enjoy consensus support. As a result, the burden on the Security Council, which is responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security, never lessens. Conflict situations, often provoked from outside, arise with remarkable regularity.
At the same time, however, instead of efforts to solve all these problems together, through professional dialogue based on mutual respect and equality, we often see the artificial pumping up of an atmosphere of tension and mistrust. Instead of collective action, we see unilateral measures, economic pressure and threats, including threats of force, none of them methods that are compatible with international law and order. The reason, as we see it, is quite clear. Some states are finding it difficult to accept the obvious fact that the era of the Cold War, along with the world’s post-bipolar stage, is over.
The world is in the process of establishing a new, more just, democratic, polycentric world order. Its essence lies in the emergence and strengthening of new centres of economic power and political influence. The fact is that this multipolarity is the embodiment of the cultural and civilizational diversity of the modern world, of peoples’ desire to determine their own destiny and of their natural yearning for fairness. We should be reconciled to the fact that States want to build their own lives without others’ prompting or unsolicited advice.
Incidentally, I would like to remind Mrs. Haley that there is no regime in Russia. What we have is a legally elected President and appointed Government. I would like to ask the United States delegation to observe at least the most basic diplomatic conventions in future. And, also incidentally, Syria is also a legal Government, whether one likes it or not.
We have seen Yugoslavia and Libya bombed in gross violation of international law and Security Council resolutions and the occupation of Iraq on false pretences. No one took responsibility for any of those criminal acts, despite the international criminal tribunals established by the Council and the experiments whereby cases were transferred to outside structures that preferred to turn a blind eye, shamefully, to all of this, whether the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia or the International Criminal Court.
The chaos sown in the Middle East and North Africa enabled the rise of international terrorism and led to the creation of Al-Qaida, the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, and Jabhat Al-Nusra. Ultimately, the world found itself up against an entire terrorist quasi-State that has brought terror and incalculable suffering. Its final defeat, at enormous cost, has yet to be achieved. And at the same time the question of Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity continues to be a bargaining chip in the geopolitical aspirations of a slew of external players.
The chaos created in Libya has severely exacerbated the terrorist threat in Africa. When we recall where this crisis originated and who brought democracy to that country with its bombs, they look away in shame. We must consider the consequences of our actions, not live by slogans. We must settle protracted crises and conflicts such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, not provoke more and more new ones. Open incitement from outside led to unconstitutional regime change in Ukraine and the rampant spread of nationalism and neo-Nazism, and to internal armed conflict and huge numbers of casualties in the southeastern regions of the country.
Why, I wonder, did we not hear at the time, in 2014, about the importance of conflict prevention, a subject that is so popular today with a number of delegations? By the way, this very day, 21 February, marks the fourth year since President Viktor Yanukovych and the leaders of the opposition signed an agreement on a political settlement in Ukraine. I would like to remind the Council that the agreement was defied by the opposition members who seized power in Kyiv the very next day, with the silent acquiescence of its guarantors.
Russia has a direct interest in ending the conflict in Ukraine as soon as possible and is ready to do everything in its power to achieve that. We are working actively in the contact group in Minsk, in the Normandy format, and we have put forward various initiatives in the Security Council. However, while Kyiv continues to sabotage the Minsk process and sell the world its story of what is happening in Ukraine, and while the Kyiv authorities continue to exploit the support of their patrons, there is little hope for constructive developments.
Today we are witnessing a new phenomenon, on a historically unprecedented scale, of indiscriminate accusations of countries’ interference in internal affairs and processes. That is a very convenient way of justifying unlawful acts without bothering to produce evidence, and at the same time making the world forget about one’s persistent interference in the affairs of sovereign States.
I would like to remind the Council that in December of last year the General Assembly adopted resolution 72/172, on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, which clearly outlines the inadmissibility of interference in the internal affairs of sovereign States, the non-recognition of coups d’état as a method of regime change, and the necessity of banishing attempts to exert unlawful pressure, including the extraterritorial application of national legislation, from international relations. An overwhelming majority of the States Members of the United Nations voted in favour of the resolution.
It is time to start implementing it, to reject double standards and show a genuine commitment to the system-defining principles of the Charter of the United Nations, which is more essential than ever in today’s increasingly complex international relations. Today a great deal has been said about eastern Ghouta and about the concerns that Member States and the Secretary-General himself have expressed about the situation there. We have a concrete proposal.
We would like to ask the presidency to convene an open meeting of the Security Council tomorrow to discuss the situation in eastern Ghouta. I think that it is essential, in view of the concerns that we have heard today and so that all sides can present their views and understanding of the situation and propose solutions to it.
