Statement by Mr. Evgeniy Zagaynov, Deputy Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations, at the Security Council on maintenance of international peace and security: human rights and prevention of armed conflict
We too would like to thank the SecretaryGeneral for his participation in today’s discussion.
The promotion and protection of human rights, along with the maintenance of peace and security and development issues, are fundamental activities of the United Nations.My statement contains the same quote from the Charter of the United Nations that has just been cited by the Permanent Representative of Sweden. I am glad that our delegations consider it equally relevant today. However, I am not sure that the rest of my statement will coincide with the comments we have just heard.
Over the years, the Organization has developed and operated a vast toolkit for the protection and promotion of human rights. The Security Council has never been and is not now a part of that toolkit, and this must be borne in mind when the Security Council raises certain issues relating to human rights. During the entire period of the existence of the United Nations, the members of the Security Council have avoided including the topic of human rights protection in its agenda. That is not accidental.
Various aspects of the issue are indeed present in the work of the Council. They are periodically addressed during thematic or country discussions. However, the Security Council is not intended to fulfill the tasks of ensuring the observance of human rights and is not adapted to a substantive analysis of the situation in this sphere. It is an organ with unique powers to make decisions, including those providing for the use of force in situations that pose a threat to peace, a breach of peace or an act of aggression. Under this mandate, the Council cannot serve as a forum for discussions about human rights situations, wherever they may be.
No international human rights instrument provides for the imposition of any oversight or other functions by the Security Council in this field. We cannot agree with the assertion made in the concept note prepared for the meeting, according to which violations of human rights should be considered as an issue related to the primary responsibility of the Security Council for maintaining international peace and security, in accordance with the Charter.
The Council has only those powers with which member States endowed it. Seeking to go beyond those powers inevitably encroaches on the competence of States or other bodies of the United Nations system, each of which has its own tasks and role. The Security Council held meeting in August 2014 at which it adopted resolution 2171 (2014), on conflict prevention was adopted (see S/PV.7247). The permanent representative of the Russian Federation, Ambassador Churkin, commented on the discussion as follows:
“Based on some of the proposals we have heard, one could conclude that many of the bodies and structures of the United Nations could be eliminated, with the exception of the Security Council” (S/PV.7247, p. 20).
It seems that such a conclusion would be relevant and applicable to today’s meeting.
We share the fears of those who are concerned about the inclusion of human rights issues in the Security Council and how that inclusion might be an attempt, distorted through the lens of preventing risks to international peace and security, to acquire an instrument for exerting political and military pressure on other countries. The expansion of the human rights component within the Council will lead to further criticism. That criticism would be quite justified on the grounds of its going beyond its mandate, its politicization and the double standards in its work, which, in sum, undermines trust in the Security Council itself.
Conflict prevention is an important issue in the context of maintaining international peace and security. Indeed, without guaranteeing sustainable peace and security and successful conflict prevention, it is impossible to ensure respect for human rights. It is impossible to work effectively on the promotion and protection of such rights where blood is shed and civilians die. The prevention and settlement of armed conflict are the main prerequisites for correcting human rights situations, and not vice versa.
We do not share the approach of considering human rights violations as the main precondition for armed conflict or human rights protection as a key instrument for preventing them or as a panacea. Practice demonstrates otherwise. The goal of conflict prevention is completely contrary to interfering in the domestic affairs of countries and undermining their sovereignty, often under the pretext of protecting human rights. Such examples abound. In recent years, we have seen similar tragedies in Iraq, Libya and elsewhere. They result in serious crises, the destabilization of entire regions, a rise in terrorist threats and the creation of large areas of chaos and violence, where it is impossible to guarantee not only political and economic rights, but even the basic right to life.
The main responsibility for preventing armed conflicts and for promoting and protecting human rights lies with States. The goal of the United Nations is to foster cooperation that improves the international legal base and facilitates the establishment and development of the potential of State institutions, while respecting their sovereignty and the division of labour within the Organization itself. Our delegation supports the opinion that it is important to have goals for conflict prevention and for guaranteeing human rights. What we cannot accept, however, is the proposed interpretation of the link between them and far-reaching conclusions based on an artificial construct. In our opinion, the best contribution that the members of the Security Council could make to protect human rights is that of working effectively, in accordance with the Council’s mandate to guarantee international peace and security.
In conclusion, as usual, I would like to make some comments on the statement made by the representative of Ukraine. It was a good confirmation of our message that attempts would inevitably be made to politicize the Council’s debate on human rights and use it to achieve goals very different from the objectives of the discussion. It perpetuates the propaganda and information campaign against Russia and is aimed at implanting genuine hatred for everything Russiarelated in Ukraine, and is a clear illustration of the practice of double standards.
The Government of Ukraine has been seriously criticized by United Nations structures — including the Monitoring Mission, which the representative of Ukraine mentioned — and by non-governmental organizations for blatantly violating human rights. The relevant reports cite illegal arrests, forced disappearances, the torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners and sexual violence towards them, some cases of the authorities and radical nationalists pressuring the judiciary, a lack of progress in investigating the tragedies in Odessa and other atrocious crimes, with Ukrainian authorities conniving with radical nationalist groups, further restrictions on freedom of expression, the exclusion of the Russian language — which is a native language for million of Ukrainians — from the media, and imposing a genuine economic blockade in the eatern regions of the country. The list goes on, but the Ukrainian delegation preferred to remain silent on those facts.
With regard to Crimea, I would like to assure the Council that, fortunately, in that Russian region people are living peaceably and any issues relating to armed conflict are not at all relevant to Crimea. Equally irrelevant are the insinuations that were made about some human rights issues on the peninsual since its reunification with Russia. As for the Crimean Tatars, for more than 20 years of its independence Ukraine has done nothing to improve their situation, despite numerous recommendations from international human rights mechanisms. It is only now that Kyiv has become an active advocate of their rights at the international level, trying to use that issue to advance its own political agenda.
