Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations

Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations

Statement by Mr. Peter Iliichev, Deputy Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations at the Security Council meeting on maintenance of international peace and security

February 15, 2016


We welcome the convening of today’s discussion at the initiative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Madam President, as well as your personal presiding over this Council meeting. A useful discussion on the same theme took place a year ago on the initiative of China (see S/PV.7389). It demonstrated that almost no Member State remains indifferent to the issue. And as of today, the discussion is far from being exhausted.

The basic code of conduct for States in the world is provided by the compilation of principles and rules reflected in the Charter of the United Nations — such as the independence and sovereign equality of States, non-interference in their internal affairs, the peaceful settlement of disputes and the right of peoples to self-determination. Nobody, it would seem, calls into question the immutable nature of the principles of the Charter.

We are convinced that, today as well, many parties reaffirm their commitment to them. However, in practice those principles are not always upheld. Seventy years after the end of the Second World War, the basic principles that should serve as a backbone for the system of international relations are becoming for some an awkward obstacle and, consequently, are subject to various types of interpretations, or are simply circumvented. That inevitably leads to a situation in which States are experiencing the explosive situations that at the time created the conditions for world wars and which the founders of the United Nations wanted to exclude once and for all by creating a unified code of conduct for all.

Today we cannot turn a blind eye to what is happening as a result of undisguised interventions in the internal affairs of States through support for illicit changes of power or the forcible imposition of foreign cultural or social norms. We all clearly saw how, from the spark of popular unrest in Libya, through allegedly disinterested outside assistance, a fire was fuelled that destroyed the State, leaving in its place ashes and chaos. The same sort of illicit intervention, involving illegitimate air strikes or the provision of weapons to non-Government armed forces, led to a rise in violent extremism and radicalization in Syria, which eventually resulted in the emergence and strengthening of such terrible phenomena as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Sham.

The Russian delegation is seriously concerned about the most recent aggressive actions of the Turkish Government, the massive shelling in neighbourhoods of Syria on the border, as well as the possible movement into Syria of fresh groups of mercenaries who seek to join Jabhat Al-Nusra, Al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations. The consequences of the interventions in Libya and Syria are striking by virtue of their scale, as they have caused atrocious suffering to civilians, the desecration of the cultural heritage of humankind and unprecedented migrant flows.

We support the declared goal of today’s meeting, namely, the commitment to the inviolability of the purposes and principles of the Charter, a well as the effort to find ways to involve States in their effective implementation. We do indeed need to agree on how, on the basis of the Charter of the United Nations, joint risk management will be carried out in a context of increasingly complex international relations. We will not succeed in achieving that purpose without upholding the system of fundamental principles that I have mentioned.

Those endeavours should include decisive measures to do away with double standards in international politics and to strengthen the role of the Security Council as the primary body charged with agreeing on collective approaches, based on respect for the cultural and civilizational diversity of the contemporary world.

The past year, since the Security Council meeting in February 2015, has served to confirm that positive results can be achieved when members of the Council come together in the interests of finding consolidated positions in line with the purposes and principles of the Charter. That was the very foundation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action to ensure the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme, which allowed us to get rid of one of the most explosive sources of conflict in the Middle and Near East. The destruction of the Syrian chemical weapons arsenal was successfully carried out, important decisions were made regarding countering terrorism and its financing, and progress was achieved in the Syrian settlement. A new comprehensive Paris Agreement has been drawn up on the issue of climate change.

Today three delegations referred to the Ukrainian crisis. We think that blatant interference in the internal affairs of Ukraine took place through support from the outside aimed at undertaking an anti-constitutional coup d’état in 2014. There is well-known evidence of that: we might recall the brazenness of high-ranking American officials, sponsors of Kyiv, which was recently fully unmasked in the French documentary film entitled Ukraine: Masks of the Revolution. The coup led to a degradation in the statehood of the country, radicalization, an increase in nationalism and numerous casualties.

We would like to recall that, against the backdrop of that crisis, what happened in Crimea is what is envisaged by international law, including United Nations principles, namely, the right to exercise self- determination. According to the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States, that right can be realized, including through the establishment of a sovereign and independent State, the free association or integration with an independent State. It is noteworthy that a number of States that have called into question the legitimacy of the secession of Crimea said the opposite with regard to Kosovo.

As to the current conflict in Ukraine, it is unlikely to stop until the Government in Kyiv finds a common ground with all the political forces and regions of the country. We are ready assist in that effort in any way possible. An important step there would be strict compliance with the Minsk agreements, which, as we well know, Kyiv seems to have a problem with. The advantage of the Minsk agreements is their very specific nature, which leaves no room for their manipulation or arbitrary interpretation. That is the big headache for Kyiv, which is attempting to not implement them fully.

In the current context, when accuracy in the understanding of the principles of the Charter of the

United Nations and their inviolability often seems to be lost, we think that there is a need to clearly underscore our shared commitment to those provisions, for which there are no alternatives. We hope that that would help in preventing attempts to bring massive pressure to bear on sovereign States by imposing unilateral decisions and standards in the political, economic and ideological areas. The dictates of the present are that there is a need to establish a true democracy and the rule of law in international relations.

Some delegations today spoke about violations of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, baselessly accusing Russia of such actions. To ensure that such flights of fancy not give the wrong impression, may I just give a quick review of the most egregious cases of disregard for international law, including for the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, over the past decades, because clearly they have been forgotten about.

In 1964, the United Kingdom bombed the Yemeni city of Harib. The Security Council condemned that action in resolution 188 (1964), underscoring that reprisals were not compatible with the purposes and principles of the United Nations. In 1983, the United States invaded Grenada. In its resolution 38/7, the General Assembly called the United States actions “a flagrant violation of international law”. Many of us are probably aware that the President of the United States at the time reacted to the adoption of the resolution by saying that it would not spoil his appetite for breakfast. In 1986, the United States carried out an armed attack on Libya, which the General Assembly characterized as a violation of the Charter of the United Nations and international law. In 1989, the General Assembly called the United States incursion in Panama an out-and-out violation of international law.

Such violations have been repeatedly noted by the International Court of Justice, the primary judicial organ of the United Nations. For example, in its first historic decision in the 1947 case of Corfu Channel (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Albania), the Court recognized evidence of violations by the United Kingdom of the sovereignty of Albania. In its 1986 judgment in the well-known case of Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), the Court directly noted that the United States had violated the sovereignty of Nicaragua and the norms governing non-intervention in the internal affairs of States and the non-use of force. It is to be noted that the United States openly continued to carry out actions that the Court had qualified as violations of international law.

The attitude of unaccountability of the United States and its allies continues. I could cite other instances, such as the bombing of Yugoslavia and Iraq and the events of recent years in Libya and Syria, of which I spoke earlier. It would seem that a sense of their own exceptional status has long allowed certain States to place themselves above the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.