Statement by Mr. Vladimir Safronkov, Deputy Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations, at the Security Council on the Middle East
First of all, we convey our deep condolences to the Permanent Representative of Sweden to the United Nations following the tragedy that took place in Stockholm.
On the night of 7 April, the United States carried out an attack on the territory of sovereign Syria. We describe that attack as a flagrant violation of international law and an act of aggression. We strongly condemn the illegitimate actions by the United States, whose consequences for regional and international stability could be extremely serious. The attack was a flagrant violation of the 2015 memorandum on preventing air incidents and ensuring security during operations in Syrian airspace. The Russian Ministry of Defence has stopped its cooperation with the Pentagon under that memorandum.
In recent times, the United States Administration has often talked about the need to combat international terrorism, and that provided the justification for American troops and their allies being present on Syrian soil, although they were there without the invitation of the legitimate Government of Syria and without the approval of the Security Council. Manipulating Articles of the Charter of the United Nations is beyond any criticism. The aggression by the United States has merely served to strengthen terrorism. The attack was directed at Syrian armed forces infrastructure and its air force. In other words, it was directed at those, who over all these years, have been involved in the fight against terrorism. It is not difficult to imagine how much terrorists’ spirits were raised after the attack by Washington.
Immediately following the attack, major attacks were perpetrated by the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant and the Al-Nusra Front against Syrian military sites. Once again, we repeat that the Syrian armed forces will continue to be the main anti-terrorist entity of the Syrian Arab Republic. Who will combat terrorism? Will it be the illegal armed groups that have entered Syria by the hundreds of thousands? Iraqi and Libyan military bases have been destroyed, and look at what then happened. Such actions are contrary to international decisions, including the Geneva communiqué (S/2012/522, annex), which we all played a part in designing. The communiqué includes references to settlement, while ensuring that national institutions remain intact. Are those actions the way to ensure sustainability?
The Russian Federation, from the tribune of the United Nations, has stated the need to establish an international coalition to combat terrorism, which would be based on international law. On many occasions, we have sent signals to Washington about our readiness to undertake such cooperation. As we see it, Washington has chosen a different path. We must recall that unilateral actions lead to reprehensible and tragic consequences for region and its inhabitants. Think about the consequences and remember the outcome of United States actions in the Middle East. Think about the steps it has taken and their impact on the process to bring about a political settlement in Syria. Unfortunately, today’s appeal to move forward the political process after the military attack shows its hypocrisy. With regard to the Astana and Geneva tracks, clear progress has been made in recent days. What goals guided the United States when it undermined that progress, especially given that the progress achieved was no thanks to the United States at all.
Returning to the use of chemical weapons as a pretext yet again, the United States, the United Kingdom and France put forward a draft resolution (S/2017/172) that was quite erroneous in its very logic. The logic behind predetermining that Damascus was guilty was deeply flawed. What about the gold standard of the presumption of innocence? Why do they apply it in their own capitals but forget about it when it pertains to the Middle East and or to other regions? Why do the capitals of those countries forget that principle when it pertains to the Middle East and or to other regions? Why do they forget the presumption if innocence in such cases? All of that is taking place because Washington, London and Paris — I have spoken about this topic in closed consultations and would like to reiterate it — are paranoid about overthrowing the legitimate Government in sovereign Syria. That was clearly shown by non-diplomatic actions and the statements made by the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom, Mr. Rycroft. Stop putting forward such unprofessional arguments and levelling accusations against my country; they fly in the face of diplomacy. They are all lies. Once again, I warn them not teven try to sow the seeds of discord between us and the Arab world. Nothing will work or be achieved. That is why they are becoming annoyed. All Arab countries recall the colonial hypocrisy.
In his statement, Ambassador Rycroft tried to divert the attention from the core issue. Once again it did not work. That is why I would like to recall exact events. Those who put forward this initiative are in no way interested in an impartial investigation by a competent international body to determine exactly what took place in Khan Shaykhun. In addition, I would also state that they fear such an investigation. They are afraid of a genuinely independent investigation. What would happen if the outcome of that investigation were to contradict their anti-Government paradigm? They feared investigations into the events in Khan al-Asal, then in eastern Ghouta and now in Khan Shaykhun.
With regard to Khan Shaykhun, the Permanent Representative of the United States stated that there is credible evidence from the United States intelligence services who claimed that Syrian Government forces used chemical weapons. We said, “Show us, and experts will determine whether or not that was the case”. I would recall that General Powell talked in this very Chamber about chemical weapons and weapons of mass destruction, which were not found (see S/PV.4701).
Let us work together as professionals, and not issue ultimatums. We are living in a very complex and multipolar world, and we cannot live like this. Russia has proposed a constructive alternative to its partners in the Security Council. They just didn’t have a trump card or a winning alternative. They have not put forward any professional alternative or good arguments to us. Our initiative was specifically based on the appeal for specialists, chosen on a geographical basis by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) Fact-finding Mission and the United NationsOPCW Joint Investigative Mechanism on chemical weapons in Syria to visit the site where this incident took place in Khan Shaykhoun, as well as neighbouring areas, as soon as possible, in order to carry out a professional investigation.
All Syrian parties were asked to grant these expets immediate access to where the events took place. It is not irrelevant to recall that the Syrian Government does not control that area of Idlib province. Supported from aborad, military groups that are closely linked to Al-Nusra Front terrrorist units rule over those territories, and they have things to hide, including in the context of chemical weapons. But some are trying to back them again, as they backed notorious bandits in eastern Aleppo. However, everything became clear once Aleppo was freed. It is no coincidence that the many complaints of the Syrian Government related to the massive entry of chemical weapons into the country, their warehousing by extremists in special warehouses and their use against the army and civilians have simply been ignored — or it has been considered for month after month with comtempt and without any outcome.
The OPCW Fact-finding Mission does not work in a conscientious manner. It prefers to be guided in its work by statements from opposition groups, Internet blogs, social networks and a whole range of non-governmental organizations of highly dubious reputation. They do not even look at information and evidence from areas where the incidents took place. And they want us to agree with that information? It is not even worth looking at.
In our draft resolution we also set out the need to establish a geographical balance with regard to staffing the investigation group. That is an important point, which has a direct bearing on the issue of impartiality and trust. Thus far, the Fact-finding Mission was usurped by representatives from a single country that is in the forefront of anti-Damascus parties.
Proof of blatant double standards includes ignoring the chemical attacks carried out by terrorists in the Middle East as a whole. In that regard, members could recall the recent events in Mosul, Iraq. Where was the international community’s reaction? Where was their warning — first and foremost, of those who carried out this headline-grabbing public action in regard to Khan Shaykhoun? Are these victims of a different category? Are they perhaps second-rate victims? Why do we not see in their countries’ headlines the tragedy in the besieged town of Mosul? We are talking about hundreds of thousands of people.
Thus is the attack in Syria an attempt to distract attention from the many victims among the peaceful populations in Iraq and Syria caused by unilateral actions, including attacks on homes and other civilian targets. There are no properly working Hhumanitarian corridors. Let us recall the little girl from Mosul named Hawra. No one said anything at all about this little girl, who became a symbol of this tragedy: everyone in her house was killed when a coalition bomb fell on her house. Thank God, the little girl lived. She had to fight for her life, but is now out of danger. However, she is almost blind. We will not set up a cynical show and hold up photographs here in the Chamber. But people must know about the Mosul tragedy.
Do not tell me that we are trying to draw attention away from Syria when we talk about Mosul. That is a lie. Those who know our position on this will know that this is a shameless lie. We do not want to draw anyone’s attention from anything, in particular from what terrorists are doing. We merely want to say that if we are fighting terrorism, we should do it on the basis of single standards and not by dividing parties into good and bad, allies and foes. Let me say once again that no one should try to set us at odds with Iraq. No one will be able to ruin our relations that country. They should look at our relations with Iraq, as opposed to their own.
The 10 non-permanent members of the Security Council did try to find compromise last evening during the consultations we called for. They thanked the American delegation for the fact that voting had been postponed. However, there really was nothing to thank them for. Our colleagues did not even imagine that the decision was made with totally different ideas in mind. It certainly was not with the idea of continuing constructive and conciliatory dialogue. Washington had already chosen to take military action, which took place with members barely having left the United Nations building. We call upon the United States immediately to cease its aggression and to join the efforts being made towards a political settlement in Syria, as well as to work together to combat the terrorist threat. We are still prepared to engage in such cooperation.
We have heard many insulting words today with regard to our right to the veto — our right. We have won it and have exercised it in a responsible manner, but we use it only in such circumstances when others in the Security Council try to impose their irresponsible geopolitical projects. The Council must develop agreed international decisions. Reckless geopolitical schemes will never be supported.
Заявление МИД России в связи с вооруженной акцией США в Сирии 7 апреля 2017 года
I take the floor again only to say that I would like to ask the representatives of the United States and other countries not to insult my country. They have absolutely no moral right to do so. We do not behave in that way ourselves.
I would simply like to say that Ambassador Haley, who has only just taken up her post here, has a real chance, both as Permanent Representative of the United States and as the current President of the Security Council, to restore the collective work of the Security Council to a healthy state. But that will not happen if she claims a national point of view to be an absolute truth. We would first like to ensure that our work in the Council is mutually respectful.
