Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations

Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations

Statement by Mr.Dmitry Polyansky, First Deputy Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations, at the Security Council on Understanding and addressing climate-related security risks

We thank Deputy Secretary-General Amina Mohammed, as well as today’s briefers, Mr. Hassan Janabi, Minister of Water Resources of Iraq, and Ms. Hindou Ibrahim, the representative of the International Indigenous Peoples’ Forum on Climate Change. We would like to welcome President Waqa of Nauru and to acknowledge the great significance that climate change holds for his country.

Russia also considers this issue extremely important. We are one of the leaders of the international climate process, both because of our contribution to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions and our efforts to universalize the regime on climate change under the auspices of the United Nations Frameworks Convention on Climate Change.

My country is making active use of innovative approaches based on introducing cutting-edge technologies. My statement may not be in tune with those of other Security Council members before me today. That said, however, I have to say that we are disappointed about today’s Council meeting, and not because we object to collective efforts to combat climate change. Quite the contrary. We refuse to be reconciled to the fact that in our view today’s meeting is yet another attempt to link the issue of preserving the environment to threats to international peace and security.

Regrettably, we are creating the illusion among those who follow our work that the Council is now taking on the climate issue and that will immediately bring about a turning point. That is a dangerous illusion and a clear deception. In various countries and regions, attempts are being made to ascribe a worsening socioeconomic and political situation to the climate factor.

The resulting conclusion is that climate change is a threat to security generally, and yet those who promulgate that idea do not as a rule make the effort to bring scientifically sound, specific details to bear or clear explanations of the notions of security, conflict, threats or stability as they relate to the climate issue. These words are used in a very general sense while demanding that we recognize highly abstract connections.

Such actions not only do not help anyone, they mislead everybody and distract the Council from dealing with issues where it can make a genuine contribution to the quest for the right solution. I will say it again. While we believe that climate change is a grave threat to us all, the Council has neither the specialized expertise nor the tools to put together viable solutions for effectively combating climate change.

I am once again obliged to point out that climate change is not a universal challenge in the context of international security but should rather be addressed with regard to the specifics of each situation. Besides that, the role of the United Nations is to give support to States, which have the primary responsibility for responding to security challenges within their national borders and for independently determining strategies for that.

Our international Organization should adhere strictly to the principle of the division of labour in its work and in the understanding that each of the main United Nations organs should operate within its area of responsibility. The basis for introducing climate issues in the Security Council is frequently the premise that climate change is a so-called threat multiplier and a catalyst for acts of violence.

If we are so principled about this, why are we always silent during the discussions initiated on this pretext about a no less serious aspect of the issue, the damage to the environment that results from violent military operations and unilateral sanctions, a glaring example of which have been the bombings of Yugoslavia, Libya and Syria by Western coalitions? It is strange, to say the least, that no speakers today have expressed concern about the massive environmental damage that such action inflicts, not to mention the colossal harm to the health of the citizens of those countries. It is no secret that NATO’s bombing of the territory of the former Yugoslavia using munitions with radioactive compounds, chiefly depleted uranium, that pollute the environment, spawned a surge in cancers and had an adverse impact on the general and reproductive health of the population living in the affected areas, which to this day still need decontamination and rehabilitation.

The situation following the Libyan venture has been equally tragic. The NATO rocket strikes and bombings of its oil infrastructure, as well as the operations by armed opposition groups supported by the West in the vicinity of oil enterprises, led to their partial or total destruction, colossal fires and pollution of the atmosphere with the burning of oil and petroleum by-products. I should not omit to point out that the ongoing illegal presence of Western coalition forces on Syrian territory is an obstacle to the restoration of Government control throughout the country and therefore to the implementation of its national legislative norms on the use of natural resources, including environmental norms, and in general to restoring domestic activity in those areas, including household waste management. The situation is exacerbated by unilateral anti-Syrian sanctions that deprive the country of the possibility of buying the equipment and materials needed for environmentally safe industrial production.

An alarming situation is developing with regard to the work of the Donetsk water filtration station, which has been subject to regular shelling by Ukrainian armed forces. If the chlorine gas in its storage tanks leaks, it could be an environmental and humanitarian disaster. It is hard to believe that the initators of such actions were unaware of the negative consequences of environmental pollution by radioactive materials or the destruction of oil facilities. However, they continue to choose to pay no attention to it and are in no hurry to help to mitigate the damage that has been done. In that connection, we believe that issues of environmental pollution resulting from criminal military operations and illegal unilateral sanctions can be viewed as threats that at the very least are no less significant to the climate problem.

With regard to climate change, I want to say once again that the constant securitization, as it were, of this vital issue irreparably undermines the process of our joint quest to resolve it. This year there are plans to adopt guidelines for the implementation of the Paris Climate Change Agreement. At the same time, the member States of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change will discuss joint action and coordination on climate-related efforts in the Talanoa Dialogue Platform, whose founding principles are depoliticizing climate discussions, preventing mutual blame-laying and striving to understand what we can get done by joining forces. We are just as eager as Ms. Hindou Ibrahim, in her emotional statement today, to ensure that climate change does not interfere with the lives of indigenous peoples. Russia is also helping small island States through its contributions to the United Nations Development Programme.

We are ready to help and are doing all we can to ensure that the collective efforts of the specialized entities and mechanisms can solve these problems, but it is clear that today’s discussion in the Council is taking the issue in the exact opposite direction, to speculations on the climate issue and its exploitation to solve purely political problems, impose one-sided standards and abandon practical action for demagoguery and public-relations posturing.

We believe it is essential to allow all the United Nations mechanisms related to combating climate change to do their work in peace, without creating artificially intersecting approaches that merely obstruct the advancement of our shared interests. Only through joint practical action, conducted through the existing expert formats, can we achieve our aim of preserving the global climate in the interests of the current and future generations of humankind.