Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations

Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations

Statement by Permanent Representative Vassily Nebenzia after the Procedural Vote to hold a UN Security Council Meeting on Ukraine

Mr. President,

We regret that a number of delegations resorted to double standards when discussing the Ukrainian issue in the UN Security Council. It is self-evident to us: you do not like this topic because it does not let you justify your protégés in Kiev. A coarse violation of rights and freedoms of millions of Ukrainian citizens is way too explicit.

We cannot accept a number of arguments we heard which say delegations should need more time to study the document. This is run-arounds and slyness. The text of the Ukrainian law has been in free access since autumn 2018. It has long been established that it threatens Kiev’s compliance with obligations under the Minsk Agreements. This is why a number of politicians and international officials have already spoken about this document, e.g. distinguished Mr.Zannier who has been invited to participate today and who, apparently, will have no opportunity to present his position. This issue directly falls into his competence. Moreover, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe already discussed this law (May 2).

Finally, it is extremely strange to hear that allegedly the Ukrainian document was not translated into English. I recall no such remarks when the Council gathered the next day after President of Russia V.Putin signed the Decree on issuing passports for the people of Donbass. What did you do back then? Did you criticize a document you had never read?

It might seem: what is the connection between language and the Security Council? The direct one. We thought it was necessary to convene this meeting because the final steps made by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and the outgoing President, P.Poroshenko, who leaves his office in shame, expressly undermine the letter and spirit of the Minsk Agreements, endorsed by UN Security Council resolution 2202. In fact, the issue with language rights was one of the key reasons why Ukraine had lost the Crimea and why the conflict in Donbass had started.

On May 15, P.Poroshenko played another mean trick on his successor by signing a decree that should enact the law “On ensuring the functioning of the Ukrainian language as the national language”. Shortly before that, the Verkhovna Rada had passed it and had rejected the lion’s share of amendments that aimed to somehow civilize this nationalist “masterpiece”. The law violates the Constitution of Ukraine and multiple international commitments, according to which Kiev guarantees that rights of national minorities be observed. This step raised immense concern of Russian-speaking Ukrainians, who, during the recent elections, rejected point blank the policy of the previous Ukrainian president who deliberately provoked and cultivated enmity against Russia. Let me remind that Russian is a language almost everyone in Ukraine speaks and understands. The most conservative estimates say that Russian is a native language for more than one third (in reality the rate is much higher) of Ukraine’s residents. Among them – both the outgoing and the elected presidents.

The Maidan authorities tried hard, however over five years they failed to oust Russian from the domain of public (let alone private) communication. Inhabitants of the South and East of the country were particularly sensitive to this, because they still had hope that while living in a “renewed Ukraine” they would have an opportunity to keep their identity, continue to teach Russian to their children, use it at home and in state and municipal authorities. These hopes clearly showed as people living in those regions voted in favor of V.Zelensky who, unlike the outgoing head of State, was not afraid of speaking Russian. He did it again during today’s inauguration, where he spoke against attempts to split the Ukrainian society based on language.

Fight against the Russian language and the Russian culture, desire to ruin the all-encompassing bonds between the two brother-nations have become a “signature line” of the former Kiev regime. The Maidan authorities based their policy on total rejection of anything that was Russian and of any connection to Russia. They defied our common descent from the one Old-Russian origin, whereby Kiev was considered “the mother of all Russian cities”. We were told that we “stole and appropriated Ukraine’s history”, that Ukrainians and Russians were not brother-nations, that they were absolutely different, that Ukraine for many centuries had lived under “Moscovia’s” occupation. They condemned the Soviet regime which, let me remind, created Ukraine in its today’s borders. We listened to phantasmagoric stories about ancient Ukrs who originated 45 thousand years ago and were older than any other ancient civilization – Sumerian, Egyptian, Mycenaean, Indus, Greek, Roman, etc. We listened to it and chuckled; we thought it was about nationalist froth and people with borderline psychological conditions.

Alas, as of today, these ideas are official ideology. They build historical and philosophical doctrine of Kievan power establishments and social studies institutions.

It was hasty decisions and statements made by nationalist MPs in the Verkhovna Rada in 2014 that provoked centrifugal trends in the Crimea that lead to a referendum about reunification with Russia. The reluctance of the Maidan authorities to have dialogue with Donetsk and Luhansk became the initial cause of war in Donbass, because in response to people’s appeal to listen to their voice, the authorities surged shells and bullets on their heads.

 

After the intervention by the representative of Great Britain:

Mr. President,

I would like to ask a rhetoric question to my British colleague: What are the criteria allowing you to decide if my statement is substantial or explanatory of the vote? I consider it explanation of my vote and I ask for your permission, Mr. President, to continue. Thank you.

 

What will the Russian-speaking Ukrainians have to deal with after the new law have been enacted? I tell you frankly: they will face total violent Ukrainization of public life. After some time they will be able to speak Russian only for private communication or for religious worship.

The implementation of the law will be monitored by the Commissioner for protection of the state language, who will have a broad range of control functions. He or she will be able to interfere in activities of public organizations and political parties by demanding internal acts to prove compliance with the new rules. Draconian responsibility measures will be introduced. I mean large administrative fines for law violations. To take care of the language of the titular nation is a responsibility of power in any country. However, let us call a spade a spade: right before our eyes Ukraine is introducing language inquisition.

If you believe this is normal, the Russian-speaking Ukrainians do not. They cannot be satisfied with this situation, which puts a “time bomb” on all efforts to bring back stability and social accord to our neighbor State, the thing that the new President has repeatedly called for.

Russia believes necessary to bring what is happening in Ukraine to the attention of our colleagues in the Security Council, because in fact the Council is a guarantor of the Minsk Agreements; it is responsible for sides’ compliance. What we are talking about now is a measure that expressly runs counter to para.11 of the Minsk Package that stipulates the right of the people in certain areas of Donetsk and Luhansk regions to language self-determination. It has not been a month since in this very room everyone criticized the decision of Russia’s President to simplify nationality procedures for the inhabitants of these regions, in spite of the fact that this step by no means contradicts the Minsk Agreements. Whereas today we have to do with a direct, rather than a speculative attack on “Minsk”.

Moreover, the new Ukrainian law buries Kiev’s compliance with other provisions of the Minsk Package. For example, para.8 on promoting social and economic development of the Eastern regions; para.5 that prohibits the prosecution and punishment of persons in connection with the events in Donbass.

In addition to that, the law blatantly violates the Constitution of Ukraine, in particular:

  • Part 2, Art.10 stipulating that “in Ukraine, the free development, use and protection of Russian, and other languages of national minorities of Ukraine, is guaranteed”;
  • Art.11 stipulating that “the State promotes the development of cultural, linguistic and religious identity of all indigenous peoples and national minorities of Ukraine";
  • Art.22 stipulating that “the content and scope of existing rights and freedoms shall not be diminished in the adoption of new laws or in the amendment of laws that are in force”;
  • Art.24 stipulating that “citizens have equal constitutional rights and freedoms and are equal before the law, i.a. based on linguistic characteristics”;

Apart from that, the law violates Article 6 of the law of Ukraine “On National Minorities” that stipulates an opportunity to be educated in native languages in state educational establishments.

I also cannot but say that the Ukrainian law that was not subject to examination of the Venice Commission, does not fit into basic European standards.

It would be interesting to avail of the opportunity and ask our Belgian colleagues: how would you react if Brussels for some reason banned French or Flemish in your country? What would be the reaction to this in Paris or The Hague? Or, say, how would our German colleagues behave if German happened to be outlawed in Switzerland? Or can we imagine that Swedish ceased to be legitimate in Finland, where about 10 % of the population speak it?

I give these examples, which are absurd in terms of our shared values, because I want you to realize the degree of disappointment and despair that Russian-speaking Ukrainians feel now. The adoption of the law impedes achievement of peace and public accord inside the country, and lead to undue polarization of peoples inhabiting Ukraine. To say nothing of the fact that for a country that claims to meet the highest European standards such steps are unacceptable.

Against this background, the reasons why the Crimeans made their historic choice in favor of Russia become even more pronounced. By making such choice, they preserved opportunity to use the Russian language, which is native for the overwhelming part of the Crimea’s population. By the way, the Ukrainian and Tatar languages are also national in the Crimea, so the representatives of these communities, no matter how small numbered they are, have no problems preserving their identity.

I suggest that we should give a non-hypocritical and uncomfortable but a fair assessment to the Ukrainian law and the “language inquisition” that it establishes. We should do it in order to stop public and political situation in Ukraine from degrading, because it creates risks of civil confrontation not only in the East, but throughout the entire area of the country.

And one last thing, Mr.President. Even though we did not have a full-fledged discussion of the requested item, we do not feel disappointed. By attempting to prevent the discussion, dear sirs, you demonstrated once again how hypocritical you are when it comes to raising the issue of Ukraine in the Security Council – which you often call us to do. You sensed that today’s topic would be unpleasant for your Ukrainian protégés because it would show the true goals of the outgoing leadership, namely: to sow hostility between Russians and Ukrainians, draw a deep dividing line between the two brother-nations. Thus you proved once again in front of the whole world that you have no interest either in Ukraine or in Ukrainians. You are only interested in geopolitical goals and look for chances to pinch Russia. Well, let me thank you from the bottom of my heart for this obvious demonstration of double standards.

Thank you. 

 

After the intervention by the representative of Germany:

We witnessed an attempt to introduce censorship. Methods chosen for that do not, to our mind, help maintain business environment in the Council. That is for one thing. Then, I have no illusions whatsoever that I will persuade my German colleague as to who does and does not implement the Minsk Agreements. Anyway, he will present it the way he sees it, and apparently he sees everything through this hourglass that is not here today but that still slightly distorts his perspective. I want to ask one question and make one comment. The question will be a rhetoric one, because the answer is self-evident. I would like to ask the Permanent Representative of Germany: Where in my statement did I intimidate President Zelensky? The Permanent Representative of Germany must have been inattentive to what I was saying. On the contrary, I said that regarding the question that we submitted for consideration today, President Zelensky appears to have the common sense his predecessor totally lacked. My second point is, we have taken notice of remarks of some delegations. They said, in their view, today’s discussion was untimely, but they also said nothing hindered us from discussing it in due time. Therefore, we reserve our right to get back to this issue when the right time comes. I should imagine the it will come when the law enters into force. Thank you for proposing this time.

Thank you, Mr. President.