Statement by Dmitry Polyanskiy, First Deputy Permanent Representative of Russia to the UN, at the "Arria formula" VTC of UNSC members "Human rights in Belarus"
Mr. Minister,
We are participating in a very strange meeting today. It has clearly nothing to do with the agenda of the Security Council as any “Arria Formula” meeting is supposed to be. In our Handbook on the working methods it is indicated, that “Arrias” are called on matters “which fall within the purview of responsibility of the Security Council”. Situation in Belarus clearly represents no threat to international peace and security.
Our meeting can’t be framed as a prevention either. Otherwise we would have to gather on tens or hundreds of situations annually whenever one of the parties that had lost elections refuses to accept defeat.
As for the internal situation in Belarus, we all saw footages of disturbing police actions when it was dispersing aggressive crowds endangering law and order in the country. No one, including Belorussian authorities, denied that these actions were not always appropriate. That’s why the Government and President of Belarus pledged to investigate such cases while maintaining calm in the streets and prosecuting those who use force against the law enforcement and incite violence. This is a regular scenario for a country that has government responsible for maintaining constitutional order. It is in no way different from what we see in many other parts of the globe – in France with “gilets jaunes” or in Berlin, where the protesters recently tried to break in Reichstag, or in our host country USA against violent protesters during “Black lives matter” gatherings. That happened in Bulgaria, where riot police two days ago forcefully dispersed aggressive crowds protesting for three months already.
But in all the above-mentioned situations we have not seen willingness to organize Arria Formula meetings and give the floor to the leaders of the protests. So why do we do it now? What is the logic behind such a move of the organizers? Will our next meeting be on police violence in the USA, with the leaders of the protest speaking in similar Arria format? Some of them asked for it – I will recall the demand of George Floyd’s brother to address the UN in July of this year.
Mr. Minister,
We listened carefully to Svetlana Tichanovskaya. We hear claims that she won the elections, but who has verified it? Is this a new reality when anyone could claim him-/herself an elected president? Is this a new “Guaido-type” scheme applicable to all the electoral situations the outcomes of which are not acceptable to certain countries?
The statements we heard did not refer to any imminent or even looming threat to international peace and security or to any planned military action by or against Belarus. So, is there a point for us gathering today and discussing internal Belarusian matters?
In fact, there is only one topic that is worth discussing today since we all gathered here, and it is flagrant interference of foreign powers, first and foremost western and southern neighbors of Belarus, in the country’s internal affairs with a clear aim of regime change.
These manipulations and pressure started even before the elections took place. It was at the end of July when President of Poland Andrzej Duda ordered mobilization of the country’s Armed Forces and even stated that Poland would be ready to take control of certain regions of Belarus which belonged to Poland at some point of history.
Immediately after the elections the high officials of Estonia, including you, Mr.Minister, as well as from Latvia and Lithuania, classified them as “fraudulent”. After the Baltic states, several European politicians, including Head of European diplomacy Josep Borel and President of the European Council Charles Michel, also labeled elections in Belarus as fraudulent.
Naturally, this assessment of immediate neighbors emboldened the protesters. How can you judge from abroad after just several hours whether elections were fraudulent or not? Especially while OSCE which is undergoing a profound crisis chose not to fulfill its obligations and ensure international monitoring of presidential elections in Belarus?
To be more clear on this issue: we heard the allegations that Belarus refused to let international observers into the country. Let me remind the facts. Minsk did invite OSCE to monitor the process. However the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) refused to accept the invitation claiming that it came too late. It was Office’s own decision not to send observers, though it displayed flexibility in similar cases with elections in Serbia (on June 21), Poland (June 28), North Macedonia (July 15) and Montenegro (August 30).
Mr. Minister,
Just a few days ago the three Baltic states introduced unilateral sanctions against Belarus. EU is also considering this. It means that instead of promoting internal dialogue with the authorities our European partners have clearly taken sides in this crisis. How after that can they seek to be intermediaries in its resolution? Especially when we all remember what happened in Ukraine after three EU foreign ministers deceived president Yanukovich in just a few hours after his signature of the agreement with the opposition?
Like in Ukraine in 2014, the threat of alleged “Russian intervention” was exploited to its utmost by our Western colleagues. On August 28 we heard Lithuanian Foreign Minister threatening journalists in Berlin that he “does not exclude Russia’s military invasion in Belarus”. In parallel Lithuania announced that it will grant visas to “all the oppressed Belarussians” and invited them to the country to study or as workforce. Yesterday this Minister claimed that Lithuania doesn’t interfere into internal affairs of Belarus, but will continue to help those Belorussian citizens that face danger. Are we expected to apply the same approach to Baltic States? Given that hundreds of thousands of Russian-speaking citizens face ethnic discrimination there?
We also know that several European countries, Baltic states and Poland being champions, already pledged multi-million dollar programs to finance social activity in Belarus – which in fact means sponsoring the regime change. In fact there is nothing new in this scheme, that could have caused indignation by any Western country, be it an object of the same efforts. It merely continues policy which has been in place vis-à-vis Belarus for many years.
Mr. Minister,
Since Ukrainian delegation is also participating today, I can’t help indicating that a lot of aggressive activities in Belarus are conducted from neighboring Ukraine, where a number of local well-known nationalists and neo-Nazi groups are involved (including Stepan Bandera Tryzub, S14, the National Corps and the Right Sector). These groups are actively provoking radical actions in Minsk and other cities, funding related events, and inciting those whom they consider promising extremist leaders to use force during the demonstrations in Belarussian capital. According to our information, there are camps for training such extremists in the Volyn and Dnepropetrovsk regions in Ukraine. We have evidence which we shared with our Belarussian colleagues that about 200 extremists, trained in Ukraine, are now in the Republic of Belarus. They offer Belarus a Maidan scenario which led Ukraine where it is now.
Mr. Minister,
What is it all of if not a direct interference into internal affairs of a UN Member State?
We see obvious double standards in this situation. We call on everyone to stop any interference in domestic affairs of Belarus, as well as imposing any political decisions or mediation upon this country and its leaders. It is of a principle importance for the country that the people of Belarus are given an opportunity to sort out internal political problems by themselves. We cannot imagine that the initiators of today’s meeting do not realize an obvious thing – attempts to internationalize situation in Belarus can only aggravate things and deepen diversities within the society.
Only Belarusians themselves should decide the fate of their country through peaceful and constructive political dialogue.
Thank you.
