Statement by Permanent Representative Vassily Nebenzia at a UNSC Briefing on Nonproliferation and the DPRC
Point of order:
Madam President,
We wish to state for the record our principled disagreement with the Presidency’s decision to invite Ukraine to this meeting, as well as, under rule 39, the European Union and a representative of the Conflict Armament Research NGO
This month, the US Presidency – from the very first week up until today – has broken all dismal records in violating the established practices of the work of the Security Council, transforming the UNSC meetings into a politicized buffoonery. We have a strong impression that our American colleagues have forgotten that the UNSC is not a Democratic Party convention. What is necessary in this Chamber is to comply with the established rules in order to bolster the authority of the Security Council and ensure the effectiveness of its work.
For three weeks already, each day we have seen a number individuals show up at the Security Council meetings under rule 39, their competence is, to put it mildly, dubious, and they are blatantly advancing Washington's political playbook. Moreover, we learn about these individuals only on the very eve of the meetings, which prevents any discussion about the relevancy of their invitation. This is sheer disrespect for the Security Council, its rules and procedure and a complete waste of our time and attention.
We already heard Mr. John Leff back in June, then he tried to convince the Council of the North Korean origin of the missiles in his pictures. The Conflict Armament Research, which he represents, is funded by NATO and the EU. Can we expect therefore any independent, impartial assessments from him? – Of course not. It is quite clear who commissioned this NGO. The methodology of its work is highly primitive – experts only examine what is proposed by the Prosecutor General's Office and the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine. Their conclusions are based solely on data from Ukrainian laboratories and low-quality satellite images. When assessing the missile debris, they put forward merely conspiratorial versions – for example, the indication of the year of manufacturing according to the North Korean calendar. Such materials are of no value when it comes to the serious discussion. Pass these data to CNN or BBC. They will assess and happily broadcast them. But don't bring them to the Security Council.
As for Ukraine and the EU, it is obvious that these participants have nothing to do with the regional issue discussed today under agenda item “Non-Proliferation/DPRK”, and they will not make any meaningful contribution to the discussion. It is also clear that the only goal of their participation in the UNSC briefing is to politicize the debate and “rehash” the unsubstantiated trashy allegation of Western members of the Security Council. All this undermines the authority of the Council and shakes the credibility of its decisions.
I thank you.
Main statement:
Madam President,
We welcome the participation in this meeting of the Permanent Representative of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
We were surprised at what Ms. Rosemary DiCarlo has said. This was a very peculiar briefing by a senior UN official, since it was based on press statements that the UN cannot verify. Then, why are you presenting these data in this chamber? Those who listened to you today did not hear the last phrase of your briefing, they will take your retelling of newspaper insinuations at face value and will think that the stance of the UN is so. It turns out that you are involved in stirring up a politicized narrative in breach of your obligations under Article 100 of the UN Charter.
I have already commented on the true nature of Mr. Leff's assessments. I will not repeat myself. Just as we spoke earlier about the conclusions of a number of members of the Panel of Experts that visited Kiev (now this panel bit the dust). Not a single one of them was a ballistics expert.
In recent years, the Council has held numerous meetings on the situation on the Korean Peninsula that were requested by the United States under duplicitous pretexts. Such meetings were routinely convened each time when the DPRK duly undertook measures to enhance its national security in response to military provocations by Washington, Seoul and Tokyo. The main objectives of such meetings were twofold – to pin full responsibility on Pyongyang for the deteriorating situation on the peninsula and to portray themselves as the main regional “peacekeepers.” However, the reality is different, everything is the other way round.
The situation is being deliberately turned on its head – as if it were not the US and its allies who at pace are building up their military presence in the Asia-Pacific region, and thus systematically destroying the prospects of establishing a non-block collective security architecture there. As if in recent months it were not Pyongyang's adversaries who carried out large-scale military exercises entitled Freedom Shield, Freedom Flag and Freedom Edge with joint nuclear planning. What kind of freedom are we actually talking about?
These provocative actions are compounded by the amassing of hundreds of aircraft units, ground forces, marines and special forces near the DPRK's borders. Let us recall that as part of these maneuvers, there are rehearsals of scenarios of a hypothetical armed conflict involving the use of nuclear weapons and the physical elimination of the North Korean leadership. Such policies, as we all know, are being carried out in breach of UNSC resolutions on the Korean settlement, which stipulate that the problems of the peninsula should be resolved exclusively through peaceful, diplomatic and political means, as well as through dialogue. This is explicitly set out in those resolutions that you constantly refer to.
As far as Russia's cooperation with Pyongyang is concerned, we have repeatedly voiced our position. The DPRK is our close neighbor and partner, with whom we are developing relations in all areas. This is our sovereign right. Russian cooperation with the DPRK in the military and other spheres is in line with international law, not in violation thereof. It is not geared against third countries and does not pose any threat to states in the region or the international community. Rest assured – we will continue to develop this co-operation.
On November 12, we ratified the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Treaty between the Russian Federation and the DPRK. The document lays down core principles for further development of Russian-Korean relations with the focus on deepening partnership and strategic cooperation on a wide range of priority areas for the two states, and on building a fair international system. The treaty is non-confrontational, it is defensive in nature and is aimed at maintaining stability in Northeast Asia. You yourself have always pointed out that, according to your rules, NATO is a defensive alliance, so why are you so nervous now, if we too are talking about joint defense?
In response to the arguments by the representative of the Republic of Korea, we would like to say the following. Before holding forth on the consequences of Pyongyang's actions, you would be well-advised to first go to the bottom of what is happening in your country. And the internal political situation is not the only thing I’m referring to. According to media leaks over the past few months, Seoul has been consciously trying to trigger a surge in tension on the peninsula. To that end, drones were sent to the DPRK in order to provoke a harsh response from Pyongyang. There is also information that former Defense Minister of the Republic of Korea was planning to hit locations in North Korea from where trash-filled balloons are launched. If it is the case, then Seoul's unsubstantiated claims about the alleged “dangerous” nature of cooperation between Russia and the DPRK appear absurd and hypocritical.
Madam President,
Before today, the alarmist requests for UNSC briefings on this issue seemed to be a routine fulfillment of political instructions, which, apparently, were intended to generate buzz with the domestic audience – thus, after the escalation you yourself triggered, you attempted to demonstrate that you are allegedly monitoring the developments on the peninsula and are trying to engage the Security Council to do something about it. All this is borne out by the fact that those who convened today’s meeting are exceptionally brief and concise today, and the arguments they put forward are just identical. We could have made this entertaining meeting even shorter if you had designated only one person to speak on behalf of all seven countries that requested this meeting. That would have neither added anything to your narratives nor taken anything away from them. However, the choice of topic for today's meeting is utterly preposterous. What right do the US and its allies in the region have to lecture about expanding the DPRK's military engagement, while it is precisely Washington that has consistently engaged in such policies throughout the world with the most devastating consequences?
Apart from being hypocritical, these accusations are nothing but an attempt to divert attention from the deadlock both inside Ukraine and on the line of contact, as well as to justify the participation of NATO military specialists in the conflict. The Franco-Anglo-Saxons are pretty blunt about the hybrid war they are waging against Russia to inflict a strategic defeat on it. And as part of this proxy war, they are not only pumping the Kiev regime with various types of weaponry, but also deploying their troops to Ukraine. Servicemen of Western armies are now fighting in the ranks of the Ukrainian armed forces – that is a fact. These are not volunteers, but officers, without whom it would be impossible for the Ukrainians to use not only Western long-range weapons, but also Ukrainian long-range combat means. Without participation of these troops, without space reconnaissance data, which (I hope you understand why) Kiev cannot obtain on its own, and without specialists in flight assignments programming, the Ukrainians would simply not be able to use missile-related equipment
It is owing to Western military assistance that the Kiev regime managed to pull off the Kursk incursion in August, which essentially was an unprovoked attack on peaceful (I stress this) civilians of Russian cities. The Ukrainian armed forces ruthlessly shot civilians at point-blank range, they abducted people and prevented their evacuation. We spoke about this in detail during the informal Arria-Formula meeting held in October, when we also demonstrated eyewitness testimony that attested to the fact that this reckless sortie was pulled off with the active involvement of foreign servicemen. But the Western delegations in this chamber prefer to brush aside that, they are only trotting out hypocritical rhetoric about Ukraine's right to self-defense and their willingness to provide as much support as is necessary to Ukraine.
Today we heard references to the Multilateral Sanctions Monitoring Team on the DPRK. It is a mechanism that is supposedly designed to replace the UNSC’s 1718 Committee Panel of Experts, but we see it engaged solely in copy pasting newspaper articles (just as Ms. DiCarlo did today); and therefore, it has completely discredited itself. We would like to emphasize that this tool – which was established in circumvention of the Security Council – has no legitimate international mandate. The establishment of this mechanism directly contravenes the UN Charter, since it undermines the exclusive prerogatives of the Security Council on monitoring the implementation of its sanctions measures. Thus, any products developed within this format will be entirely illegitimate, and (we have no doubt about it) they will be nothing but fraud and disinformation.
Distinguished Colleagues,
Returning to the situation on the Korean peninsula, we would like to state once again that the Security Council should fundamentally reconsider its approaches in order to break the dangerous stalemate and prevent further escalation. We have repeatedly pointed out what could be the starting point for the process of normalization. But for this to happen, Western capitals need to reshape their mindset and start thinking outside the box of the Cold War paradigm. The sooner Washington and its accomplices give up such an obsolete way of thinking, the sooner the Council will be able to improve the situation in the region.
Thank you.
