Interview by Deputy Permanent Representative Anna Evstigneeva to China Global Television Network
Q: Ambassador, you’ve been in your current post for a little over five years now, and you also spent five years in a different capacity at Russia’s Mission. So no doubt you’ve been a part of, and have seen and dealt with, many different international crises, including the pandemic and conflicts around the world, including the one between Russia and Ukraine, and what we’re seeing now in the Middle East. What would you say concerns you the most today?
Anna Evstigneeva: I would say that the most important crisis for us that we have to deal with is the Ukrainian crisis, because it directly affects Russian interests. We are trying our best to create conditions for the Ukrainian crisis to be resolved. Most of the things happen on the battlefield, but still, the President has said numerous times that we would prefer to reach our goals by political and diplomatic means. He has clearly outlined the conditions that have to be met in order for the crisis to be resolved.
But here at the United Nations, we also have to withstand a lot of malicious acts and unfriendly initiatives aimed against us by Western countries. Sometimes we simply have to fight back slander about our country. So this is a top priority, I would say. But, of course, the international situation is very volatile and very explosive, and conflicts occur everywhere, even where you do not expect them. These days, the crisis in the Middle East is the most acute. It is at the top of the agenda of the Security Council and the United Nations. The recent aggression by Israel and the United States against Iran is something that we have to deal with, and the conflict spreads to the Gulf countries and to Lebanon. Lebanon is on fire. And we should not forget about Palestine as well. It has escaped the limelight recently, but it is still there – it is not resolved.
Q: Let’s talk about what’s happening in the Middle East – the ever-evolving situation that you referenced. The UN Security Council recently failed to pass a draft resolution urging all parties to stop military activities. Is the Security Council experiencing a lack of effectiveness in keeping the world safe?
Anna Evstigneeva: Well, you have mentioned a very sad moment, because it was another example of when the Security Council became hostage to very politicized approaches by some member states – first and foremost, our Western colleagues in the Council.
Russia put forward a genuine initiative – very clear, very straightforward – aimed at de-escalation. It was very realistic and pragmatic. We did not name and shame, we did not call countries by name, but we called for de-escalation, for condemning and preventing any attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure. We also called on countries to return to the negotiating table.
This resolution did not pass. Some member states abstained – most of the European countries, as well as Bahrain itself, a country from the Gulf. But their explanations, I think, did not convince others. The United States and Latvia voted against.
So it was revealing to see how the Security Council is prevented from fulfilling its duty. We are deeply grateful to the countries that were with us in promoting this resolution and supporting it – China, Pakistan and Somalia. They stood with us and voted in favor, knowing that this initiative is needed and genuine.
Q: A couple of the resolutions I’d like to ask you about: Security Council resolutions 2231 and 1737 on Iranian nuclear issues. Where do they stand? Do you think those resolutions have lost force?
Anna Evstigneeva: Yes, we do, and for us this is not a political issue – it is more of a legal matter. Because, Resolution 1737, as well as the previous resolutions on Iran, were terminated in 2015 when the agreement – the JCPOA – was concluded, and that agreement was endorsed by Resolution 2231 of the Security Council.
Subsequently, Resolution 2231 also expired on October 18 last year, as it was meant by the agreement and the resolution itself. Some countries – the European countries, what we call “the European Troika” – did not agree with that and said they wanted to invoke the snapback. But they basically did not have the right to do so, because they also had their obligations according to the JCPOA, and they did not do what was prescribed to them.
So they broke the rules before, and they also disagreed to invoke the dispute resolution mechanism, that was part of the agreement. So, in our view, they had no right to invoke snapback, and Resolution 2231 ceased to exist.
This legally grounded position is supported by China as well in the Council, and we are very open and vocal in presenting our arguments in the Council. We will do so in the future. No plans to change our position here.
Q: There is another resolution – 2817 – that condemns Iran for defending itself against the US-Israeli attacks. Why did Russia abstain instead of vetoing that resolution?
Anna Evstigneeva: This resolution was presented by Bahrain and supported by the Gulf Cooperation Council countries. These are good friends of ours, and now they are suffering from the escalation in the Middle East.
They came with a draft that, in our view, was one-sided and biased, because it put the whole blame on Iran and its strikes on Gulf countries – there are actually American military facilities there. We told them from day one that we saw the draft this way.
Russia and China presented amendments to make the text balanced. But unfortunately, the penholders, as we call them in the Security Council – the authors of the text – did not take them on board. So, we had to abstain.
Q: You mentioned this a moment ago, but China and Russia have stood together on the same side in many votes over the years. Can you explain your alliance and your perspective for our international audience? What unites your two countries when it comes to votes in the Council, regardless of what it seems to be?
Anna Evstigneeva: I think that the relationship between Russia and China is at its peak in history. Since I first came to the United Nations to work in 2011, I have never experienced any problems in coordinating our positions with our Chinese colleagues. We have always stood side by side.
This comes naturally, because we have the same views on the sovereign equality of states, on justice, on protecting the principles of the Charter, and a lot of things to name.
These are good words, but when it comes to particular conflicts, you somehow know that your Chinese colleagues have the same assessment of the situation. We got used to it, so we do not lose much time on coordination – as I already said, it comes naturally that we really assess the international situation very similarly.
And I think that it is also important to mention that we withstand the same challenges – the same attacks, the same patterns against us – and this strengthens our bond. It is seen well not only for us, Chinese and Russian diplomats, but also for the outside world.
Many countries in the UN that need help and support always know that they can come to Russia and China, that their situation will be reviewed in a balanced manner, and that they can seek our support. And support will be provided.
Q: Ambassador, we know that right now is an important time at the UN because there is a process underway to choose the next Secretary-General, which the next leader obviously inherits everything that is happening right now, from budget crises to conflicts around the world, and also the growing humanitarian issues that do not seem to be getting any better. What kind of a leader does the UN need right now?
Anna Evstigneeva: I think it is the most discussed issue in the UN corridors these days – what kind of a leader we need for the Organization. I guess the Organization is not in its perfect shape, and everyone knows it. And so everyone wants a leader that can take the UN into a better future. Of course, we need an energetic person who has a deep affection for the institution. That is clear. But this should also be a person who understands what was wrong in the past and what mistakes were made, so that we find ourselves in this situation.
So a deep, thorough review is needed, and lessons learned should be drawn from what happened. What we would value most is that the UN and its leadership go back to the basics in terms of impartiality and neutrality of the Organization. What I mean is the Charter. We have Articles 100 and 101, which say that the Secretary-General and the staff members should not take any orders from external forces or certain countries. This should be prevented, and this understanding should belong to this new person.
We unfortunately faced a different approach from the current leadership in the UN, especially in the Ukrainian crisis, when the Secretary-General took sides, and by this he lost the opportunity to be at the table of negotiations or any kind of processes related to this crisis.
And this is not only about Ukraine, but any other important situation that we deal with. So this has to be restored. And then the Secretary-General, in my view, should understand well that we are an intergovernmental organization, and it is his or her task to create these favorable conditions so that member states negotiate, find solutions and decide in good faith and in a spirit of dialogue.
This is a very limited list of claims, of what approaches the new Secretary-General should have. But it definitely depends on personality as well, and I hope that we will be able not only to find this person, but also to agree on this person in the Security Council.
