Interview of First Deputy Permanent Representative of Russia to the UN Dmitry Polyanskiy to RT International
Q: Over the past few weeks, we've seen a significant worsening in relations between Russia and the West. We've seen a series of diplomatic expulsions and tough rhetoric coming from all sides. Is it fair to say this is an especially tense time for international diplomacy?
Dmitry Polyanskiy: Yes indeed, it's quite a challenging and dangerous time that we are living through right now. This is not our choice - we are reiterating this at different levels - we are ready for dialogue, we are ready to come to certain common understandings, but we think that for such a task everybody should be treated as equal and the concerns and positions of everybody should be taken on board.
We think that the UN is the best possible platform for this - both the Security Council and the General Assembly. We are actively participating in both of them, as you know Russia is a Security Council permanent member. That's why we feel there is a special responsibility on us in questions of peace and international co-operation, and we are ready to take this responsibility. For many years, we have consistently been against mentoring and the condescending treatment of certain states. We are against theories like 'the End of History,' and the absolute 'golden standard' of democracy and human rights or whatever. These look a little bit ridiculous against the backdrop of history.
So what we think is that there should be dialogue and there shouldn't be closed clubs of countries that elaborate certain rules and then ask everyone to obey this 'rules-based international order,' contrary to international law. We don't see any reasons for this - we think it is potentially very destabilizing and could bring us to very dangerous situations which we are trying to avoid. When there is compromise, when countries are speaking to each other, when they treat each other with full respect and the attitude as equal-to-equal, then we can avoid a lot of problems.
And of course we are against any meddling into the internal affairs of other countries. We are for equal co-operation, for co-operation with full respect and consideration of everyone's interests and positions. This is our basic approach. We are sorry to say that not everybody shares this approach. Unfortunately, some of our Western partners would prefer to lecture Russia, to lecture China and to lecture others. This is all very much aggravated by the 'megaphone diplomacy' - this trend is seen very well right now and is complicated by the fact we are living in the post-truth world when nobody pays attention to what is really happening and there are a lot of sources who present information in a distorted way, which is very often quite far from reality. So all these factors in their combination bring us to a very dangerous moment in international relations and we do not conceal our pre-occupation.
Q: When you talk about dialogue and mutual respect, have you been disappointed by the opportunity for a fresh start with the new US Administration? Has it been what you'd expected or has it not lived up to potential hopes?
A: Well, it was difficult to expect any drastic changes of attitude in the US Administration. The only difference could happen when you deal with professionals or non-professionals. We know that a lot of figures in the current Administration are indeed professionals with big diplomatic experience. It's not always important to agree with one another - we understand that there are divergences, but we need dialogue full of respect and with the basic principles of diplomacy.
Sometimes we lacked this with the Trump Administration - some figures there were a little bit eccentric or too political and it was very difficult to understand what they were really after. We of course take into consideration the fact that there was a very difficult moment for President Trump and his associates who were criticized or even punished for a simple desire to mend relations and enter into dialogue with Russia. They were immediately accused of high treason - they were prosecuted and some of them lost their positions. And we know that the leaders of the current Administration sometimes were behind these kinds of accusations, so of course it would be very naive to think that from the moment of inauguration we would deal with friendly people ready to take on board our pre-occupations and pre-occupations of others.
So it is absolutely clear that the Administration is behaving in a way like the US is a kind of 'shining city on a hill' and everybody is looking there with awe and a desire to do whatever the US wishes. That is the only perception that they acknowledge among other members of the international community - either you are with us or against us. So it happens that they see Russia and China as rivals and that's why their efforts are very clearly aimed at containment of Russia and China - as they put it, of our 'malicious influence,' 'destruction' and 'propaganda.'
Everything that we might say that wouldn't be music to their ears would be immediately considered to be Russian propaganda. I remember speaking with one Western diplomat about the situation in Ukraine and I was giving concrete facts - I will not name him, of course, but I appreciate his frankness - when I presented him with a lot of facts he said 'yes, this is the truth, but we don't need this kind of truth.' And this is very frank.
Sometimes our Western colleagues just avoid acknowledging that this is truth, and this is very uncomfortable for them. They would prefer to create more 'highly likely'-type stories, saying that there is no other plausible explanation, that Russia or China is behind this and so on and so forth. This is much easier than to engage in dialogue and helps them to promote their interests and their values in the world, and to gain economic benefits. We see that there are very down-to-earth calculations sometimes behind certain very loud political moves. This is not a secret, a lot of experts are discussing this and I know that this is a big trend. The US is not hesitating in promoting its economic interests as well, camouflaging them in soft initiatives and beautiful words. This is not a secret.
Q: You've touched on this supposed policy of containment towards Russia and China. The most recent meeting of the G7 group, in which Russia is no longer represented, and nor is China, saw those two countries being picked out as the most 'malign' influence to developed economies. Is there a concerted effort to isolate Moscow on the world stage and, if so, is it working?
A: It depends on what you mean by 'concerted effort.' If you mean that there is more or less a consensus among the US and their allies that Russia is a player that needs to be contained in the world arena then yes, that's true. We feel that many countries, big or small, who consider themselves to be part of this Western club behave very arrogantly to us and try to underscore what the US is promoting in the world about Russia, about our 'malicious intentions,' our alleged destructive behavior and actions. That's for sure. But this is not the end of the world, and it is not the majority of the international community. We see it clearly in the General Assembly on certain issues we discuss, we feel that the positions of members of the international community are much more diverse than it is sometimes the trend presented during meetings like the G7.
We aren't against such meetings. Countries can meet in whatever configurations and constellations they like - if they are glad to see each other, why not? But what is the real added value of such meetings? If they want to pronounce very pleasant things for each other, that is one scenario. But if they really want to influence world processes, it is absolutely clear that without engagement of and finding common ground with all the key players - Russia and China, and some others as well - these efforts will be in vain and they will lead exactly to the formation of closed clubs that pronounce pleasant things for each other, but their real influence and effectiveness will be very questionable.
So that's totally clear about the G7 club - it has lost its importance many years ago. Maybe it is a very sexy toy in the hands of our Western colleagues but nothing more than this. That's why we're quite calm towards such efforts. They do not reflect the real position in the world or the majority of members of the international community.
Q: When you talk about the international community, one area where Russia has been most on the international stage or in the headlines in lots of countries in recent weeks has been throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Obviously Russia's Sputnik V vaccine has been among the most widely exported and given its low unit cost and minimal refrigeration requirements compared to some of the other COVID-19 jabs, it is expected to be of value across the developing world. Is there such a thing as 'vaccine diplomacy' in your view, and would it have an impact for Russia on the world stage? Positive, or as an area of potential continued conflict?
A: Unfortunately, there is such a thing as COVID diplomacy. This is not our choice. Our perception of what this diplomacy might look is to create the most favorable conditions for all countries to share their mutual experience, technology and advanced inventions for the benefit of the world population. COVID-19 is a problem affecting everybody. Our countries are in very different situations, that's why we viewed this from the beginning and continue to view right now that we need to combine efforts, put aside any differences and commercial interests. We need to work together to ensure the world comes back to normal as soon as possible.
We don't seek to get any specific advantage in this regard or use it as a tool of Russian influence. We just think that we have a very efficient vaccine which is quite popular and in big demand. So what is so bad for us to promote this vaccine and to offer it to other countries which are ready to get this vaccine? What we do not accept, and what we really think is shameful behavior is when somebody tries to block such co-operation for political grounds.
When somebody is trying to claim that Russian motivations are a priori political and the acceptance or non-acceptance of a Russian vaccine would be criteria or a kind of quality mark for the country - whether it is belongs to the forces of Evil or the forces of Good... This is very deplorable and unfortunately we see such efforts. Everybody remembers the ongoing story in Brazil where our vaccine was politically banned from circulation, regardless of the fact there was a clear indication in US political documents that it would be the target to prevent Brazil's acquiring of Russian vaccines. And not only Brazil - I think this is true for every other corner of the world.
But we are in the middle of this - it is far from being solved. There is no understanding when we will overcome this dire moment we all face, with vaccines. When everyone is vaccinated or there will be some medicine against COVID-19. It is too early to give an assessment of whether what all of us do is sufficiently effective or not. But what we see now is quite worrying. We see our constructive, open-minded and heartfelt efforts are blocked under the pretext that allegedly we have some calculations behind them. And this is a shameful situation - it is shameful for the US, it is shameful for the EU - which is again applying clear double standards to Sputnik V and towards co-operation with Russia - against the will of common Europeans and the scientific data about Sputnik V and other vaccines. Again, this is shameful and it will find certain reflection further on in international politics, but it is too early to dot the 'i's because we are still in the preliminary stage.
And it's not too late - I think we still have to put aside all the divergencies. We appeal to our European colleagues and our American colleagues to change these optics and to work on these COVID-19 issues against a background of common interest - common interest of the whole of humanity, common interest of developing countries - and not to apply any double standards and to engage in constructive ways. We've still got time and we have to do it without any delay.
Q: Russia obviously has a seat on the UN Human Rights Council at a time when there are particularly acute concerns across a range of conflicts, thinking about Myanmar and also Syria and a host of others. Obviously Russia has a long standing policy of 'not meddling' as you put it earlier - non-intervention in the affairs of sovereign states. How is it possible to balance advancing the cause of human rights worldwide with that policy? Is that not a fundamental contradiction?
A: Well, it is a difficult question because there is a growing trend of politicization of human rights. Unfortunately, when people speak about human rights in such international fora, very often it is just a pretext for interference into the internal matters of this or that country. And there are very clear, terrible double-standards in this regard when the human rights in one country are being put into the spotlight and information on the obvious abusers in other situations is concealed or mentioned with different passion. This is absolutely clear - this damages the whole issue of defending human rights.
There are also very shameful situations like the recent U-turn of Amnesty International on Alexey Navalny. All of a sudden they decided that he is a 'prisoner of conscience' after very intensive work of some Western governments. This is shameful of course as many people view Amnesty International as a very respected organization, and it also shows that the cause of defending human rights is devaluated further and there are no more beacons in this regard. All the efforts have political connotations there. This is very deplorable, of course.
It doesn't mean that we don't have to pay attention to the human rights issues in the world, but we feel this shouldn't be a pretext for interference in the internal affairs of different countries. Now there are a lot of situations where the accusations that are being put forward behind the alleged human rights abuse aren't even proven and they are based on some very biased or questionable sources, and it all still is being presented like it's the final, unquestionable truth, being promoted by some Western organizations. Again, this doesn't serve the cause of human rights. I always ask those who try to accuse us of something that we are not doing... What would you do with Julian Assange, frankly? What do you say about this personality? Where are your voices? Where is your support for this person who has a clear reputation as a whistleblower and who cares for human rights in the world?
Maybe this is my position but frankly I am a bit outraged by the lack of international reaction to his case, against the backdrop of many other questionable situations, to put it mildly, and politicized situations. So, again, human rights are part of the agenda for the UN, it's a matter of primary importance for the Human Rights Council, but the discussions and draft decisions that take place sometimes unfortunately are related to the issue of defending human rights very vaguely. They should be considered as part of a political agenda of certain countries and groups.
Q: One example I wanted to ask about specifically - in the last 24 hours, we have seen that Ukraine's general prosecutor has decided to charge Viktor Medvedchuk, the leader of the largest opposition party, and one of his parliamentary colleagues, Taras Kozak, with high treason. Mr Medvedchuk is of the belief that these are extrajudicial charges, whereas some in Ukraine defend them as an essential weapon in what they see as a conflict with Russia. Do you think there's a role for the UN in condemning or, indeed, defending these decisions by Kiev?
A: We are bringing this fact to the attention of our colleagues in the relevant fora and situations where it is possible to do so, but there are clear double standards there. They don't want to hear anything about possible human rights abuses in Ukraine. We have very outstanding situations in this regard recently. For example, several days ago we held the informal meeting of the Security Council on the tragedy of Odessa and the crimes of the Ukrainian nationalists, where we brought the witnesses of these events.
There is nothing anti-Ukrainian there, it is just the fact that, seven years since this tragedy, there has been no accountability. Only those who were trying to protest against the illegal armed coup in Kiev were prosecuted, and that there is continued nationalism and extremism in Ukraine. But we haven't heard a word of condemnation from our Western colleagues. They couldn't even do it in the face of people who really were risking their lives, like people who lost members of their family or were maimed in a Ukrainian assault in Eastern Ukraine. They couldn't even find words of compassion. So it is very difficult for them to act without double standards when they approach this situation in Ukraine.
What you mention about Mr Medvedchuk, I haven't heard the details so far but this is a logical step. As you know, the Ukrainian authorities have first tried to shut the opposition mouthpieces, the TV channels. They have also launched an assault against the Russian language in this country. This happens again before the nose of our Western colleagues, the OSCE, the monitoring mission. They have yet to say a word on this, to call a spade a spade in this regard. This is an assault on the opposition. I think that the authorities in Kiev are very worried by the fact the opposition is gaining ground against the backdrop of all the moves they tried to do to present the opposition in a unfavorable way. But still the support for the opposition only grows. That's why they want to use more radical steps, to try to stop the opposition from voicing its preoccupations and to stop people from having an opportunity to express their opinion otherwise.
It has nothing to do with democracy, of course. There is no democracy in Ukraine. It is only a beautiful picture which is being promoted by our Western colleagues. And this is the best confirmation of this. I would be very surprised if there were any reaction to this from our Western colleagues other than saying Mr Medvedchuk's party is a part of Russian influence - 'malign influence,' as they like to say - and they support the activities of Ukraine. This is not double but rather triple standards when we speak about Ukraine. But it's very deplorable and it does nothing good for the country. That has been quite clear during those seven years.
Q: Another area where there has been Western focus is the human rights situation in Crimea, and we saw today the Russian response to the Council of Europe's decision to denounce a series of events that allegedly took place in Sevastopol. I wondered whether you have a view of the relevance of the Council of Europe's decision, and whether there was any further comment you could offer on it?
A: Frankly, I haven't heard the details about this so it is very difficult to comment. It is a totally different sphere of activity, the Council of Europe, we do not have many opportunities here to get detailed information about this. But I can tell you that we also tried to bring true information about Crimea to the UN, again through these 'Arria formula' meetings, following the ones our Western colleagues traditionally organize in March on the situation in Crimea - as they put it, in "the occupied Crimea."
The set of briefers there is very biased and it was always a big headache to try to bring there at least one single voice of a person who had actually been to Crimea and knew from his/her own experience how Crimea is living after its re-unification with Russia. It is not the intention of our Western colleagues to do so, and we had no other way than to organize alternative meetings bringing people to the Security Council who would answer the allegations and present the true picture of what is happening on the peninsula. And this true picture is like salt in the eyes of the Western community. They don't want to acknowledge that the situation in Crimea is getting better and better, that there are more and more tourists there, including Ukrainian tourists, and the publications on social media of these Ukrainian tourists is the best answer, I think, to those who claim that there are irregularities and human rights violations in Crimea.
Ukraine did everything to repulse Crimeans. We explained this in detail and what Ukraine is doing now is repulsing people from the East of Ukraine and making the same mistake with Donbass. But our Western colleagues, and Ukraine of course, they don't want to listen to everything that is contrary to the ideological settings they promote in relation to Crimea. We made it absolutely clear: the question of Crimea is closed. The residents of the peninsula made their choice, under certain circumstances which were created by Ukraine. They do not regret this choice and everybody who dares to come to Crimea - which is not a problem, it's not a closed region - discovers for himself or herself what the real situation is like. If someone has real questions and doubts, they are welcome to come to Crimea and decide for themselves. But this is the option that many of our Western colleagues are very much afraid of.
