Statement and Right of Reply by Chargé d'Affaires of the Russian Federation Dmitry Polyanskiy at UN Security Council open debate
Mr. President,
We thank Secretary-General of the UN Antonio Guterres as well as the other briefers for the assessments they shared about the role of reconciliation in maintaining international peace and security.
Indeed, achievement of reliable national reconciliation is crucial for successful resolution of conflicts and prevention of their re-occurrence. Peace agreements and sustainable post-conflict recovery and development only become possible once conflicting sides find mutually acceptable long-term solutions.
A universal key to resolving any internal disputes is an all-encompassing national dialogue. As we know from practice, it is the only thing that can ensure a viable and sustainable solution, no matter what state is in question.
As the concept note for this meeting rightly stresses, at the stage of post-conflict peace-building (i.a. with regard to ensuring national reconciliation), it is vital that government and society should understand their national responsibility for sustainability of peace. This approach is enshrined in identical GA and SC resolutions of 2016 on reviewing peacebuilding architecture. In particular, this means that state bears main responsibility for ensuring safety of its population, whereas all segments of the society should realize their responsibility for supporting peaceful processes.
Activity of the global community, i.a. of separate states, their associations and the UN itself, should aim to support peace efforts of internal stakeholders. The UN has every tool needed to provide support to states as they seek to achieve national reconciliation. This happens via “good services” of the Secretary-General and his Special Envoys and Special Representatives, UN peacekeeping and special political missions, and country teams.
At the same time, we believe that the UN should focus its efforts on cooperation with official governments. Interaction with representatives “on the ground” can only proceed under coordinating role of national authorities.
International assistance in ensuring national reconciliation should be depoliticized. It should not turn into imposing some ready-made scenarios from the outside. Attempts to support one of the sides to conflict while being guided by personal interests, only lead to deeper division lines, impede healing of wounds and prevent true reconciliation.
Mr. President,
In this regard, it is worth giving a more detailed account of the role of international justice in the context of national reconciliation, as well as the role of holding responsible those who are guilty.
Justice and reconciliation far from always come “hand in hand”. Quite often activity of international justice bodies leads to greater escalation of tension in communities. At the moment, this problem is very acute for a number of states in various regions. We are witnessing former opponents settle political scores with the help of international justice bodies here at the United Nations.
We are convinced that in every given case we should seek the right balance between the interests of restoring peace, and justice, albeit all challenges that this process creates. In every case, efforts should be made to strengthen national justice bodies. We believe fact-finding within the framework of judicial processes, and holding accountable of those guilty, as well as absolution of those not guilty can make a meaningful contribution to normalization of the situation and overcoming of feud and enmity between parties to conflict. However, this can be achieved should these processes be unbiased and non-politicized.
Unfortunately, international judicial mechanisms often display clear double standards. For example, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and its Residual Mechanism can hardly be called a “success story” in terms of their contribution to the peace process in the Balkans. There was unreasonable accusatory incline when cases of Serb defendants were considered. It was combined with clear lack of willingness to clarify numerous misdeeds of “field commanders” of Kosovar Albanians.
Apparently, attempts to pin the blame for some crimes on nations, governments, and states in general provoke tension and mutual mistrust at the area of former Yugoslavia, thus reanimating old problems and inter-ethnic contradictions in the region. So, this is not about assistance to reconciliation.
We have to point out that the International Criminal Court went the same way. Cases it received from the Security Council are considered in detachment from the goal to achieve reconciliation. It aggravates contradictions between the opposing sides. Libyan dossier of the ICC clearly demonstrates this.
If we analyze activity of international tribunals in general, we can conclude that they have a very indirect relation to reconciliation processes in post-conflict communities. The experience of Rwanda is very indicative in this matter. What played the major role in national reconciliation there was a system of local justice – half-traditional Gacaca courts. They were created at the national level, because of low efficiency of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) that only considered cases of chief organizers of the genocide of 1994.
In practical terms, Gagaca courts were meant to both carry out a judiciary function and promote reconciliation within the community, because they envisaged maximum broad participation of the population in their activity, public consideration of cases by ordinary people and a just decision. Public awareness realized the need to cooperate and take active part in court sessions.
Effectiveness of Gacaca courts is very illustrative. Over 10 years they considered about 2 million cases, their total financial spending was 45 times less than that of ICTR that could only consider fewer than 100 cases over 20 years of its existence.
Results of their activity proved efficiency of the approach “African solution to African problems”.
Mr. President,
We believe participation of international criminal justice institutions in post-conflict reconciliation should not be elevated to an absolute. It may produce more damage than added value.
Thank you.
In response to the Representative of Germany:
Mr. President,
My colleagues informed me that while I was absent, our colleague, Permanent Representative of Germany Mr.Heusgen asked me several questions. I do not see him in the room at the moment, but I hope my words will be conveyed to him.
By the way, Mr. President, it might be the result of interactiveness that you promote, but in my understanding interactiveness in this case means to signal that there is a question while I am in the room, rather than while I am at another event with participation of the Secretary-General, unless it is intended to put the interlocutor in an uncomfortable situation.
I indeed found myself in an uncomfortable situation, because almost in the year of the 75th anniversary of our Organization a representative of Russia has to tell a representative of Germany what was the Nuremberg tribunal and its advantages.
I confirm that we believe the Nuremberg Tribunal to be a good example of international justice, when war criminals who started an aggressive and invasive war, in particular at the territory of the Soviet Union, were punished. However, I never thought the goal of our meeting would be to make a retrospective journey to recent history. If speaking about the present day, everything that happened after the Nuremberg was more like a crackdown on the unwanted regimes and political opponents. In particular, the decision of the ICTY is an attempt to shoehorn reality in these pre-arranged guilty verdicts.
Suffice it to recall how the ICTY considered cases of Kosovo-Albanians. Specially for Permanent Representative of Germany Mr.Heusgen, we will address it at the upcoming December briefing of the Residual Mechanism of ICTY, ICTR. In addition, we can dwell in detail on the EULEX-sponsored project of the Special Court for Kosovo that for the 9th year in a row cannot start investigation of massive organ removals and other crimes of Kosovar militants.
As for the ICC, its shameful refusal to investigate crimes committed by the coalition in Afghanistan explained by the words “in the interests of justice” is enough for this body to lose its reputation once and for all.
Mr. President,
I am sure our German colleagues know all these facts. What is astonishing is their nearly masochistic desire to listen to them all over again. These facts are by no means supportive of your approaches.
