Remarks to the Press by Permanent Representative Vassily Nebenzia Abkhazia and South Ossetia
Vassily Nebenzia: We know that our Western colleagues on the Security Council have scheduled a media stakeout in connection with the events in Tskhinval in August 2008. Before they will try to impose on you the Western interpretation of those events, we would like to provide you with an objective assessment. Our Western colleagues persist in requesting discussions of an issue that has nothing to do with the Security Council’s mandate and brings no “added value” to its work.
In August 2008, the residents of Tskhinval were attacked by the Georgian military of madman Saakashvili regime. That armed assault against South Ossetia cynically violated all international agreements on the peaceful settlement of the conflict between Georgia and South Ossetia. The sleeping city of Tskhinval came under massive artillery fire, after which units of the Georgian army’s ground forces, and special forces of the Georgian Interior Ministry, entered the city. At the same time, an attack was launched against the positions of Russian peacekeepers. This criminal acts resulted in numerous casualties among the residents of South Ossetia and Russian military personnel.
The unprovoked and carefully planned nature of the Georgian aggression was later officially confirmed in the report of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia, established under the auspices of the European Union and headed by Swiss diplomat Heidi Tagliavini.
Recently, a domestic political scandal erupted in Georgia following a statement by former Defense Minister Georgy Baramidze, who was an associate of Mr. Saakashvili and by no means a “dove of peace.” He spoke about war crimes committed by the Georgian side during the conflict in Abkhazia in the early 1990s, saying that the Georgians “took no prisoners.”
Given the continued direct threats to the lives of Russian citizens in South Ossetia, the Russian leadership, acting in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter, decided to launch an operation to compel the Georgian side to make peace. This also saved the South Ossetian people from being eliminated.
Having these same objectives in mind, our country recognized the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia on 26 August, 2008. This is fully in line with the aspirations of their peoples, and Russia’s cooperation with Abkhazia and South Ossetia serves as a stabilizing factor in the South Caucasus.
In October 2008, a new negotiating format was launched – that is, the Geneva International Discussions on Security and Stability in the South Caucasus. This format replaced the mechanisms for the settlement of the Georgian-Abkhaz and Georgian-South Ossetian conflicts, which collapsed as a result of the aggression. The principal objective of the Geneva International Discussions was to ensure the security of Abkhazia and South Ossetia by maintaining direct dialogue between the two republics and the Georgian side. This format and its mechanisms for interaction between the parties helped in recent years to maintain relative calm along the Georgian-Abkhaz and Georgian-South Ossetian borders and to minimize the risks of an escalation of tensions on the ground.
What should remain an absolute priority on the agenda of the International Discussions on the South Caucasus is the conclusion of a legally binding agreement on the non-use of force between Tbilisi, Sukhum and Tskhinval, as well as the launch of the process of border delimitation, followed by demarcation. This is imperative. Without resolving these practical issues, it will be impossible to ensure lasting peace and stability in the South Caucasus.
At the same time, we regret to note that there remain factors affecting the Geneva negotiating process and posing a genuine threat to security in the entire South Caucasus region.
One such factor is the confrontational course pursued by the Georgian side, which seeks to use the platforms of various international organizations to discredit Russia and isolate Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The United Nations is no exception. This is also evidenced by the fact that every year Georgia introduces a highly politicized General Assembly resolution on internally displaced persons (IDPs) and refugees, which is considered without the participation of representatives of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
Nor can we accept our colleagues’ hypocritical statements about human rights in the region. It is precisely due to Western sanctions that the residents of Abkhazia and South Ossetia find themselves isolated.
We would also like to warn some of our colleagues against advancing a destructive agenda on the Georgian track. Attempts by the EU to interfere in the country’s domestic political situation, as well as to drag Tbilisi into NATO, will not lead to anything good. Georgia’s current pragmatic leadership is well aware of this.
Russia is guided by the interests of preserving and strengthening security in the region. We stand ready to continue engaging with those who care about the fate of the South Caucasus. We are also prepared to provide comprehensive assistance in promoting dialogue between Tbilisi, Sukhum and Tskhinval with a view to establishing lasting peace and resolving the problems in the region they all share.
Thank you.
Q: I have a little bit broader question, but it relates to what you're talking about, I think. The purpose of the Security Council, when it was set up, as you know better than anyone, was the maintenance of international peace and security. That's the Council's job, as you well know. My question is: the Council has come under a lot of criticism, especially in recent years, of being deadlocked, and that great powers are using the Council in various different ways. Do you see it that way? And do you see this – what you're bringing up today – as an example of this?
A: We discussed this issue many times over, and I think that the deadlock you refer to in the Security Council is the reflection and the derivative of the geopolitics that we are facing today. This is one of the issues on which there is no agreement between some of the Western Council members and us, but this issue was never a part of the Security Council agenda. That's why we think that bringing it to the Council, even in the form of the AOB, as our colleagues wanted today, is excessive and will not lead to the solution, because the format in which the solution can be found exists. What is lacking is the political will by some of the parties.
Q: Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. Of course, one of the peace and security issues that the Council has not addressed is the ongoing war in Iran, and I wonder if Russia bilaterally, as it has relations with Iran, is putting any pressure on the Iranian government to try to resume negotiations and bring that war to an end?
A: Russia, as a matter of principle, does not put any pressure on anybody, be it Iran or any other country. Iran is a sovereign nation. They decide for themselves. We discussed that issue too, and we know that the genesis of the conflict is not in what Iran did or what it didn't do, but in the reckless and unprovoked aggression that the US waged against Iran. And I don't think that it is Iran that withdrew from fulfilling the agreements that had been reached between the US and Iran with the help of the mediators. So I don't think that we have to blame Iran for this. But the issue is being discussed in the Council. It didn't happen this year, but I'm sure we will address it in the course of the months.
Q: Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. Yesterday, your US colleague at the Security Council accused the President of the General Assembly of overstepping her authority. I just wonder if you share her criticism when it comes to the selection of the Secretary-General, and, more broadly, what do you think of the criticism that the selection process lacks transparency and there should be a greater role for the UN General Assembly to play in this? Thank you.
A: I share what my US colleague said yesterday. We didn't make that outspoken statement, but we were concerned with the role the PGA was trying to impose upon herself and interfere with the process of selection of the candidate for Secretary-General, which is clearly defined both by the Charter and the recent resolution that was adopted by the General Assembly (by consensus, by the way) which stipulates how the Secretary-General (he or she) should be selected.
You talk about transparency. We saw transparency when we saw the results of the first straw poll leaked in about an hour. I think that was a reflection of transparency. That happens every time. But, I mean, the speed with which it was done last time was really puzzling.
But this is not the case where you need transparency. This is a very delicate process, and it is defined both by the straw polls and later by the separate voting. And if you tell now transparently who one side or another is supporting, you will hurt perhaps the chances of some of the candidates. So it should be quite discreet, like it used to be all the time in the history of the United Nations.
Q: Do you feel that General Assembly dialogue with candidates is necessary, or not an imperative?
A: The dialogue is important because it allows the membership to understand what one or another candidate is up to, what his or her program is, and receive a broad understanding of who we are selecting.
The question is that all of the candidates, when speaking to the General Assembly – I would not say they are vague, but they will be delivering messages that would be acceptable and well received by most of the membership.
We will not be able to really distinguish exactly how she or he will conduct his or her business when selected and elected Secretary-General. But the dialogues are important, I agree. That is provided by the resolution as well.
Q: So the Security Council dialogues, the private dialogues you're having, are they more useful than the General Assembly dialogues?
A: Well, they are both useful. We indeed had dialogues with all the candidates, today with the two – Ambassador Otunnu and Ivonne A-Baki. They are important. They help you to understand the position of candidates and also to assess the capacity and ability of this or another candidate to be Secretary-General. I do not compare these dialogues and arrange them by their importance. Both formats are important.
Q: Do you think that under the new Secretary-General, given his neutrality, the UN can be the platform for Ukraine crisis resolution?
A: Well, of course, a lot depends on the Secretary-General, on his or her personality, and on his or her ability to engage, and that is what we stress every time we talk to one or another candidate, that we want the new Secretary-General to have more interaction with the Security Council, which we have frankly been lacking, especially in recent years with the current one. We would like him or her to be more involved in crisis resolution, but for that, this newly elected Secretary-General should be willing to engage, perhaps knowing that he or she might not always be successful. But you have to immerse yourself in, to jump into the water and try to be helpful. It was like with Kofi Annan, who was bold enough to go to a crisis without being assured that he would be able to resolve it, but he was always ready to step in. And that's what we're expecting from the new Secretary-General.
Q: What about the latest entrants into the Secretary-General's race? Do you feel that this is going to fundamentally change your outlook as to who should be the next Secretary-General? Or, you know, there could be possibilities where we'll get another two or three people entering. Does that create more of a mess in the Security Council, or does that help?
A: The last entry was Yvonne Bakke. Before that, we don't have any others. I mean, if you start from the first and latest straw polls, will there be other candidates? I do not exclude it if, for example - I'm speculating now - if there is a deadlock on any of the candidates that we are seeing today. If none of them flies, then I think that we may see other candidates as well.
Q: President Trump yesterday announced a new campaign to isolate Iran's economy and threatened the countries that continue to deal with Iran with consequences that might include Russia. What's the Russian position in this regard?
A: We've seen so many sanctions and pledges to isolate the Russian economy that we do not pay too much attention to them because we have managed to adapt to whatever sanctions they have introduced or whatever threats we have heard on the way. I think that we will manage. Don't worry about Russia's economy.
Q: My question concerns Georgia. Now, on the eve of mass mobilization, which is expected in Russia after your so-called elections, thousands and tens of thousands of young Russian men are fleeing to Georgia now. Do you have any comment on that?
A: You are much more aware of what will happen after the elections than I am. Let's see what happens after the elections. I wouldn't say that tens of thousands of young Russians are fleeing to Georgia. You know what is happening with the mobilization in Ukraine better than anybody else in this environment. So, don't worry about mobilization in Russia. I think that it was said many times officially that we don't need massive mobilization at the moment, and it is not planned and expected, as far as I know. But let's see what happens after the elections and who is right and who is wrong.
Q: President Trump has said he wants to declare the Strait of Hormuz U.S. territory. What's Russia's position on that one?
A: I don't want to offend anybody by answering this question, but, I mean, President Trump has claimed many territories around the world. Today, we had a dialogue with the candidates at the Danish Mission. And the room was called Greenland. Doesn't that remind you of anything? He talked about Venezuela, about other parts of the world. I don't know how it can be done in compliance with international law. But, I mean, President Trump is the master of his own words. And let's see how he is planning to implement it.
