Statement by representative of the Russian Federation Maria Zabolotskaya under General Assembly agenda item 123: explanation of position on the draft resolution entitled “The United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy: seventh review” (A/75/L.105)
I am honoured to deliver the following remarks on behalf of Belarus, China, Cuba, Iran, Nicaragua, Russia, Syria, Venezuela and Zimbabwe. Our delegations wish to make an explanation of position regarding resolution on the Seventh Review of the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy.
We are convinced that the General Assembly had no choice but to adopt this important decision by consensus and reaffirm its unhindered dedication to the aims of countering the menace of terrorism under the auspices of the United Nations. We consider that consensus on this resolution is even more important than its content. By supporting the resolution our group reiterated firm commitment to comprehensive implementation of the Strategy, as well as adherence to relevant obligations under international law, including the UN Charter, while countering terrorism. We recognize and support advancements this resolution should bring to multilateral efforts related to suppressing various forms of support to terrorists, bringing them to justice on the basis of “extradite or prosecute” principle, improving prevention and mitigation measures, as well as enhancing information exchange among Member States.
We stand in solidarity with all nations that have suffered from terrorism and continue to reiterate our readiness to support and assist our partners around the World in their efforts to counter terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. In this regard we are guided by the necessity to further build the united front against terrorism based on mutual respect, rejection of “double standards”, hidden agenda, as well as strict adherence to the UN Charter.
Unfortunately, Mr. President, the present review process has not lived up to the high ideals and expectations of all Member States to this end. Namely, this resolution failed to decently address some of the most pressing contemporary issues, such as the obstacles to effective multilateral cooperation in combating terrorism, as well as the necessity to improve international legal frameworks in this sphere and advance their implementation. The text has been disproportionally boosted with human rights provisions and caveats, however, the proponents of this language preferred to refrain from accepting their own shortcomings and, in certain instances, violations in this regard. For example, we addressed the issue of returning children from conflict zones and protection of their rights, however the language included in the text does not nearly reflect the seriousness of the situation on the ground. There is a stronger emphasis in this resolution on dealing with detainees humanely, yet we continue to turn the blind eye on the well-documented instances of torturing inmates in secret prisons. This list can go on.
It was even more difficult to find solutions duly reflecting the positions of all delegations and realities on the ground because of serious deficiencies in the facilitation of the review process. We are convinced that any attempts to silence certain delegations or even groups while openly promoting other national and regional priorities are absolutely incompatible with the principle of impartiality. We must recognize that this attitude brought the Assembly to the verge of a first vote in the history of GCTS consideration by the General Assembly.
We are convinced, Mr. President, that precise and systemic conclusions should be drawn for the purposes of avoiding similar situations in the future. In particular, we would suggest to elaborate a set of rules to guide future facilitators in this process. It should reaffirm the need to respect the principle of sovereign equality of States and stress that facilitation of any intergovernmental negotiations process should be conducted in a non-partisan manner.
I thank you.