There is growing evidence today of a contradiction
between the need for collective and partnership efforts
in order to develop adequate responses to the challenges
common to us all, on the one hand, and, on the other,
the aspiration of a number of States to domination and
a revival of the archaic bloc thinking based on military
drill discipline and the erroneous logic of friend or foe.
The United States-led Western alliance, which
portrays itself as a champion of democracy, the rule of
law and human rights within individual countries, acts
from a directly opposite position in the international
arena, rejecting the democratic principles of the
sovereign equality of States enshrined the Charter of
the United Nations and trying to decide for everyone
what is good or evil.
Washington has openly declared its right to the
unilateral use of military force anywhere to advocate
its own interests. Military interference has become a
norm, despite the dismal outcome of all the operations
involving the use of force that the United States has
carried out in recent years.
The sustainability of the international system has
been severely shaken by the NATO bombardment of
Yugoslavia, the intervention in Iraq, the attack against
Libya and the failure in Afghanistan. It was due only
to intensive diplomatic efforts that aggression against
Syria was prevented in 2013. The various colour
revolutions and other schemes aimed at changing
unsuitable regimes inevitably give the impression that
their goal is to create chaos and instability.
Today Ukraine has fallen victim to that policy.
The situation there has revealed the deep-rooted and
systemic flaws remaining in the existing Euro-Atlantic
architecture. The West has embarked on a course
towards a vertical structuring of humankind tailored to
its own standards, which are hardly inoffensive.
After the West declared victory in the Cold War
and the so-called end of history, the United States and
the European Union opted to expand the geopolitical
area under their control without taking into account
the balance of legitimate interests of all the peoples
of Europe. The Western partners did not heed our
numerous warnings with regard to the unacceptable
violations of the principles of the Charter of the United
Nations and the Helsinki Final Act, and time and again
they have avoided serious joint work to establish a
common space of equal and indivisible security and
cooperation from the Atlantic to the Pacific Oceans.
The Russian proposal to draft a European security
treaty was rejected. We were told directly that only the
members of the North Atlantic Alliance can have legally
binding security guarantees, and the NATO expansion
to the East continued in spite of the promises to the
contrary given earlier. NATO’s instant switch to hostile
rhetoric and the reduction of its cooperation with Russia,
even to the detriment of the West’s own interests, and
the additional build-up of military infrastructure along
Russia’s borders revealed the inability of the Alliance
to change the genetic code embedded in it during the
Cold War.
The United States and the European Union supported
the coup d’état in Ukraine, recklessly justifying any
acts by the self-proclaimed Kyiv authorities, who
opted to suppress by force that part of the Ukrainian
people who had rejected the attempts to impose an
anti-constitutional order throughout the country and
wanted to defend their rights to their native language,
culture and history. It is precisely the aggressive assault
on those rights that compelled the population of Crimea
to take its destiny in its own hands and make a choice
in favour of self-determination. That was an absolutely
free choice, no matter what was invented by those
who were responsible in the first place for the internal
conflict in Ukraine.
There have been attempts to distort the truth and
hide facts behind blanket accusations at all stages of the
Ukrainian crisis. Nothing has been done to track down
and prosecute those responsible for the bloody February
events at Maidan and the massive loss of human lives
in Odessa, Mariupol and other regions of Ukraine. The
scale of the appalling humanitarian disaster provoked
by the acts of the Ukrainian army in south-eastern
Ukraine has been deliberately understated.
Recently, horrifying new facts came to light when
mass graves were discovered near Donetsk. Despite
Security Council resolution 2166 (2014), a thorough
and independent investigation into the circumstances
of the loss of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH-17 over
Ukrainian territory has been delayed. Those guilty for
all those crimes must be found and brought to justice.
Otherwise, national reconciliation in Ukraine can
hardly be expected.
Russia is sincerely interested in the restoration of
peace in a neighbouring country, and that should be well
understood by anyone even slightly acquainted with the
deep-rooted and fraternal relations between the two
peoples. The path to a political settlement is known.
As early as this April, Kyiv made a commitment in the
Geneva Statement on Ukraine — agreed upon by Russia,
Ukraine, the United States and the European Union
(EU) — to immediately start a nation-wide dialogue
involving all of Ukraine’s regions and political forces
to implement constitutional reforms. The fulfilment
of that obligation would allow all Ukrainians to agree
on how to live in accordance with their traditions and
culture and would allow Ukraine to return to its organic
role as a link between the different parts of the European
space, which certainly implies the preservation and
respect by everyone of its non-aligned, neutral status.
We are convinced that with goodwill and the refusal
to support the party of war in Kyiv, which is trying to
push the Ukrainian people into the abyss of national
catastrophe, a way out of the crisis is within reach.
A way to overcome the situation has opened with
a ceasefire agreement for south-eastern Ukraine on
the basis of initiatives of Presidents Poroshenko and
Putin. With the participation of representatives of Kyiv,
Donetsk, Luhansk, the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and Russia, practical
measures are being agreed on for the consecutive
realization of those agreements, including the separation
of the parties, the withdrawal of the heavy weapons of
the Ukrainian military forces and of the militias, and
the organization of monitoring through the OSCE.
Russia is ready to continue to actively promote a
political settlement, both under the framework of the
well-known recommendations of the Minsk process
and in other formats. But it should be quite clear that
we are doing this for the sake of peace, tranquillity
and the well-being of the Ukrainian people, and not to
appease someone’s ambitions. Attempts to put pressure
on Russia to force it to abandon its values of truth and
justice are absolutely futile.
I will allow myself a digression into recent history.
As a condition for the establishment of diplomatic
relations with the Soviet Union in 1933, the United
States Government demanded from Moscow guarantees
of non-interference in the internal affairs of the United
States, obligations not to undertake any actions aimed at
changing the political and social structure of America.
At that time, Washington feared the revolutionary virus,
and such guarantees were secured between America
and the Soviet Union, on the basis of reciprocity.
Perhaps it makes sense to return to that subject
and reproduce the then demand of the American
Government on a universal scale. Why not adopt a
General Assembly declaration about the inadmissibility
of interference in the domestic affairs of sovereign
States and non-recognition of coups d’état as a
method of regime change? It is time to fully exclude
from international interaction attempts at illegitimate
pressure by some States against others. The meaningless
and counterproductive nature of unilateral sanctions is
obvious in the example of the American blockade of
Cuba.
A policy of ultimatums and a philosophy of
superiority and domination do not meet the needs
of the twenty-first century; they are in conflict with
the objective processes of forming a polycentric,
democratic world order. Russia promotes a positive,
unifying agenda. We have always been and will be open
to discussing the most difficult questions, no matter
how intractable they may seem at first. We will be
ready to seek a compromise and a balance of interests
and to agree to exchange concessions, provided only
that the conversation is respectful and equitable.
The Minsk Agreement of 5 and 19 September about
the ways out of the Ukrainian crisis and the compromise
about the dates of entry into force of the Association
Agreement between Kyiv and the European Union are
good examples to emulate, as is the readiness, at last,
of Brussels to begin negotiations on establishing a free
trade area between the EU and the Customs Union of
Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan, as Mr. Putin suggested
back in January.
Russia has consistently advocated the harmonization
of integration projects in Europe and Eurasia.
Agreement on political benchmarks and terms such
as “convergence of integration” would be a real
contribution to the work of the OSCE on the topic
of Helsinki+40. Another important aspect of that
work would be to launch a pragmatic, de-ideologized
conversation on politico-military architecture in the
Euro-Atlantic area, so that not only members of NATO
and of the Collective Security Treaty Organization but
all the countries of the region, including Ukraine, the
Republic of Moldova and Georgia, would enjoy equal
and indivisible security and not have to make a false
choice of “either with us, or against us”. New dividing
lines must not be allowed in Europe, especially because
in the context of globalization they could become a
watershed between the West and the rest of the world.
It must be stated honestly that no one has a
monopoly on the truth; no one can forcibly tailor global
and regional processes to suit their needs. Today there
is no alternative to developing consensus on the rules
of sustainable global governance in the new historical
conditions, with full respect for the cultural and
civilizational diversity of the world and the multiplicity
of development models. To attain such a consensus
on every issue will be difficult, perhaps tedious. But
recognizing that in every State democracy is “the worst
form of Government except for all the others” also took
a long time, not until Churchill issued his verdict. It
is time to recognize the inevitability of that axiom in
international affairs, which currently suffer from a huge
deficit of democracy. Of course, someone will have to
break the age-old stereotypes, to abandon claims to
eternal exceptionalism. But there is no other way.
United efforts can be built only on the principles of
mutual respect and mutual consideration of interests, as
is done, for example, within the Security Council, the
Group of 20, the BRICS States of Brazil, Russia, India,
China and South Africa, and the Shanghai Cooperation
Council.
The theory of the advantages of collective work
are confirmed in practice, for instance, the progress
in settling the situation concerning the Iranian
nuclear programme and the successful completion of
the chemical demilitarization of Syria. By the way,
speaking of chemical weapons, I would like to obtain
honest information on the state of Libya’s chemical
arsenals. We understand that our NATO colleagues,
having bombed the country in violation of Security
Council resolutions, do not want to stir up the disorder
they created. However, the problem of uncontrolled
Libyan chemical arsenals is too serious to turn a blind
eye to. We believe the Secretary-General must show his
responsibility in that matter.
The main thing today is to see the global priorities
and avoid making them hostage to a one-sided agenda.
There is an urgent need to refrain from double
standards in approaches to conflict resolution. By
and large, everybody agrees that the key task is to
resolutely counter the terrorists, who are trying to
gain control of increasingly larger areas of Iraq, Syria,
Libya, Afghanistan and the Sahel-Sahara region. That
being the case, that problem cannot be sacrificed to
ideological schemes or to settle a score. Terrorists,
whatever slogans they hide behind, must be outlawed.
At the same time, of course, the fight against
terrorism should be based on the solid foundation of
international law. An important stage in that fight
was the unanimous adoption of a series of Security
Council resolutions, including those on the issue of
foreign terrorist fighters. On the other hand, attempts
to act contrary to the Charter of our Organization
do not contribute to the success of joint efforts. The
fight against terrorists in Syria should be built on
cooperation with the Syrian Government, which has
clearly stated its willingness in that regard. Damascus
has already demonstrated its ability to cooperate with
the international community and to fulfil its obligations
in the framework of the programme for eliminating its
chemical weapons.
From the very outset of the Arab Spring, Russia
urged that it not be abandoned to the control of
extremists, that a united front be created to counter the
growing terrorist threat. We have warned against the
temptation to take as allies almost anyone who declared
himself an enemy of Bashar Al-Assad, whether
Al-Qaida, Jabhat Al-Nusra and other fellow travellers
of regime change, including the Islamic State of Iraq
and the Levant (ISIL), which today is the focus of
attention. As they say, better late than never. This is not
the first time that Russia is making a real contribution
to the fight against ISIL and other terrorist groups in
the region. We are delivering large-scale supplies of
arms and military equipment to Iraq, Syria and other
Middle Eastern and North African countries, and we
will continue to support their efforts to suppress the
terrorists.
The terrorist threat requires a comprehensive
approach if we want to eradicate its causes and not
be doomed to reacting to the symptoms. ISIL is only
part of the problem. We propose to organize, under the
auspices of the Security Council, an in-depth study of
the threat of extremism and terrorism in all of their
aspects throughout the Middle East and North African
region. That integrated approach also presupposes
that chronic conflicts should be considered, above
all the Arab-Israeli conflict. The failure to settle the
Palestinian issue over several decades remains, as is
widely recognized, one of the main factors of instability
in the region, and that helps extremists to recruit more
and more new jihadists.
Another area of our common work together
demanding attention is uniting our efforts to implement
the decisions of the General Assembly and Security
Council to combat the Ebola virus. Our doctors are
already working in Africa. There are plans to send
additional humanitarian assistance, medical equipment
and instruments, medicine and teams of experts to assist
the United Nations programmes in Guinea, Liberia and
Sierra Leone.
The United Nations was established on the ruins
of the Second World War, and it is entering the year
of its seventieth anniversary. We all have an obligation
to celebrate in an appropriate manner the anniversary
of the great victory and to pay tribute to the memory
of all who perished for freedom and the right of each
people to determine their own destiny. The lessons
of that terrible war and the entire course of events in
today’s world require us to join efforts and forget about
unilateral interests and national electoral cycles when
it comes to countering global threats to all humankind.
National egoism should not be allowed to prevail over
collective responsibility.