International relations are becoming increasingly
complex and multidimensional, while developments
in the world are even more rapid and less predictable.
Under these circumstances as never before, there is an
urgent need to agree upon collective responses to the
key issues of today. It is solely within the power of such
a truly universal Organization as the United Nations
to do so. Moreover, such solidarity-based efforts will
be productive only if they reflect the entire spectrum
of views of the international community on global
challenges and threats, a broad range of historical
experiences and the full cultural and civilizational
diversity of the modern world.
For most of the Members of the United Nations
family, that approach is axiomatic. However, there is
also another tendency whereby collective actions are
understood primarily as agreement with the viewpoint
of one group of countries. Such views manifest
themselves in various areas: international security, the
settlement of conflict situations, the functioning of the
world economy, and the choice of development models
and core values.
Many problems affecting today’s world are reflected
in the tragic situation in Syria and in the uncertainty
surrounding the development of events in the Middle
East and North Africa overall. From the very onset of
the turmoil in that region, Russia has consistently called
for the development by the international community
of a common approach combining support for the
Arab peoples on their path to transformation with
an understanding of the fact that, objectively, those
processes will be lengthy and sometimes painful, and
that it will be quite important not to undermine them
through gross outside interference.
We have emphasized the need to act in a balanced
way and to take account of the fact that current complex
developments are associated with, among other things,
a tireless quest for compromises among the various
ethnic and religious groups that make up the mosaic
of Arab societies. We have consistently supported the
choice of the evolutionary way of development and the
peaceful settlement of crises through national dialogue
and reconciliation.
Another perspective has been reflected in the
attempts made to determine who is and is not legitimate
among the leaders of the Middle East and North Africa
region, to impose a view as to which side should be
supported in domestic national conflicts, and to dictate
external, ready-made prescriptions for democratic
transformation.
Attempts to portray, in a simplified way, the
developments in the Arab world as the struggle of
democracy against tyranny or of good against evil
have long obscured the problems associated with the
rising wave of extremism, which is spilling over into
other regions today. The terrorist attacks in Kenya
have demonstrated the full gravity of that threat. It is
common knowledge that jihadist groups that include
numerous radical elements from all parts of the world
are the most combat-capable units of the opposition.
The goals that they are pursuing have nothing to do with
democracy but are based on intolerance and aimed at
the destruction of secular States and the establishment
of caliphates. It is difficult to qualify as far-sighted a
policy that entails fighting in Mali the same extremist
groups that are being supported in Syria.
The use of chemical weapons is inadmissible. That
does not mean, however, that one can usurp the right
to accuse and to render verdicts. All of the incidents
associated with the use of chemical weapons in Syria,
by whomsoever committed, must be investigated in a
professional and unbiased manner and then considered
by the Security Council exclusively on the basis of
facts rather than of allegations or assumptions. In that
respect, at the Group of 20 (G-20) summit held in June,
an agreement was reached by leaders of the eight key
States.
Recently a common argument has been
increasingly made to the effect that the threat or use
of force, directly prohibited by the Charter of the
United Nations, is virtually the most effective method
of addressing international problems, including the
settlement of domestic conflicts. There have been
attempts to extrapolate such an approach to the
situation in Syria as well, despite the fact that recent
experience with such interventions has proved that they
are ineffective, meaningless and destructive. That is an
extremely dangerous path leading to the erosion of the
foundations of today’s world order and the subversion
of the weapons of mass destruction non-proliferation
regimes.
It is alarming to hear statements about the right
to use military force to ensure one’s own interests in
the Middle East region under the pretext of a persistent
leadership gap in the international arena. Recent history
shows that no State, no matter how big or powerful,
can cope alone with challenges of the scope faced by
humankind today.
There is no doubt that leadership is required.
However, today it can only be collective leadership
based on agreed actions of the leading members of
the international community, with strict respect for
the principles and norms of international law. It is
the growing understanding of that reality that has
opened the way towards achieving Russia-United
States understandings relating to the placing under
international control and subsequent elimination of the
Syrian chemical arsenals. That became possible thanks
to the decision by Damascus to join the Chemical
Weapons Convention and fulfil the relevant obligations
following the expedited procedure.
We expect that the decisions of the Organization
for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons Executive
Council and the Security Council will contribute to
creating the framework required for the elimination of
chemical arsenals in Syria.
Progress in the area of chemical disarmament in
Syria should give impetus to the implementation of
existing arrangements to convene a conference on
establishing a zone free of weapons of mass destruction
and their means of delivery in the Middle East. We know
that there are a number of complicated issues related to
ensuring full participation of the countries of the region
in such a conference, but they cannot be discussed
endlessly. That is exactly when true leadership and
resolve must be demonstrated for the common benefit.
People are continuing to die and innocent civilians
to suffer every day in Syria. Religious minorities,
including Christian communities, are becoming
victims of the conflict, which is increasingly acquiring
a sectarian character. Virtually the only possibility
remaining today to put an end to this turmoil is
to break the deadlock regarding the process of a
political settlement of the Syrian crisis. We continue
to work tirelessly for the earliest convening of a peace
conference to implement the Geneva communiqué
of 30 July 2012 (S/2012/522, annex). We hope that,
following the example set by the Government of Syria,
the opposition will also constructively respond to the
Russia-United States initiative.
The Syrian crisis should not overshadow the need to
address the Palestinian problem. We expect the Israeli
and Palestinian leaders to shoulder their responsibility
for the future of their people at this current critical
stage, where the parties have resumed direct talks
after a lengthy interruption. While duly recognizing
the efforts made by the United States in the Middle
East settlement process, we deem it necessary to
intensify the activity of the Quartet, the internationally
recognized mechanism for providing assistance to the
peace process in the region on the basis of the relevant
decisions of the United Nations, the Madrid principles
and the Arab Peace Initiative. It is also important to
ensure the close involvement of the Arab countries in
the activities of the Quartet.
Approaches based on negotiation are also required
with respect to other situations, including the Iranian
nuclear programme and the nuclear problem in the
Korean peninsula. As President Vladimir Putin noted
in his recent article in the 11 September 2013 issue of
The New York Times,
“We must stop using the language of force and
return to the path of civilized diplomatic and
political settlement.”
This would help to improve the international
environment and contribute to stepping up collective
efforts to counter global challenges, including terrorism
and drug trafficking. Russia intends to attach priority
attention to these challenges during its presidency of
the Group of Eight, in 2014.
Today, when the rigid frame of the bipolar system
has been long relegated to the past, a mark of the time
is the strengthening of the democratic foundations both
within States and in international relations. That means
in particular that the recognition of the right of peoples
to independently determine their destiny and to choose
the optimal forms of social and political structure
and social and economic systems should become an
indisputable norm of conduct. In the same way, the
complex of exclusiveness and supremacy regarding
one’s own customs in the human rights area should be
abandoned and instead the universal criteria enshrined
in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights should
be used as a guideline. Moreover, it is important to
respect the traditional values that are common to all
the religions.
It is obvious that a genuine partnership is hardly
achievable without reliance on the foundations of
economic cooperation. The prevailing majority of
States are interacting within the framework of the
World Trade Organization and in that sense they are
already operating in a common economic space.
This creates the prerequisites for working towards
harmonization of integration processes in various
regions of the world instead of trying to artificially pit
them against each other by creating new division lines.
Russia is proceeding from that exact understanding in
its joint work with its partners in the establishment of
the Eurasian Economic Union.
Russia attaches great importance to achieving the
Millennium Development Goals and the drafting of the
global development agenda for the post-2015 period
on their basis. The main priorities are the eradication
of poverty and support for economic growth through
the expansion of investment opportunities and the
creation of new jobs. Some of the most urgent issues
are the strengthening of the energy and transport
infrastructures, the fight against infectious diseases
and road safety.
Cooperation among States should rely on efficient
mechanisms and an adequate resource base. In that
context, we support the further strengthening of the
coordinating role and potential of the United Nations
Economic and Social Council. During its chairmanship
of the Group of 20, Russia has consistently pursued
a policy of developing its interaction with the United
Nations. We believe that the General Assembly, in
cooperation with the G-20, will develop a realistic
programme of long-term cooperation.
I firmly believe that, by joining forces on the basis
of genuine respect and considering the interests of each
and everyone, we will be able to achieve the lofty goals
that are enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations.