Today,
speaking from this high rostrum, I would like to
highlight five topics that are, in my view, important to
all of us and our common approaches to the
international agenda.
The first is the timing of this meeting and the
moment that humankind is currently experiencing. This
session of the General Assembly is taking place at a
very critical and complex time. It can be said without
exaggeration that we are living through one of the
watershed moments of modern history. Besides the
economic crisis — the first large-scale crisis of the era
of globalization — global development as a whole
continues to be threatened by regional and local
conflicts, terrorism, cross-border crime, food shortages
and climate change. The impact of the crisis continues
to be felt by most countries of the world. Although so
far we have been able, it seems, to avoid the very worst
scenarios, the question remains: how to overcome the
huge imbalances and deficits — amounting to trillions
of dollars — accumulated in the global and national
economies.
Our collective agenda for unification has been
dictated by life itself, which also dictates the growing
need for the United Nations as a time-tested
mechanism for harmonizing the interests of different
States and peoples. As never before, we are feeling the
need for informal collective leadership and for an
increased role for such platforms as the G-8 and the
more recent G-20, as well as other negotiation and
mediation forums, and all the more because these
operate not on a model of opposition, but rather to
advance the converging interests of their participants.
At this morning’s meeting, the President of the
United States addressed this Assembly, and I would
like to endorse one of the thoughts he voiced. He stated
that no single country can or should attempt to
dominate others, and that is absolutely true. However,
these agreed approaches need to be implemented in
some way, including through the United Nations
system.
Another distinctive feature of modern times is the
increasing role of regional entities, which are growing
more active on every continent. This trend is entirely
consistent with the principles of the United Nations.
Russia, for its part — together with its partners in the
Commonwealth of Independent States, in the
framework of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization,
and with its fellow BRIC countries Brazil, India and
China — will continue to bolster the mechanisms of
regional interaction. These mechanisms facilitate a
collective response to common threats, while
mitigating the consequences of the crisis for our
citizens and increasing the sustainability of our
national economies.
Secondly, I want to touch on the issue of existing
problems. Allow me to dwell on those that cannot be
effectively addressed without the participation or
outside the framework of the United Nations. The first
task in this regard is to address the imbalance of
existing mechanisms of global economic governance,
the inadequacy of their rules of the game, and the
chasm between the financial markets and the real
economy. We need to make joint efforts to establish
financial and economic models that will protect all of
us from such turmoil in the future.
Virtually all countries have seen a drop in output
and in the standards of living of millions of their
17 09-52228
citizens. The crisis has exacerbated social problems,
painfully tested young people at the very start of their
lives, and caused significant growth in unemployment
in all countries. Russia is no exception in this.
A painful blow has been delivered to our plans to
alleviate poverty. A real threat of disruption of the
Millennium Development Goals has emerged. We must
do our utmost to prevent such a development. Donor
assistance to countries in need cannot be postponed
until some other time. The tasks set out as a priority by
the international community must absolutely be
addressed. The arrangements adopted at the G-20
summits and the United Nations Conference on the
World Financial and Economic Crisis and Its Impact on
Development must be implemented — and they must
be implemented within the deadlines that we ourselves
set.
The second major task in this context is to
address the issues of global energy security. Three
years ago at the Saint Petersburg G-8 summit in
Russia, the principles for a new legal framework for
such cooperation were formulated. The goal is to
harmonize the interests of all participants in the energy
chain: suppliers, consumers and intermediaries or
transiters. It was not so long ago that we solidified
these principles, and we invite all States to engage in
discussion on them. We believe that such discussions
should be conducted with the active involvement of
specialized multilateral institutions, including, of
course, the agencies of the United Nations family.
The third task that Russia deems to be potentially
critical is the comprehensive strengthening of the
United Nations itself. The United Nations must adapt
itself in a rational way to the new global realities. It
should strengthen its influence while preserving its
multinational nature and the integrity of the Charter’s
key provisions. The most important component of the
revitalization of the United Nations is reform of the
Security Council. The time has come to speed up the
search for a compromise formula for the Security
Council’s expansion, and of course to increase its
efficiency.
The third issue I want to touch on is
disarmament. The process of multilateral disarmament
under United Nations auspices is an extremely
important task. There are grounds for hope since, as
members are aware, a number of positive trends have
emerged in overcoming the protracted crisis. The
Conference on Disarmament in Geneva has adopted its
programme of work. I should also like to mention the
Russian-Chinese initiative to develop a treaty to
prevent the deployment of weapons in outer space, as
well as our current proposal to universalize the
Russian-American Treaty on the Elimination of
Intermediate-range and Shorter-range Missiles.
Russia will unswervingly follow the path of
verifiable and irreversible reductions in nuclear
weapons as an essential element of a new start in our
relations with the United States. In Moscow in July this
year, President Obama and I not only signed a relevant
document, but also agreed on a mandate for further
negotiations to elaborate a new, legally binding treaty.
This treaty should replace the Treaty on the Reduction
and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, which
expires in December.
Of special importance here is the relationship
between strategic offensive and defensive arms. In my
meeting with President Obama this morning, we
discussed the recently announced adjustments to the
United States’ planned development of a missile
defence system. I should like to state in this highest of
forums that we view this decision as a constructive step
in the right direction, which has deservedly received
numerous expressions of support from the international
community. Russia is ready to engage in detailed
discussions with the American side and to undertake
relevant initiatives in this field in order to reach
mutually acceptable agreement.
Without resolving such problems as missile
defence and non-nuclear strategic offensive arms, it
will be simply impossible to achieve real progress in
the field of nuclear disarmament. I believe that the
work on this new treaty will be fully consistent with
relevant provisions of the joint document endorsed by
the President of the United States and myself at our
meeting in Moscow.
We believe that other nuclear States should join
the disarmament efforts of Russia and the United
States. There is no need to wait for further progress in
the Russian-American disarmament process. We can
begin forthwith to elaborate acceptable and practical
arrangements that take into account the differences in
the size of potentials. In that respect, we could draw on
international experience in the twentieth century, for
example the 1921-1922 Washington Conference on
naval armaments, where participants agreed on the
09-52228 18
maximum size of their fleets without insisting on parity
in absolute terms. If we take the same approach today,
based on the current status of nuclear arsenals, we
could send the rest of the world a sure signal that the
unaccounted numbers will be added to the equation of
strategic stability.
Pursuing nuclear disarmament, strengthening the
nuclear non-proliferation regime and promoting the
peaceful use of nuclear energy will be at the very heart
of the 2010 Review Conference of the Parties to the
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
(NPT). We cherish the hope that it will be successful.
The global nuclear security summit scheduled for
April 2010 will provide a good opportunity for a more
detailed discussion of these issues. We support that
initiative. We have also agreed with the United States
Administration on joint steps for further progress on
such aspects of nuclear security as the prevention of
nuclear terrorism, expanding access to the benefits of
peaceful nuclear energy to all signatories implementing
the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons in good faith, and other decisions. We call for
collective cooperation on these matters.
In order to reach a common understanding on
such important issues, we must engage all nations
and influential international organizations in the
aforementioned negotiation processes. The international
community, it must be said, has at its disposal such
tried and tested measures for enhancing regional and
international security as nuclear-weapon-free zones. In
particular, there is a very pressing need to establish a
zone in the Middle East free of all types of weapons of
mass destruction and their means of delivery. This is a
long-standing issue, with respect to which a resolution
was adopted at the 1995 NPT Review Conference.
Russia, as a member of the Quartet of
international mediators on the Middle East settlement,
has consistently supported efforts to strengthen the
nuclear non-proliferation regime in the Middle East.
Russia has made specific proposals within the
framework of the NPT review process to seek mutually
acceptable ways of implementing earlier decisions on
this matter. All countries of the region need to take an
active stance on this issue and demonstrate their
willingness to achieve that end.
We also need to accelerate work towards a
mechanism to ensure peace and security in North-East
Asia. Russia has made proposals in this regard to the
participants in the Six-Party Talks. In the present
circumstances, this task is more urgent than ever.
The fourth topic I wish to address is that of
regional conflicts and regional security. We intend to
continue to participate in the search for effective
options for settling regional conflicts. We are
convinced that the use of force can only exacerbate
such situations. That was demonstrated by the reckless
attempt by the Georgian authorities last year to resolve
the problems in their relations with South Ossetia by
military means.
At that time, in August 2008, we came very close
to a situation in which a local armed conflict had the
potential to grow into a full-scale war. I am certain that
this is clearly understood by everyone in this Hall
today. In order to ensure that this should never recur,
we need clear and effective mechanisms to implement
the principle of the indivisibility of security. Without
such a mechanism, we will not be able to move beyond
the legacy of the past or overcome existing prejudices.
I wish to stress that irresponsible regimes should not
have any opportunity whatsoever to foment disputes
among other countries.
The role and place of the modern nation in
ensuring global security is a topic of the greatest
relevance today. We have witnessed situations time and
again in which problems emerging within the confines
of an individual State have acquired a regional or even
global character. The incompetence and, very often,
ineffectiveness of national Government institutions can
have consequences that are fraught with risks for
several countries. The prevention of such an outcome
is of course a very complex and sensitive issue, but one
upon which we must deliberate together.
These issues were the focus of discussions at a
recent conference held in Russia. The outcome was
quite clear. What we require in the future is a smart
foreign policy. The current global crisis is not limited
to economics; it is also a crisis of ideas. It is the
accumulation of a critical mass of outdated policies
and development models.
Having developed the initiative to sign a new
European security treaty, Russia has proposed taking a
fresh approach to this problem and, above all,
abandoning outdated policies. We all hope that the cold
war has been left behind, but the world has not become
more secure. What we need today are modern solutions
and clear legal frameworks for implementing existing
19 09-52228
political commitments. We do not need declarations,
appeals or demagogues; what we need are clear legal
frameworks, including to enshrine the principle under
international law that one must not seek to ensure one’s
own security at the expense of the security of others.
Our initiative concerns the Euro-Atlantic space.
However, its key provision on the indivisibility of
security is a universal principle that is applicable to all
regions of the world and is fully consistent with the
letter and spirit of the United Nations Charter. The
principle of the indivisibility of security should be an
integral part of current international law.
Values are the last issue that I wish to mention
from this rostrum. The protection of human rights and
interests and the universal application of commonly
recognized norms and principles in that area should be
the basis for strengthening trust and stability in
international relations. We are all united by values that
are rooted in morality, religion, customs and traditions.
I am talking about such fundamental concepts as the
right to life, tolerance of dissent, responsibility towards
one’s family, charity and compassion, which are the
foundation both of daily life and of relations among
States.
However, unfortunately, it is the reality that the
world is witnessing growing nationalism and numerous
manifestations of religious intolerance and hatred. That
is why we believe that establishing a high-level group
on interfaith dialogue under the Director-General of
UNESCO is extremely valuable. It is particularly
relevant on the eve of 2010, which the United Nations
has declared International Year for the Rapprochement
of Cultures.
To conclude, I cannot fail to mention, as I stand
here, another topic that is very close to the heart of all
citizens of our country and all peoples of the world.
Next year, we are going to celebrate the sixty-fifth
anniversary of the end of the Second World War.
Russia put forward a proposal to adopt a relevant
General Assembly resolution and to hold a special
session to commemorate all victims of that war in May
next year. We cannot allow its horrible lessons to be
forgotten.
However, from time to time we see neo-fascist
organizations raise their heads. Racial, national and
ethnic crimes are being committed. Attempts are being
made to whitewash Nazism, to deny the Holocaust and
to review the decisions of the Nuremberg Tribunal. I
am convinced that strong and joint resistance to
manifestations of neo-Nazism and to attempts to revise
the results of the Second World War enshrined in the
United Nations Charter should remain a priority task of
the Organization.
The creation of the United Nations was one of the
principal achievements of the international community
in the twentieth century. This Organization and its
fruitful activities have become a symbol of the
twentieth century, and there is simply no alternative to
these activities. We have no right to forget that the
United Nations possesses unique international
legitimacy, and we all must preserve and strengthen
this shared wealth of the peoples of the world.