Russia, 2013

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.