Russia, 2008

On 11 September 2001, the world changed,

and it rallied together in the fight against the threat of

terror, a threat that was common for all and knew no

boundaries. I am referring to threat of terrorism. The

world displayed an unprecedented level of solidarity by

rejecting old phobias and stereotypes. It seemed that

the global counter-terrorism coalition became a new

reality that from then on would define the development

of a system of international relations free from double

standards and beneficial to all.

The cohesion in the face of the deadly threats

emerging from Al-Qaida and other elements of

international terrorism made it possible to achieve

tangible success during the initial stage. But later,

problems began to appear. A painful blow to the unity

of the anti-terrorism coalition was delivered by the war

in Iraq, when — as it turned out later, under the false

pretext of the fight against terror and nuclear arms

proliferation — international law was violated. The

deepest crisis was thus created in a completely

artificial way and even today it is far from being

resolved.

Ever more questions are being raised about what

is going on in Afghanistan. First and foremost, what is

the acceptable price to pay in terms of the loss of

civilians’ lives in the ongoing counter-terrorism

operation? Who decides on criteria for determining

proportionality in the use of force? And why are the

international contingents that are present unwilling to

engage in the fight against the proliferating drug threat

that causes increasing suffering in the countries of

Central Asia and Europe? These and other factors give

us reason to believe that the counter-terrorism coalition

is faced with a crisis.

Looking at the core of the problem, it seems that

this coalition lacks the requisite collective

arrangements: equality among all its members in

deciding on strategy and, especially, operational

tactics. But in order to control the entirely new

situation that evolved after 9/11, which required

genuine cooperative effort, including joint analysis and

coordination of practical steps, mechanisms designed

for a unipolar world began to be used; decisions were

taken in a single centre of power, while the rest merely

had to follow.

We ended up with a privatization of the

international community’s efforts in the fight against

terrorism. The inertia of the unipolar world also

revealed itself in other spheres of international life,

including unilateral steps taken in anti-missile defence

and the militarization of outer space as well as in

attempts to bypass parity in arms control regimes,

expansion of political-military blocs, and politicization

08-53129 2

of the issues of access to and transport of energy

resources.

The illusion of the existence of a unipolar world

confused many. For some people, it generated a desire

to place all of their eggs in one basket. In exchange for

absolute loyalty, there was an expectation of carte

blanche to resolve all problems, using any means. The

emerging syndrome of complete permissiveness that

developed led to a rampage on the night of 8 August,

when aggression was unleashed on South Ossetia. The

bombing of the sleeping city of Tskhinvali and the

killing of civilians and peacekeepers trampled under

foot all existing settlement agreements, thus putting an

end to the territorial integrity of Georgia.

Russia helped South Ossetia to repel that

aggression, and carried out its duty to protect its

citizens and fulfil its peacekeeping commitments.

Russia’s recognition of the independence of South

Ossetia and Abkhazia was the only possible step to

ensure not only their security, but also the very survival

of their peoples, considering the previous record of

chauvinism of the Georgian leaders — starting with the

Georgian leader Zviad Gamsakhurdia who, in 1991,

under the slogan of “Georgia for Georgians”, ordered

the deportation of Ossetians to Russia, abolished the

autonomous status of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and

later unleashed a bloody war against them.

That war was brought to an end at the cost of

innumerable human lives, and peacekeeping and

negotiation mechanisms were established with the

approval of the United Nations and the Organization

for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

However, the current Georgian leadership has pursued

a persistent policy of undermining those mechanisms

through relentless provocation, and finally nullified the

peace process by launching a new murderous war on

the night of 8 August.

This problem is now closed. The future of the

peoples of Abkhazia and South Ossetia has been

reliably secured by the treaties between Moscow and

Tskhinvali and Sukhumi. With the implementation of

the Medvedev-Sarkozy plan, to which we are strongly

committed, the situation around the two republics will

finally be stabilized. It is important that this plan

should be strictly and unswervingly implemented by all

parties. We are concerned, however, by the attempts to

rewrite it after the fact.

I believe that everyone here has tired of playing

the role of extras for the Georgian regime, whose

words contain not a shred of truth and whose foreign

policy is aimed exclusively at provoking confrontation

throughout the world in the pursuit of their own

objectives which invariably run counter to the

objectives of the Georgian people and to the goal of

ensuring security in the Caucasus.

Today, it is necessary to analyse the crisis in the

Caucasus from the viewpoint of its impact on the

region and the international community as a whole.

The world has changed yet again. It has become

absolutely clear that the solidarity demonstrated after

9/11 must be revived through approaches untainted by

geopolitical expediency and built on the rejection of

double standards when fighting against any violations

or breaches of international law — whether on the part

of terrorists, political extremists or any others.

The crisis in the Caucasus has proved again that

it is impossible to resolve the problems we face when

blinded by the mirage of a unipolar world. The price

we will have to pay in terms of human lives and

destinies is too high. We cannot tolerate any attempts

to resolve conflict situations by violating international

agreements or by the unlawful use of force. If we allow

that to occur once, then we run the risk of unleashing it

in the future.

One cannot invoke the duty to defend in the

abstract, and then be outraged when that principle is

used in practice — and in strict conformity with Article

51 of the United Nations Charter and other norms of

international law. In South Ossetia, Russia defended

the highest of our common values, the most essential

human right: the right to live.

The existing security architecture in Europe did

not pass the test of recent events. Attempts to adjust it

to the rules of a unipolar world led to a situation where

that architecture proved incapable of containing an

aggressor or preventing the supply of offensive

weapons to it, contrary to all existing relevant codes of

conduct.

We propose that this issue should be addressed in

a comprehensive manner. President Dmitry

A. Medvedev, of Russia, speaking in Berlin on 5 June,

proposed an initiative on developing a Euro-Atlantic

security treaty, a type of “Helsinki II”. This work could

have been started at the Pan-European summit with the

3 08-53129

participation of all States as well as all organizations

working in the region.

The treaty which we are proposing is meant to

create a reliable collective security system that would

ensure equal security for all States and set out, in

legally binding form, the bases of relations among all

participants, with a view to strengthening peace,

ensuring stability and promoting integrated and

manageable development efforts across the vast Euro-

Atlantic region. This would be a process in which all

parties would reaffirm their commitment to

fundamental principles of international law, such as the

non-use of force; peaceful settlement of disputes;

sovereignty; territorial integrity; non-interference in

internal affairs; and the inadmissibility of

strengthening one’s own security by infringing upon or

endangering the security of others. We also need to

consider together new mechanisms to ensure

compliance with those fundamental principles.

Naturally, such a treaty should organically fit into the

legal framework of the United Nations Charter and its

principles of collective security.

The cold war distorted the nature of international

relations and turned them into an arena for ideological

confrontation. Only now, after the cold war has ended,

can the United Nations, created on the basis of a

polycentric vision of the world, fully realize its

potential. Today as never before, it is important that all

States reaffirm their commitment to the United Nations

as a global forum, to which there is no alternative and

which possesses a universal mandate and generally

recognized legitimacy, and as a centre for open, candid

and frank debate and coordination of world policies on

a just and equitable basis free from double standards.

This is an essential requirement to ensure that the

world regains its equilibrium.

The multitude of challenges that humanity is

facing require comprehensive strengthening of the

United Nations. In order to keep up with the times, the

United Nations requires further rational reform to be

able to gradually adapt itself to existing political and

economic realities. On the whole, we are satisfied by

the progress of the reform, including the initial results

of the activities of the recently established

Peacebuilding Commission and the Human Rights

Council.

With regard to expansion of the membership of

the Security Council, we will, of course, welcome

proposals that do not divide United Nations Member

States but rather facilitate the search for mutually

acceptable compromises and lead to a broad-based

agreement.

Of increasing importance in the reform process is

the promotion of dialogue and partnership among

civilizations. Russia supports the Alliance of

Civilizations and other initiatives in that regard. We

reiterate our proposal that a consultative council of

religions be established under United Nations auspices,

taking into account the increasing role of the religious

aspect in international life. That would assist in

strengthening moral principles and incorporating them

into international affairs.

Among the priorities of United Nations activities,

a number of urgent issues have recently appeared on

the Organization’s agenda, including climate change

and food and energy security. Those problems are

global and interrelated, and they can be addressed and

resolved only through a global partnership at a

qualitatively new level, with active involvement by

Governments, the scientific and business communities

and civil society.

In particular, the current financial crisis requires

urgent attention and synergy of efforts. From this

rostrum, the President of France has put forward

important initiatives aimed at a cooperative search for

ways to revitalize the international financial system

that involve the world’s leading economies. In that

context, we support the further development of

partnerships between the members of the Group of

Eight and key States in all developing regions. The

Economic and Social Council could also play a role

here. Russia will continue to participate responsibly in

the work of various bodies of the United Nations

system and in other contexts to help find an equitable

solution to all those problems.

The international development assistance

mechanisms being established in Russia will help us to

increase the extent and effectiveness of our

participation in international efforts to fight hunger and

disease, to promote broader access to education and to

overcome energy shortages, which will be our

additional contribution to the achievement of the

Millennium Development Goals. It is only natural that,

in so doing, we should pay particular attention to

assisting nearby countries. All countries have partners

with which they share traditional friendly relations

08-53129 4

based on a common history and geography. It is wrong

to artificially undermine such relationships for the

benefit of geopolitical schemes and against the will of

the people.

We will continue to work together with all our

neighbours. First and foremost, along with the other

countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States,

we will continue to develop the integration processes

within the Collective Security Treaty Organization and

the Eurasian Economic Community in order to

preserve and promote our common heritage of culture

and civilization, which, in a globalizing world, is a

major resource of the Commonwealth and of each of its

member States. That is why we have a particular

interest in cooperating with those countries, and it is

also why they view Russia as an area of special

interest. We will therefore base our relations on the

principles of equality, mutual benefit, respect for and

consideration of one another’s interests and compliance

with existing agreements, in particular those on the

peaceful settlement of disputes. That is also the way in

which we intend to develop our relations in other

regions of the world: openly, on the basis of

international law and without any zero-sum games.

Those principles were set out in the foreign policy

concept approved by President Medvedev in July this

year.

Russia is consistently implementing its network

diplomacy and promoting cooperation in various

formats: the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the

BRIC countries — Brazil, Russia, India and China —

partnership mechanisms with the European Union, the

Association of Southeast Asian Nations, the

Organization of the Islamic Conference, the League of

Arab States and regional organizations in Latin

America.

The developments that occurred in August gave

us yet another occasion to think about the

responsibility to report events accurately. Distortions

of reality hamper international efforts to settle conflicts

and crises and revive the worst practices of the cold-

war era. If we wish to prevent the truth from becoming

the first casualty of war, we must draw the appropriate

conclusions, in particular in the light of a provision of

the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International

Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation

among States in accordance with the Charter of the

United Nations, which states that States have the duty

to refrain from propaganda for wars of aggression.

That is in line with the Guidelines on protecting

freedom of expression and information in times of

crisis, recently adopted by the Committee of Ministers

of the Council of Europe. I propose that the United

Nations also issue a statement on that issue, this time

in a universal context.

The obvious global effects of the crisis in the

Caucasus show that the world has changed for

everyone. There are now fewer illusions and fewer

pretexts for refusing to respond to the most urgent

challenges of modern times. That is precisely why we

hope that the international community will, on the

basis of common sense, finally manage to develop a

programme of collective action for the twenty-first

century.