Russia, 2012

For over a year and a half, the situation in the

Middle East and North Africa has been the nerve centre

of global politics. The deep changes that have swept

over the region intertwine with the key problems of

modern international relations and require everyone to

take a comprehensive approach and to reject simplistic

and ideology-driven patterns and double standards.

Russia has consistently supported peoples in their

aspiration to determine their destiny and to pave the

way to more effective models of public governance.

We believe it is particularly important to carry out

those transformations in a non-violent way and without

outside interference. We strongly believe that all

members of the international community should be

interested in making the Middle East-North Africa

region peaceful, stable, democratic and free from

domestic and inter-State conflicts. So far, however,

there has been no progress in reaching unanimity in

the efforts of outside players to create conditions for

achieving that goal.

Of particular concern is the deepening internal

conflict in Syria. We have consistently called for

consolidated efforts by the international community

to compel the Government and its opponents to

immediately cease the violence, come to the negotiating

table and work out a compromise on the content and

pace of reforms that would satisfy all Syrians and

ensure the safety and rights of all ethnic and religious

groups. That was the substance of the consensus

recorded in the final communiqué of the Action Group

for Syria (S/2012/523, annex), agreed upon in Geneva

as a follow-up to the Kofi Annan plan.

We call upon all members of the Action Group

to fully abide by the commitments we all took on in

Geneva. That is the fastest way to stop the loss of human

life in Syria. We proposed a Security Council resolution

endorsing the Geneva communiqué as the basis for

negotiations at the beginning of the transitional period, but that proposal was blocked. Those who oppose the

implementation of the Geneva communiqué bear an

onerous responsibility. They insist on a ceasefire by

the Government alone and encourage the opposition

to intensify hostilities, in fact pushing Syria even

deeper into the abyss of bloody internecine strife. The

militarization of the conflict continues, with calls for

open intervention.

Extremist organizations including Al-Qaida

have become more active in Syria. They perpetrate

terrorist attacks against innocent civilians and civil

infrastructure. The number of war crimes is growing, on

the part of both Government forces and the opposition,

as recorded in the recent report of the Human Rights

Council’s commission of inquiry (A/HRC/21/50).

Russia resolutely condemns any violence, wherever

it comes from, and is convinced that there is still an

opportunity to undertake collective action. Practical

steps to overcome the crisis need to begin with a

comprehensive ceasefire, the release of prisoners and

hostages and the provision of additional humanitarian

aid. That would create the conditions to start an

inter-Syrian dialogue. We hope that Lakhdar Brahimi,

Joint Special Representative of the United Nations and

the League of Arab States, will be able to bring his vast

experience to bear on moving towards an agreement on

such arrangements, with the support of the international

community. Russia will provide its full support to

promote the success of his mission.

The changes taking place in the Middle East

should not marginalize the Palestinian problem. The

achievement of a comprehensive, just and lasting Arab-

Israeli settlement, which should lead, among other

results, to the establishment of an independent, viable

and contiguous Palestinian State, coexisting in peace

and security with Israel, would be a major contribution

to the normalization of the overall regional situation.

The Arab Peace Initiative fully retains its relevance,

and we support the efforts of the League of Arab States

to move it forward.

I also wish to stress the importance of implementing

the decision on convening in 2012 a conference on

establishing in the Middle East a zone free of weapons

of mass destruction and their means of delivery (see

NPT/CONF/2010/50 (Vol.I)). It is clearly necessary to

ensure the participation in the conference of all States in

the region, and they should agree on key arrangements among themselves. In that matter, the League of Arab

States should play an important role.

On the whole, we support closer ties between the

United Nations and regional entities. I would note

that in our part of the world today a memorandum on

cooperation was signed between the secretariat of the

Collective Security Treaty Organization and the United

Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations. I am

convinced that it will increase the efficiency of common

efforts to ensure stability and security.

All our actions should be founded solidly on the

United Nations Charter, which makes no provision

for the right to change regimes. It is unacceptable to

impose a political system on a country and its people.

Our position was clearly stated by President Vladimir

Putin speaking at the Kremlin on 26 September. The

entire sequence of events in the Arab world and other

regions proves the futility of any such policy, which can

lead to dangerous interethnic and interreligious clashes

in international relations.

We believe it is an obligation of all States to protect

from provocations and blasphemy the religious feelings

of people of any religious affiliation. At the same

time, of course, there can be no justification for acts

of terror, regardless of where they are committed, be

they in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yemen or anywhere else.

Attacks against diplomats or United Nations personnel

are absolutely unacceptable.

In general, we are convinced that today, when the

world is going through a transition period characterized

by instability in the spheres of the economy, politics and

inter-civilizational relations, it is particularly important

for United Nations Member States to be able to rely

on accepted rules of conduct and to agree on a joint

response to the threats to global stability. We should

not allow irresponsible actions dictated by expedient

interests to shatter the system of international law. The

world order is threatened by arbitrary interpretation

of such essential principles as the non-use or threat of

force, the peaceful settlement of disputes, respect for

the sovereignty and territorial integrity of States and

non-interference in their domestic affairs.

Those are the key principles of the United Nations

Charter, which confers the primary responsibility for

the maintenance of international peace and security on

the Security Council. In advancing the reform of the

United Nations, it is essential to preserve the capacity of

the Security Council to perform those functions. Their erosion would deprive the international community of

an essential mechanism for developing joint approaches

to the settlement of crisis situations.

It is appropriate to mention the compulsory

instruments at the disposal of the United Nations. Under

the United Nations Charter the imposition of sanctions

falls exclusively under the jurisdiction of the Security

Council. Decisions must be made on a collegial basis,

with the understanding that sanctions should not lead

to isolation of the State targeted for sanctions, but

rather encourage it to engage in a dialogue to remove

questions that the Member States may have. It is

essential that sanctions should be well-measured and

that they not cause any suffering to the population. In

the past the Security Council has discussed the issue of

the humanitarian limits of sanctions, but somehow the

discussions have faded away. We believe it is important

to resume them.

Another issue that needs to be discussed in the

Security Council is the consequences of unilateral

sanctions imposed by a State or a group of States

sidestepping the United Nations to advance their

political goals. We have no doubt that such sanctions,

especially when they are applied extraterritorially,

weaken the unity of the international community

and undermine the effectiveness of its efforts. For

many years, the commercial, economic and financial

restrictions imposed by the United States on Cuba

have remained an illustration of the negative impact

of unilateral sanctions. Russia, together with the

overwhelming majority of members of the international

community, calls for the swift lifting of the blockade,

which is a relic of the Cold War.

Special attention should be given to the practical

enforcement of Security Council decisions regarding

sanctions against non-State actors and illegal cross-

border formations. In general, the events of recent

years have clearly shown that unilateral action which

violates international law and circumvents or distorts

the decisions of the Security Council does no good.

Of course, the legal norms of international affairs

will be further adjusted as necessary. But these

transformations should be treated with the greatest

sense of responsibility and full consciousness of the

serious risks involved. Consensus should be the sole

route to their adoption. Violations of international

law should not be portrayed as some sort of creative

development.

All of this is related to the debate regarding the

concept of the so-called responsibility to protect. Further

discussion of this concept should be held on the basis

of the approach agreed on at the 2005 World Summit,

which reaffirmed the need to observe the principles of

the Charter of the United Nations when responding to

conflicts within States. The protection of civilians is an

issue far too serious to be exploited to achieve political

goals. The ambiguity of the so-called responsibility-

to-protect concept can be better understood in light of

initiatives formulated by Brazil and several other States

to move towards consensus.

Let us not forget that the founders of the United

Nations, in their wisdom, agreed upon and endorsed

a Charter that enshrined principles for the regulation

of a multipolar world order. Now that the abnormal

bipolar period of the Cold War is over, and now that

it has become clear to all that there is no place for

monopolarity in the modern world and international

affairs can only be polycentric, we have a unique

chance to fully implement the original potential of that

Charter.

This is a difficult challenge. International relations

are clearly experiencing a lack of credibility. We regard

this as the main obstacle to practical progress towards

the establishment of universal foundations for equal

and indivisible security, whether in the Euro-Atlantic

area, Asia-Pacific region or other parts of the world.

Such a state of affairs clearly contradicts the concept

of collective security embodied in the Charter and the

deep interdependence of the modern world, where most

challenges and threats are common to us all and have a

cross-border dimension.

Strengthening confidence and collective principles

in international affairs, with the emphasis on

negotiating the pursuit of compromise solutions, would

help substantially reduce the level of instability and

move forward in the settlement of crisis situations, not

only in the Middle East, but also with respect to Iran,

Afghanistan, the Korean peninsula and other situations

throughout the world.

The final goal of the efforts to settle a conflict is

to ensure the right to life and other fundamental human

rights, be they political, economic or social. The events

of recent years confirm that, without lasting peace and

sustainable development, it is impossible to ensure

human rights. In turn, the protection of human rights

should contribute to security and development, rather than serve as a pretext for illegal interference in the

domestic affairs of States.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states

that everyone is entitled to an international order in

which their rights can be fully realized. Those who use

military force and sanctions, bypassing the Charter,

engage in illicit supplies of arms, or provide cover for

terrorists grossly violate this right.

Russia stands for the implementation of the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights and respect for

the traditional values on which human civilization is

based and where all world religions converge. This is

a moral foundation of modern society. It is the cement

that bonds together nations and peoples. In recent

years, these values have been put to the test by displays

of immorality, extremism and racial intolerance. Of

similar concern are the even more assertive actions

of those who, citing freedom of speech, condone the

glorification of the Nazis and their accomplices and

desecrate the memory of the victims of the Second

World War and the victors of fascism. Such actions are

incompatible with the obligations of States under the

Charter of the United Nations.

Let me recall that the International Covenant

on Civil and Political Rights directly prohibits the

propaganda of war and incitement of national and

religious discord. This means that freedom of speech

and assembly cannot be used to justify the promotion

of Nazi or other radical or extremist views, in violation

of the basic principles and norms of international law.

Yesterday, the Human Rights Council endorsed a

resolution proposed by Russia on the interrelation of

human rights and traditional values. It is regrettable

that a number of Western States voted against this

document, which is especially relevant today.

Progress towards genuine partnership in

international relations is possible only on the basis

of equality and mutual respect. The course of events

in the world leaves no alternative for anyone but to

join efforts in order to build a stable, equitable and

democratic international system. It would be possible

to resist this objective trend and try to preserve the old

order for some time, but such resistance would cost yet

more lives, suffering and destruction. Let us display

our vision and, instead of looking back at the history of

previous centuries, take the side of the events unfolding

before us today, and answer the call for strong collective

statesmanship.