Syria

Lavrov Statement at 69th Session of UNGA

Unofficial translation
Check against delivery
STATEMENT
by H.E. Mr. Sergey V. LAVROV,
Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation,
at the 69th session of the UN General Assembly

September 27, 2014

Distinguished Mr. Chairman,

There is a growing evidence of a contradiction between the need for collective
and partner efforts in the interest of elaborating adequate responses to challenges
common to all and the aspiration of a number of states for domination and revival of
archaic bloc thinking based on military drill discipline and erroneous logic of “friend
or foe”.

The U.S.-led Western alliance that portrays itself as a champion of democracy,
rule of law and human rights within individual countries, acts from directly opposite
positions in the international arena, rejecting the democratic principle of sovereign
equality of states enshrined the UN Charter and trying to decide for everyone what is
good or evil.

Washington has openly declared its right to unilateral use of force anywhere to
uphold its own interests. Military interference has become a norm – even despite the
dismal outcome of all power operations that the U.S. has carried out over the recent
years.

The sustainability of the international system has been severely shaken by
NATO bombardment of Yugoslavia, intervention in Iraq, attack against Libya and the
failure of operation in Afghanistan. Only due to intensive diplomatic efforts the
aggression against Syria was prevented in 2013. There is an involuntary impression
that the goal of various “color revolutions” and other projects to change unsuitable
regimes is to provoke chaos and instability.

Today Ukraine has fallen victim to such an arrogant policy. The situation there
has revealed the remaining deep-rooted systemic flaws of the existing architecture in
the Euro-Atlantic area. The West has embarked upon the course towards “vertical
structuring of humanity” tailored to its own hardly inoffensive standards. After they
declared victory in the Cold War and the “end of history”, the U.S. and EU have opted
for expanding the geopolitical area under their control without taking into account the
balance of legitimate interests of all peoples of Europe. The Western partners did not
heed to our numerous alerts on inadmissibility of violation of the principles of the UN
Charter and Helsinki Final Act, and time and again avoided serious joint work for the
establishment of the common space of equal and indivisible security and cooperation
from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The Russian proposal to draft the European security
treaty was rejected. We were told directly that only the members of the North Atlantic
Alliance can have the legally binding guarantees of security, and the NATO
enlargement to the East continued in spite of the promises to the contrary given
earlier. The instant switch of NATO to hostile rhetoric and to the drawdown of its
cooperation with Russia even to the detriment of the West’s own interests, and
additional build up of military infrastructure at the Russian borders – made obvious
the inability of the alliance to change the genetic code it embedded during the Cold
War era.

The U.S. and EU supported the coup d’état in Ukraine and reverted to outright
justification of any acts by the self-proclaimed Kiev authorities that opted for
suppression by force of the part of the Ukrainian people that had rejected the attempts
to impose the anti-constitutional way of life to the entire country and wanted to
defend its rights to the native language, culture and history. It is precisely the
aggressive assault on these rights that compelled the population of Crimea to take the
destiny in its own hands and make a choice in favor of self-determination. This was
an absolutely free choice no matter what was invented by those who are responsible in
the first place for the internal conflict in Ukraine.

The attempts to distort the truth and to hide the facts behind blanket accusations
have been undertaken at all stages of the Ukrainian crisis. Nothing has been done to
track down and prosecute those responsible for February bloody events at Maidan and
massive loss of human lives in Odessa, Mariupol and other regions of Ukraine. The
scale of appalling humanitarian disaster provoked by the acts of the Ukrainian army in
the South-Eastem Ukraine has been deliberately underscored. Recently, new horrible
facts have been brought to light when mass graves were discovered in the suburbs of
Donetsk. Despite UNSC Resolution 2166 a thorough and independent investigation of
the circumstances of the loss of Malaysian airliner over the territory of Ukraine has
been protracted. The culprits of all these crimes must be identified and brought to
justice. Otherwise the national reconciliation in Ukraine can hardly be expected.

Russia is sincerely interested in the restoration of peace in the neighboring
country and this should be well understood by all who are even slightly acquainted
with the history of the deep-rooted and fraternal ties between the two peoples. The
way towards political settlement is well known: last April Kiev has already taken
upon itself an obligation in the Geneva Declaration of Russia, Ukraine, U.S. and EU
to immediately start a wide all-national dialogue with the participation of all regions
and political forces of Ukraine with a view to carrying out a constitutional reform.
The implementation of this obligation would allow all Ukrainians to agree on how to
live in accordance with their traditions and culture and restore the Ukraine’s organic
role as a binding link between the various parts of the European space which naturally
implies the preservation and respect by all of its neutral and non-bloc status. We are
convinced that in the presence of good will and denial of support to the “party of war”
in Kiev which is trying to push the Ukrainian people into the abyss of national
catastrophe the way out of crisis is within our reach.

The way to overcoming the crisis has been opened with the achievement of the
cease-fire agreement in the South-Eastem Ukraine on. the basis of initiatives by
Presidents P.A.Poroshenko and V.V.Putin. With the participation of the
representatives of Kiev, Donetsk, Lugansk, OSCE and Russia, practical measures are
being agreed upon successive implementation of this understanding, including the
separation of the parties to the conflict, pull back of heavy weapons of the Ukrainian
army and militia forces, setting up monitoring trough the OSCE and preparation for
elections in the South-East. Russia is ready to continue to actively promote the
political settlement. However, it should be crystal clear that we are doing this for the
sake of peace, tranquility and wellbeing of the Ukrainian people rather than for
catering to someone’s ambitions. The attempts to put on pressure on Russia and to
compel it to abandon its values, truth and justice have no prospects whatsoever.

Let me recall a history of not so far ago. As a condition for establishing
diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union in 1933 the U.S. government demanded of
Moscow the guarantees of non-interference into domestic affairs of the U.S. and
obligations not to take any actions with a view to changing political or social order in
America. At that . time Washington feared a revolutionary virus and the above
guarantees were put on record on the basis of reciprocity. Perhaps, it makes sense to
return to this topic and reproduce that demand of the U.S. government on a universal
scale. Shouldn’t the General Assembly adopt a declaration on the inadmissibility of
interference into domestic affairs of sovereign states and non-recognition of coup
d’état as a method of the change of power? The time has come to totally exclude from
the international interaction the attempts of illegitimate pressure of some states on
others. The meaningless and counterproductive nature of unilateral sanctions is
obvious if we took an example of the U.S. blockade of Cuba.

The policy of ultimatums and philosophy of supremacy and domination do not
meet the requirements of the 21“ century and run counter the objective process of
development of a polycentric and democratic world order. Russia is promoting a
positive and unifying agenda. We always were and will be open to discussion of the
most complex issues no matter how unsolvable they would seem in the beginning. We
will be prepared to search for compromises and the balance of interests and go as far
as exchange concessions provided only that the discussion is respectful and equal.

The Minsk understandings of 5 and 19 September on the ways out of the
Ukrainian crisis and the compromise on the timeline of the entry into force of the
Association Agreement between Kiev and EU are good examples to follow, the same
as the finally declared readiness of Brussels to begin negotiations on establishing the
FTA between the European Union and the Customs Union of Russia, Belorussia and
Kazakhstan as it had been proposed by V.V.Putin back in January this year.

Russia has been consistently calling for harmonization of integration projects in
Europe and Eurasia. The agreement on political benchmarks and timelines of such a
convergence of integrations” would become a real contribution to the work of the
OSCE on the topic of “He1sinki+40”. Another crucial area of this work would be to
launch pragmatic discussion free of ideology on politico-military architecture in the
Euro-Atlantic, so that not only NATO and CSTO members but all the countries of the
region including Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia enjoy equal and indivisible security
and not have to make a false choice of: “either with us or against us”.

The new dividing lines in Europe should not be allowed, even more so that
under globalization these lines can turn into a watershed between the West and the rest
of the world. It should be stated honestly that no one has the monopoly on truth
and no one can anymore tailor the global and regional processes to one’s own needs.
There is no alternative today to the development of consensus regarding the rules of
sustainable global governance in the new historical circumstances – with full respect
to cultural and civilizational diversity of the world and the multiplicity of the models
of development. It will be a difficult and perhaps tiresome task to achieve such a
consensus on every issue. Nevertheless the recognition of the fact that democracy in
every state is the “worst form of government, except for all the others” also took time
to break a way through, until W.Churchill passed his verdict. The time has come to
realize the inevitability of this axiom also in the international affairs where today
there is a huge deficit of democracy. Of course someone will have to break up the
centuries-old stereotypes and to abandon the claims to eternal uniqueness. But there is
no other way to follow. The consolidated efforts can be built only on the principles of
mutual respect and taking into account of the interests of each other as is the case for
example in the framework of BRICS and SCO, G20 and the UN Security Council.
The theory of the advantages of collective work has been supported by practice: this
includes the progress in the settlement of situation around Iranian nuclear program
and successful conclusion of chemical demilitarization of Syria. Besides, on the issue
of chemical weapons we would like to obtain authentic information on the condition
of chemical arsenals in Libya. We understand that our NATO colleagues after they
bombed out this country in violation of a UNSG Resolution would not like to “stir up”
the mayhem they created. However, the problem of uncontrolled Libyan chemical
arsenals is too serious to turn a blind eye on it. The UN Secretary General has an
obligation to show his responsibility on this issue as well. I

What is important today is to see the global priorities and avoid making them
hostages of a unilateral agenda. There is an urgent need to refrain from double
standards in the approaches to conflict settlement. Everybody largely agrees that it is a
key issue to resolutely counter the terrorists who attempt to put under their control
ncreasingly larger territories in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Sahara-Sahel area. If
this is the case then this task should not be sacrificed to ideological schemes or the
desire to get square with someone. Terrorists no matter what their slogans are should
remain outside the law.

Moreover, it goes without saying that the fight against terrorism should rely on
a solid basis of international law. The unanimous adoption of a number of UNSG
Resolutions including those on the issue of foreign terrorist operatives became an
important stage in this fight. And vice versa the attempts to act against the Charter of
our Organization do not contribute to the success of joint efforts. The struggle against
terrorists in the territory of Syria should be structured in cooperation with the Syrian
government, which clearly stated its readiness to join it.

From the very beginning of the “Arab spring” Russia urged not to leave it to
extremists and to establish a united front to counter the growing terrorist threat. We
warned against a temptation to make allies with almost anybody who proclaimed
himself an enemy of B.Assad: be it Al Qaeda, Jabhat an Nusra and other “fellow
travelers” seeking the change of regime, including ISIL, which today is in the focus of
our attention. As the saying goes, it is better late than never. It is not for the first time
that Russia makes a real contribution to the fight against both ISIL and other terrorist
factions in the region. We have sent large supplies of weapons and military equipment
to the governments of Iraq, Syria and other MENA countries and will continue to
support their efforts to suppress terrorists.

The terrorist threat requires a comprehensive approach if we want to eradicate
its root causes rather than be condemned to react to the symptoms. ISIL is just a part
of the problem. We propose to launch under the auspices of the UN Security Council
an in-depth study on the extremist and terrorist threats in all their aspects across the
MENA area. The integrated approach implies also that the long standing conflicts
should be examined, primarily between Arabs and Israel. The absence of settlement of
the Palestinian issue over several decades remains as it is widely recognized one of
the main factors of instability in the region that helps the extremists to recruit more
and more new Jihadists.

Another literally pressing area of our common work is the joining of our efforts
to implement the decisions of UNGA and UNSC on the fight against Ebola virus. Our
doctors are already working in Africa. There are plans to send additional humanitarian
assistance, equipment, medical instruments, medicines and teams of experts to assist
the UN programs in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone.

The United Nations established on the ruins of World War II enters the year of
its seventieth anniversary. It is an obligation for all of us to celebrate in appropriate
manner the jubilee of the Great Victory and pay tribute to the memory of all who died
for freedom and the right of each people to determine its own destiny.

The lessons of that terrible war and all the course of events in_ today’s world
demand of us to join our efforts and forget about unilateral interests and national
electoral cycles when it comes to countering the global threats to all humanity. It
should not be allowed that the national egotism prevail over collective responsibility.

http://www.un.org/en/ga/69/meetings/gadebate/pdf/RU_en.pdf

Advertisements

Sochi: Stages of Management

sochidlyasochintsev

As the 1-month countdown to the Sochi Winter Olympics begins, attention is focusing on the political significance of this event not only for Russia itself but also for the rest of the world, whose good will and participation is, theoretically at least, an important part of the proceedings. While the propaganda value of the games for the Russian government in terms of national pride and Putin’s personal prestige doesn’t need to be underscored, it’s perhaps a good idea to take a step back and look at the Sochi games in terms of one or two aspects of the  international situation in which the games are about to go live.

It hasn’t escaped the attention of even the least disputatious Western commentators that –  viewed on the map – the Black Sea coastal resort of Sochi is “not far from Chechnya”, and “in a rough neighborhood” (near the North Caucasus). The wisdom of holding an extended high-profile international sporting event in what is essentially a war zone has now and then been questioned by observers with no particular political or ideological ax to grind. But since what is involved, on paper at least,  is a show of international solidarity and Olympic ideals, most have decided to give the Russia’s authorities the benefit of the doubt. While at the end of 2013 the doubts were increased by the bombings in Volgograd – was this not a warning by terrorists intent on sabotaging the event? – what has slipped from the headlines and many or most of the pre-games analyses is a consideration of other events beyond Russia’s borders in which Russia plays an important and well-nigh decisive role.

In March last year Foreign Policy published an article by Brookings Institution analyst Fiona Hill in which she outlined what she saw as the real reason for President Putin’s support of Syria’s Bashar Assad. It was connected, she wrote, with Putin’s fear of the situation in the North Caucasus and Chechnya (expressed in a series of interviews he gave in 2000) as “the continuation of the collapse of the USSR…. If we did not quickly do something to stop it, Russia as a state in its current form would cease to exist”:

For Putin, Syria is all too reminiscent of Chechnya. Both conflicts pitted the state against disparate and leaderless opposition forces, which over time came to include extremist Sunni Islamist groups. In Putin’s view — one that he stresses repeatedly in meetings with his U.S. and European counterparts — Syria is the latest battleground in a global, multi-decade struggle between secular states and Sunni Islamism, which first began in Afghanistan with the Taliban, then moved to Chechnya, and has torn a number of Arab countries apart.

As Hill was not slow to point out, in reality the two conflicts have little in common – while the Chechen wars were mainly localized within the North Caucasus region, with occasional outbreaks of terrorism elsewhere in Russia, in Syria the whole of the country is embroiled in a ferocious civil war, and Assad does not have at his disposal the resources that were available to Putin in his confrontation with Chechnya. He has been unable to eliminate opposition adversaries abroad in the way that Putin did, and – far from being localized – the Syrian conflict has spilled over into the entire Middle East region, threatening its stability. As Hill put it:

Chechnya is in a bad neighborhood, but Syria is in a terrible neighborhood, and the effects of the Syrian conflict cannot be contained in the way that Chechnya’s were.

Undeterred, Putin and the Russian military leadership press on with their obstinate support for the Syrian dictator, thus bringing ever closer the likelihood of the disintegration of a state that is of the greatest geopolitical importance to Russia’s own security. The endgame strategy is to blame the whole disaster on the United States, for having supported democratic movements associated with the Arab Spring.

Such is the context in which the Sochi games are now to be held. Clearly, in a state like modern Russia, where the triumph of propaganda is of more importance than diplomacy or attempts at international reconciliation, the scene is set for a large and prominent display of public advocacy and agitprop. With the ramping up of its counter-information channel Russia Today – a Russian-language version is  now being added – and the dismantling of the RIA Novosti agency, Moscow is about to make maximum political capital from the games, forcing Western nations to take a position in what the Russian authorities view as a conflict between “values” – the liberal, tolerance-espousing values of the West, with its respect for gay rights and the freedom of dissenters and minorities, and the uncompromising, conservative fusion of Orthodoxy and Islam that is beginning to emerge as the founding ideology of the Eurasian Union. By linking the Volgograd bombings to the alleged activities of Syrian and North Caucasus extremists, by raising the profile of Doku Umarov and his “Caucasus Emirate”, and by issuing reminders about the Boston attacks of last April, Moscow is making sure that, as Western nations prepare to send their athletes to Sochi, their governments are compelled to take sides in a Kremlin-prepared choice of alternatives.

 

Putin, Westgate, Propaganda

There are signs that the propaganda war over use of chemical weapons in Syria may not be confined to Syria alone.

Vladimir Putin, speaking at the CSTO meeting in Sochi, Monday September 23:

“The militant groups (in Syria) did not come out of nowhere, and they will not vanish into thin air,” Putin said.

“The problem of terrorism spilling from one country to another is absolutely real and could directly affect the interests of any one of our countries,” he said, citing the deadly attack on a shopping mall in Nairobi as an example.

“We are now witnessing a terrible tragedy unfold in Kenya. The militants came from another country, as far as we can judge, and are committing horrendous, bloody crimes,” Putin said at a CSTO summit in the Russian Black Sea resort city of Sochi.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/23/us-syria-crisis-russia-militancy-idUSBRE98M0M320130923

Al-Shabab, on its Twitter account, Wednesday September 25:

Zakayev: Umarov will appear in Syria

In an interview published on the Radio Svoboda website, exiled Chechen opposition leader Akhmed Zakayev accuses Russia of getting ready to stage a propaganda coup in Syria involving the North Caucasus Islamist guerrilla leader Doku Umarov. Zakayev says that contrary to recent reports (published on Kavkaz Center) Umarov is alive and well and is preparing for a new project that will involve his disappearance in Dagestan and his reappearance in Syria on the side of the rebel forces there.

Let me draw your attention to this: when  the opposition rallies against Putin in Moscow developed, Doku Umarov issued a statement saying that his supporters would not commit terrorist acts on the territory of Russia, as the Russian people had finally woken up and rebelled against the tyrant. The statement seems to be against Putin, but in fact it is absolutely consistent with the interests of Putin and his entourage.

After all, if Doku Umarov comes down on the side of the opposition, in the eyes of the average Russian the opposition is guilty of an alliance with bad people like Umarov. This figure has been spun for so long and so many civilian lives have been sacrificed in order to create the impression that it’s not only Navalny and the opposition who are standing up to Putin and denouncing corruption and unfair elections, but also the terrorist Doku Umarov. The emergence of Umarov in Syria will arouse attention around the world, and many Western politicians will feel very uncomfortable.

Links

Luke Harding, on the collapse of the Litvinenko inquest (The Interpreter)

 

Masha Gessen, on why she is leaving Russia (The Lumière Reader)

 

Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, on late capitalism, in correspondence with Slavoj Žižek  (The New Times – Russian)

 

Dexter Filkins, on the internal White House debate over Syria (The New Yorker)

 

David Satter, on what the Russians really knew about the Tsarnaev brothers (National Review Online)

 

Brzezinski on Syria

In a Time article headed Intervention Will Only Make It Worse, Zbigniew Brzezinski writes that

broader regional fighting could bring the U.S. and Iran into direct conflict, a potentially major military undertaking for the U.S. A U.S.-Iran confrontation linked to the Syrian crisis could spread the area of conflict even to Afghanistan. Russia would benefit from America’s being bogged down again in the Middle East. China would resent U.S. destabilization of the region because Beijing needs stable access to energy from the Middle East.


Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2013/05/08/syria-intervention-will-only-make-it-worse/#ixzz2T4nktvge