Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrovs address at the Security Council open

debate on Maintaining International Peace and Security: reflect on

history, reaffirm the strong commitment to the purpose and the principles
of the Charter of the United Nations, New York, February 23, 2015
311-23-02-2015
Thank you, Mr Chairman,
Id like to begin by expressing gratitude to the Foreign Minister of China, Mr
Wang Yi, for organising this open debate. Its agenda is very significant: ahead of
the 70th anniversary of the United Nations, it allows us to critically assess
international relations and discuss ways to overcome accumulated systemic
problems.
The UN Charter, which was the result of the great victory over Nazism, has been
and is the cornerstone of the system of international relations. The goals,
principles and rules sealed in the charter are a vital source of international law,
the basis of the code of conduct on the international stage and the foundation of
the ever growing agglomeration of international treaties and agreements. Of
course, the UN is not an ideal organisation. But as Dag Hammarskjld said,
The United Nations was not created in order to bring us to heaven, but in order
to save us from hell.
For the first time, the UN Charter formulated principles for creating an operating
mechanism for governing the world by coordinating the positions of the leading
nations. In other words, it formulated the key elements of a polycentric world
order. For the first four decades since its establishment, the UN operated under
conditions of harsh bipolar confrontation. However, the end of the Cold War
lifted the objective obstacles to the UN Security Council becoming an effective
format for synthesizing the collective will of the international community.
Unfortunately, the path towards this goal turned out to be much more difficult
and serpentine than we imagined 25 years ago. We have seen numerous
violations of the fundamental principles of the UN Charter, including the
independence and sovereign equality of nations, non-interference in their
internal affairs and peaceful settlement of disputes. I am referring to the
bombing of Serbia, the occupation of Iraq under a patently false pretext the
consequences of which remain a heavy burden on the Iraqi people, as well as
gross manipulation of the UN Security Council mandate that resulted in
destruction and chaos in Libya.
All of these are the consequences of attempts to claim domination in global
affairs and control everyone everywhere, and the unilateral use of military force

in the pursuit of selfish interests. These actions contradict the underlying UN

principles and the objective trend for the decentralisation of the global economic
and political power.
In the pursuit of the illusory goal of global domination, they are using a wide
range of unsavoury methods, such as heavy pressure on sovereign states and
attempts to force political, economic and ideological solutions and standards on
them. For those who misbehave they have a technology for inspiring internal
unrest and promoting regime change. An example of this is the open
encouragement of an unconstitutional state coup in Ukraine last year.
Consistent attempts are being made to turn the Security Council into an office to
rubberstamp the decisions of the leader, and when these attempts fail, they try
to remove the UN Security Council from developing a policy on its key
competence: the maintenance of international peace and security. At the same
time, they completely disregard the latest examples of the unilateral use of
military force, which pushed the Middle East and North Africa into instability and
chaos, largely creating a breeding ground for the growth of extremism.
Under the UN Charter, only the Security Council has the power to
take enforcement measures against states. Unilateral restrictions and attempts
at the exterritorial use of national legislation are elements of an obsolete bloc
mentality that can only generate confrontation in international affairs and
complicate the joint search for solutions to arising problems.
The international climate is seriously worsened by information wars through the
use of global media, the internet and social media. I am convinced that freedom
of speech and expression must not be used to justify manipulation with
information, brainwashing and subversive activities against other states
institutions and policies, or to foment religious strife.
Now is the time to answer one question: Do we really want the UN Security
Council to be an effective and influential instrument for maintaining international
peace and security, or are we willing to allow it to become a platform for
propagandised confrontation and exclude the Security Council from the search
for vital international solutions. If the latter is true, it will inevitably have a
negative impact on other international and regional formats, further reducing the
opportunities for finding solutions to current issues.
We believe that we must immediately take resolute action to rid ourselves of
double standards in global politics, to restore the UN Security Councils role as
the leading agency for coordinating collective approaches based on respect for
cultural and civilisational diversity in the world, and for democratising
international relations.
Everyone must accept the fact that people have the right to independently
choose their future without foreign interference in their internal affairs. In this
connection, I suggest that we consider reaffirming and strengthening the
relevant provisions of the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law

concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance

with the UN Charter. The focus should be on the unacceptability of supporting
the unconstitutional change of government. We must agree to use the UN
Charter for joint risk management within increasingly complex international
relations. In the early 1990s, the UN Secretariat prepared a handbook on the
peaceful settlement of disputes between states. Maybe we need to update this
handbook so that it incorporates the experience we have accumulated since its
adoption.
Positive results are only assured when the Security Council members work
together to find solutions that can help them coordinate their positions. It is on
this basis that we addressed the key issues of chemical disarmament in Syria
and laid out measures to resist foreign terrorists. The other day the UN Security
Council adopted, at Russias initiative, Resolution 2199 designed to prevent
terrorist groups from benefiting from trade in oil. Another recent example is the
deployment of new peacekeeping missions in Mali and the Central African
Republic. We now plan to directly address another painful issue in Africa, the
terrorist threat coming from Boko Haram. We hope the special high-level group
created by the UN Secretary-General will provide recommendations on
increasing the effectiveness of UN peacekeeping efforts.
In general, it would do us good to review global challenges and threats which
can only be resisted collectively. One of the key priorities on this list is the threat
of terrorism and extremism, which has grown to an unprecedented scale,
especially in the Middle East and North Africa, and which has been spreading
into Southern Africa, Asia and Europe. Unilateral actions have no future, as we
have seen. This problem must be addressed within the framework of the UN.
We are against decentralising counterterrorism efforts and forcing the
international community to accept action plans that are developed in a nonparticipatory format.
I hope that we will use this open debate to seriously discuss the future of the
United Nations as a vital mechanism for regulating international relations.
Source: http://mid.ru/brp_4.nsf/0/0FF680732AC939BA43257DF60043AC8C