RUSSIAN FEDERATION PRESIDENT
ADRESSES 70th UN ASSEMBLY:
PUTIN SPEECH OUTLINES END
OF WASHINGTON'S WORLD
HEGEMONY AMBITIONS:
Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin's landmark speech at the recent
70th General Assembly of the United Nations made a clear demarcation between
the policies of the Russian Federation on international affairs, based on respect for the
UN Charter and the sovereignty and independence of the member states within international
law, and the US' arrogant claims and activities of murderous interventions across the globe in pursuit of its hegemonic ambitions to control world resources and destroy and ravage
any country which dares to defy Washington's diktats.
President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Mr.
President,
Mr. Secretary General,
Distinguished heads of state and government,
Ladies and gentlemen,
The 70th anniversary of the United Nations is
a good occasion to both take stock of history and talk
about our common future. In 1945, the countries that defeated Nazism
joined their efforts to lay a solid foundation
for the postwar world order. Let me remind you that key decisions
on the principles defining interaction between states, as well
as the decision to establish the UN, were made in our
country, at the Yalta Conference of the leaders
of the anti-Hitler coalition.
The Yalta system was truly born in travail. It was
born at the cost of tens of millions of lives
and two world wars that swept through the planet
in the 20th century. Let’s be fair: it helped humankind pass through
turbulent, and at times dramatic, events of the last seven
decades. It saved the world from large-scale upheavals.
The United Nations is unique in terms
of legitimacy, representation and universality.
The United Nations is unique in terms
of legitimacy, representation and universality. True, the UN has
been criticized lately for being inefficient
or for the fact that decision-making on fundamental issues
stalls due to insurmountable differences, especially among Security
Council members.
However, I’d like to point out that there have always
been differences in the UN throughout the 70 years of its
history, and that the veto right has been regularly used
by the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China
and the Soviet Union, and later Russia. It is only natural
for such a diverse and representative organization. When
the UN was first established, nobody expected that there would always be
unanimity. The mission of the organization is to seek
and reach compromises, and its strength comes from taking different
views and opinions into consideration. The decisions debated within
the UN are either taken in the form of resolutions
or not. As diplomats say, they either pass or they don’t. Any action
taken by circumventing this procedure is illegitimate and constitutes
a violation of the UN Charter and contemporary
international law.
We all know that after the end of the Cold
War the world was left with one centre of dominance, and those
who found themselves at the top of the pyramid were tempted
to think that, since they are so powerful and exceptional, they know
best what needs to be done and thus they don’t need to reckon
with the UN, which, instead of rubber-stamping the decisions
they need, often stands in their way.
That’s why they say that the UN has run its course
and is now obsolete and outdated. Of course, the world
changes, and the UN should also undergo natural transformation.
Russia is ready to work together with its partners to develop
the UN further on the basis of a broad consensus, but
we consider any attempts to undermine the legitimacy
of the United Nations as extremely dangerous. They may result
in the collapse of the entire architecture
of international relations, and then indeed there will be no rules
left except for the rule of force. The world will be
dominated by selfishness rather than collective effort, by dictate
rather than equality and liberty, and instead of truly
independent states we will have protectorates controlled from outside.
What is the meaning of state sovereignty,
the term which has been mentioned by our colleagues here? It
basically means freedom, every person and every state being free
to choose their future. By the way, this brings us to the issue
of the so-called legitimacy of state authorities. You shouldn’t
play with words and manipulate them. In international law,
international affairs, every term has to be clearly defined, transparent
and interpreted the same way by one and all. We are all different, and we should respect that.
Nations shouldn’t be forced to all conform to the same
development model that somebody has declared the only appropriate one. We should all remember the lessons
of the past. For example, we remember examples from our Soviet
past, when the Soviet Union exported social experiments, pushing
for changes in other countries for ideological reasons,
and this often led to tragic consequences and caused degradation
instead of progress.
It seems, however, that instead of learning from other
people’s mistakes, some prefer to repeat them and continue
to export revolutions, only now these are “democratic” revolutions. Just
look at the situation in the Middle East and Northern
Africa already mentioned by the previous speaker. Of course,
political and social problems have been piling up for a long
time in this region, and people there wanted change. But what was
the actual outcome? Instead of bringing about reforms, aggressive
intervention rashly destroyed government institutions and the local
way of life. Instead of democracy and progress, there is now
violence, poverty, social disasters and total disregard for human
rights, including even the right to life. I’m urged to ask those who created this situation: do
you at least realize now what you’ve done? But I’m afraid that this
question will remain unanswered, because they have never abandoned their
policy, which is based on arrogance, exceptionalism and impunity.
The power vacuum in some countries in the Middle
East and Northern Africa obviously resulted in the emergence
of areas of anarchy, which were quickly filled with extremists
and terrorists. The so-called Islamic State has tens
of thousands of militants fighting for it, including former
Iraqi soldiers who were left on the street after the 2003
invasion. Many recruits come from Libya whose statehood was destroyed
as a result of a gross violation of UN Security
Council Resolution 1973. And now radical groups are joined by members
of the so-called “moderate” Syrian opposition backed by the West.
They get weapons and training, and then they defect and join
the so-called Islamic State. In fact, the Islamic State itself did not come out
of nowhere. It was initially developed as a weapon against
undesirable secular regimes. Having established control over parts
of Syria and Iraq, Islamic State now aggressively expands into other
regions. It seeks dominance in the Muslim world and beyond.
Their plans go further.
The situation is extremely dangerous. In these
circumstances, it is hypocritical and irresponsible to make
declarations about the threat of terrorism
and at the same time turn a blind eye
to the channels used to finance and support terrorists,
including revenues from drug trafficking, the illegal oil trade
and the arms trade. It is equally irresponsible to manipulate extremist
groups and use them to achieve your political goals, hoping that
later you’ll find a way to get rid of them or somehow
eliminate them. I’d like to tell those who engage in this:
Gentlemen, the people you are dealing with are cruel but they are not
dumb. They are as smart as you are. So, it’s a big question:
who’s playing who here? The recent incident where the most “moderate”
opposition group handed over their weapons to terrorists is a vivid
example of that.
We consider that any attempts to flirt with terrorists,
let alone arm them, are short-sighted and extremely dangerous. We consider that any attempts to flirt with terrorists,
let alone arm them, are short-sighted and extremely dangerous. This may
make the global terrorist threat much worse, spreading it to new regions
around the globe, especially since there are fighters from many different
countries, including European ones, gaining combat experience with Islamic
State. Unfortunately, Russia is no exception. Now that those thugs have tasted blood, we can’t allow them
to return home and continue with their criminal activities. Nobody
wants that, right?
Russia has consistently opposed terrorism in all its forms. Today, we provide military-technical assistance to Iraq, Syria and other regional countries fighting terrorist groups. We think it’s a big mistake to refuse to cooperate with the Syrian authorities and government forces who valiantly fight terrorists on the ground. We should finally admit that President Assad’s government forces and the Kurdish militia are the only forces really fighting terrorists in Syria. Yes, we are aware of all the problems and conflicts in the region, but we definitely have to consider the actual situation on the ground. What we propose is to join efforts to address the problems that all of us are facing, and create a genuinely broad international coalition against terrorism.
Dear colleagues, I must note that such an honest
and frank approach on Russia's part has been recently used
as a pretext for accusing it of its growing
ambitions — as if those who say that have no ambitions at all.
However, it is not about Russia's ambitions, dear colleagues, but about
the recognition of the fact that we can no longer tolerate
the current state of affairs in the world. What we actually propose is to be guided by common
values and common interests rather than by ambitions. Relying
on international law, we must join efforts to address
the problems that all of us are facing, and create
a genuinely broad international coalition against terrorism. Similar
to the anti-Hitler coalition, it could unite a broad range
of parties willing to stand firm against those who, just like
the Nazis, sow evil and hatred of humankind.
And of course, Muslim nations should play a key role
in such a coalition, since Islamic State not only poses a direct
threat to them, but also tarnishes one of the greatest world
religions with its atrocities. The ideologues of these extremists
make a mockery of Islam and subvert its true humanist values.
I would also like to address Muslim spiritual
leaders: Your authority and your guidance are of great importance
right now. It is essential to prevent people targeted for recruitment
by extremists from making hasty decisions, and those who have already
been deceived and, due to various circumstances, found themselves among
terrorists, must be assisted in finding a way back to normal
life, laying down arms and putting an end to fratricide.
In the days to come, Russia,
as the current President of the UN Security Council, will
convene a ministerial meeting to carry out a comprehensive
analysis of the threats in the Middle East. First
of all, we propose exploring opportunities for adopting
a resolution that would serve to coordinate the efforts
of all parties that oppose Islamic State and other terrorist groups.
Once again, such coordination should be based upon the principles
of the UN Charter. We hope that the international community will be able
to develop a comprehensive strategy of political stabilization,
as well as social and economic recovery in the Middle
East. Then, dear friends, there would be no need for setting up more
refugee camps. Today, the flow of people forced to leave their
native land has literally engulfed, first, the neighbouring countries,
and then Europe. There are hundreds of thousands of them now,
and before long, there might be millions. It is, essentially, a new,
tragic Migration Period, and a harsh lesson for all of us,
including Europe.
I would like to stress that refugees undoubtedly
need our compassion and support. However, the only way to solve
this problem for good is to restore statehood where it has been
destroyed, to strengthen government institutions where they still exist,
or are being re-established, to provide comprehensive military,
economic and material assistance to countries
in a difficult situation, and certainly to people who,
despite all their ordeals, did not abandon their homes. Of course, any
assistance to sovereign nations can, and should, be offered rather
than imposed, in strict compliance with the UN Charter. In other
words, our Organisation should support any measures that have been,
or will be, taken in this regard in accordance with
international law, and reject any actions that are in breach
of the UN Charter. Above all, I believe it is of utmost
importance to help restore government institutions in Libya, support
the new government of Iraq, and provide comprehensive assistance
to the legitimate government of Syria.
Dear colleagues, ensuring peace and global
and regional stability remains a key task
for the international community guided by the United
Nations. We believe this means creating an equal and indivisible
security environment that would not serve a privileged few, but everyone.
Indeed, it is a challenging, complicated and time-consuming task, but
there is simply no alternative. Sadly, some of our counterparts are still dominated
by their Cold War-era bloc mentality and the ambition
to conquer new geopolitical areas. First, they continued their policy
of expanding NATO – one should wonder why, considering that
the Warsaw Pact had ceased to exist and the Soviet Union
had disintegrated. The people of Donbas should have their rights
and interests genuinely considered, and their choice respected; they
should be engaged in devising the key elements
of the country's political system, in line with
the provisions of the Minsk agreements.
Nevertheless, NATO has kept on expanding, together with
its military infrastructure. Next, the post-Soviet states were forced
to face a false choice between joining the West
and carrying on with the East. Sooner or later, this logic
of confrontation was bound to spark off a major geopolitical
crisis. And that is exactly what happened in Ukraine, where
the people's widespread frustration with the government was used
for instigating a coup d’état from abroad. This has triggered
a civil war. We are convinced that the only way out of this dead
end lies through comprehensive and diligent implementation
of the Minsk agreements of February 12th, 2015. Ukraine's
territorial integrity cannot be secured through the use of threats
or military force, but it must be secured.
The people of Donbas
should have their rights and interests genuinely considered,
and their choice respected; they should be engaged in devising
the key elements of the country's political system, in line
with the provisions of the Minsk agreements. Such steps would
guarantee that Ukraine will develop as a civilized state,
and a vital link in creating a common space
of security and economic cooperation, both in Europe
and in Eurasia.
Ladies and gentlemen, I have deliberately
mentioned a common space for economic cooperation. Until quite
recently, it seemed that we would learn to do without dividing lines
in the area of the economy with its objective market laws,
and act based on transparent and jointly formulated rules,
including the WTO principles, which embrace free trade and investment
and fair competition. However, unilaterally imposed sanctions
circumventing the UN Charter have all but become commonplace today. They
not only serve political objectives, but are also used for eliminating
market competition.
I would like to note one more sign of rising
economic selfishness. A number of nations have chosen to create
exclusive economic associations, with their establishment being negotiated
behind closed doors, secretly from those very nations' own public and business
communities, as well as from the rest of the world.
Other states, whose interests may be affected, have not been informed
of anything, either. It seems that someone would like to impose upon
us some new game rules, deliberately tailored to accommodate
the interests of a privileged few, with the WTO having no
say in it. This is fraught with utterly unbalancing global trade
and splitting up the global economic space.
These issues affect the interests of all nations
and influence the future of the entire global economy. That
is why we propose discussing those issues within the framework
of the United Nations, the WTO and the G20. Contrary
to the policy of exclusion, Russia advocates harmonizing
regional economic projects. I am referring to the so-called
”integration of integrations“ based on the universal
and transparent rules of international trade.
As an example, I would like to cite our plans
to interconnect the Eurasian Economic Union with China's initiative
for creating a Silk Road economic belt. We continue to see great
promise in harmonizing the integration vehicles between
the Eurasian Economic Union and the European Union.
Ladies and gentlemen, one more issue that shall affect
the future of the entire humankind is climate change. It is
in our interest to ensure that the coming UN Climate Change
Conference that will take place in Paris in December this year should
deliver some feasible results. As part of our national contribution,
we plan to limit greenhouse gas emissions to 70–75 percent
of the 1990 levels by the year 2030. However, I suggest that we take a broader look
at the issue. Admittedly, we may be able to defuse it
for a while by introducing emission quotas and using other
tactical measures, but we certainly will not solve it for good that way.
What we need is an essentially different approach, one that would involve
introducing new, groundbreaking, nature-like technologies that would not damage
the environment, but rather work in harmony with it, enabling us
to restore the balance between the biosphere and technology
upset by human activities.
We propose convening a special forum under
the auspices of the UN to comprehensively address issues
related to the depletion of natural resources, habitat
destruction, and climate change. It is indeed a challenge of global proportions.
And I am confident that humanity does have the necessary
intellectual capacity to respond to it. We need to join our
efforts, primarily engaging countries that possess strong research
and development capabilities, and have made significant advances
in fundamental research. Russia is willing to co-sponsor such
a forum.
Ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues. On January
10th, 1946, the UN General Assembly convened for its first meeting
in London. Chairman of the Preparatory Commission Dr. Zuleta
Angel, a Colombian diplomat, opened the session by offering what
I see as a very concise definition of the principles
that the United Nations should be based upon, which are good will, disdain
for scheming and trickery, and a spirit of cooperation.
Today, his words sound like guidance for all of us.
Russia is confident of the United Nations'
enormous potential, which should help us avoid a new confrontation
and embrace a strategy of cooperation. Hand in hand with
other nations, we will consistently work to strengthen the UN's
central, coordinating role. I am convinced that by working together,
we will make the world stable and safe, and provide
an enabling environment for the development of all nations
and peoples.
Thank you.
