“Compliance with the principles of the UN Charter in all their totality and interrelation is the key to international peace and stability”
The recent general political discussion at the 78th session of the UN General Assembly convincingly confirmed that the world is going through drastic, tectonic changes.
A new, more just multipolar world order is being forged before our eyes, reflecting the cultural and civilizational diversity of the world. The contours of the future are born in the struggle. The world majority, representing 85% of the world’s population, stands for a more equitable distribution of global goods and respect for civilizational diversity, for the consistent democratization of international life. On the other hand, a narrow group of Western states, led by the United States, seeks to slow down the natural course of things by neocolonial methods and maintain their elusive dominance.
The hallmark of the “collective West” has long been the rejection of the principle of equality and the total non-negotiability associated with it. Accustomed to looking down on the rest of the world, in line with the logic of “leader” – “slave”, Americans and their European satellites often assume obligations, including written and legally binding ones. And then they are simply not carried out. As President Vladimir Putin noted, the West is a real “empire of lies.” We, like many other countries, know this firsthand. Suffice it to recall how, even before the surrender of Hitler’s Germany, our allies in World War II – Washington and London – were already preparing plans for a military operation “Unthinkable” against the USSR, and in 1949 the United States was developing plans for nuclear strikes against the USSR, which were thwarted only thanks to Moscow’s creation of its weapons of retaliation.
After the end of the Cold war, when the USSR played a decisive role in the unification of Germany and the coordination of the parameters of the new Euro–security architecture, the Soviet and then the Russian leadership were given concrete assurances regarding the non-expansion of NATO to the East. The relevant records of the negotiations are in our and Western archives. But these assurances of Western leaders turned out to be a deception, and they were not going to fulfill them. They have also never been embarrassed by the fact that, by bringing NATO closer to Russia’s borders, they grossly violated the agreements taken at the highest level in 1999-2010. official OSCE commitments not to strengthen its own security at the expense of the security of others and to prevent the military-political dominance of any country, group of countries or organizations in Europe: NATO persistently engaged – and is engaged – in exactly what it pledged not to do.
In late 2021 – early 2022, our proposals to conclude agreements with the United States and NATO on mutual security guarantees in Europe without changing the non-aligned status of Ukraine were arrogantly rejected. The West continued to systematically militarize the Kiev regime, which was brought to power as a result of a bloody coup d’etat and was used as a springboard to create direct military threats to our country and to destroy its historical heritage on the lands of legitimate Russian interests.
Unprecedented since the end of the Cold war has been a series of recent joint exercises by the United States and European NATO allies, including the development of scenarios for the use of nuclear weapons on the territory of the Russian Federation. The declared task of inflicting a “strategic defeat” on Russia has finally blinded the eyes of irresponsible politicians who are obsessed with their own impunity and have lost an elementary sense of self-preservation.
A new dangerous manifestation of NATO expansionism has been attempts to extend the bloc’s area of responsibility to the entire Eastern Hemisphere – under the sly slogan of “indivisibility of the security of the Euro-Atlantic and the Indo-Pacific region.” For this task, Washington creates military-political mini-alliances under its control, such as AUCUS, the “troika” of the USA-Japan-the Republic of Korea, the “quartet” of Tokyo-Seoul-Canberra-Wellington. It draws their participants to practical cooperation with NATO, which is implementing its infrastructure in the Pacific theater. The undisguised focus of such efforts against Russia and China, on the collapse of the inclusive, consensus–based regional architecture that has developed around ASEAN, creates risks of a new explosive hotbed of geopolitical tension – in addition to the already heated European one.
There is a strong impression that the United States and the “Western collective” completely subordinate to them have decided to give the “Monroe doctrine” a global projection. The plans are as illusory as they are extremely dangerous, but this does not stop the ideologists of the new edition of Pax Americana.
It has come to the point that Western ruling elites, in violation of the UN Charter, tell other countries with whom and how to develop interstate relations. In fact, they are denied the right to national interests, to an independent foreign policy. The Vilnius Declaration of the North Atlantic Alliance describes the “growing partnership between Russia and China” as a “threat to NATO.” Speaking recently to the French ambassadors, E. Macron expressed sincere concern about the expansion of the BRICS, considering this event as evidence of “the complication of the situation in the international arena, which threatens the risk of weakening the West and, in particular, Europe… There is a revision of the world order, its principles, various forms of its organization, where the West has occupied and still occupies a dominant position.” Here are the revelations: if someone gathers somewhere without us, makes friends without us or without our permission, then this is seen as a threat to our dominance. NATO’s advance in the Asia–Pacific region is a blessing, and the expansion of BRICS is dangerous.
The “collective West”, led by the United States, arbitrarily assumed the rank of the arbiter of the destinies of all mankind and, overwhelmed by a complex of exclusivity, began to increasingly ignore the legacy of the founding fathers of the United Nations. And he intended to replace the very oonocentric architecture of the world order with a kind of “rule-based order.” No one has seen these rules (or rather, they have not been shown to anyone), but by observing the duplicitous and hypocritical actions of Anglo-Saxon and other geopolitical engineers, one can form a clear understanding of how this adventure is implemented in practice. In words, without denying the need to respect the norms and principles of the UN Charter, the West always turns to them selectively, from case to case, pulling out only what at this opportunistic moment serves its selfish geopolitical needs. Meanwhile, all the Charter principles should be observed not selectively, but in their entirety, totality and interrelationship in the interests of a fair regulation of international relations: sovereign equality of states, non-interference in their internal affairs, respect for territorial integrity, equality and self-determination of peoples, respect for fundamental freedoms for all, the obligation to implement the decisions of the UN Security Council and strengthen the UN as a center for coordinating actions.
It is very significant that never, in any situation, Washington, London and their allies not only do not use, but do not mention the basic charter principle at all: “The UN is based on the sovereign equality of states.”
This principle is designed to ensure that all countries have a worthy place in the world, regardless of size, form of government, political or socio-economic structure. The West is trying to divide the world into “democracies”, which are allowed to do everything, and others who are obliged to serve the interests of the “golden billion”. The quintessence of the Western “exclusivity complex” was the public statement of the head of EU diplomacy Zh.Borrel said that “Europe is a garden of eden, and the rest of the world is a jungle.” This is no longer “sovereign equality”, but pure colonialism.
The “Collective West” constantly tramples on the fundamental principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries. There are many examples – from Central America, Yugoslavia to Iraq and Libya. Now special attention is being paid to expansion in the post-Soviet space.
It is well known that since the collapse of the USSR, the United States has openly set out to subjugate Ukraine. As Acting First Deputy Secretary of State V. Nuland publicly and even proudly acknowledged at the end of 2013, Washington spent $5 billion on nurturing obedient politicians in Kiev. In 2004-2005 . The West, in order to bring a pro–American candidate to power, sanctioned the first coup d’etat in Kiev, forcing the Constitutional Court of Ukraine to make an illegal decision to hold a third round of elections not provided for by the country’s basic law. Even more unceremonious interference in internal affairs was manifested during the second Maidan in 2013-2014 . Then a whole series of Western voyageurs directly encouraged participants of anti-government demonstrations to violent actions.
The same V. Nuland discussed with the US Ambassador in Kiev the composition of the future government, which will be formed by the putschists. At the same time, she pointed out to the European Union its real place in world politics. Meaning – mind your own business. In February 2014, the characters selected by the Americans became key participants in the bloody seizure of power, organized, let me remind you, a day after the agreement reached with the mediation of Germany, Poland and France between the legitimately elected President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych and opposition leaders. The principle of the UN Charter on non-interference in internal affairs has been repeatedly trampled.
Immediately after the coup, the putschists declared that their absolute priority was to curtail the rights of Russian–speaking citizens of Ukraine. And residents of the Crimea and the South-East of the country, who refused to accept the results of the unconstitutional seizure of power, were declared terrorists, launching a punitive operation against them. In response, Crimea and Donbass held referendums – in full compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, fixed in paragraph 2 of Article 1 of the UN Charter.
Western diplomats and politicians in relation to Ukraine diligently avoid this most important norm of international law in an effort to reduce the whole background and essence of what is happening to the inadmissibility of violation of territorial integrity.
In this regard, it is important to emphasize: in the resolution adopted unanimously in 1970, The UN Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation between States in accordance with the UN Charter stipulates that the principle of respect for territorial integrity is applicable to “States observing in their actions the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples (…) and, consequently, having governments representing (…) all the people living in this territory.” The fact that the Ukrainian neo-Nazis who seized power in Kiev as a result of a coup d’etat did not represent the population of Crimea and Donbass does not require proof. And the unconditional support of the Western capitals for the actions of the criminal Kiev regime is nothing but a violation of the principle of self–determination following gross interference in internal affairs.
The adoption of racist laws banning everything Russian – education, media, culture, destruction of books and monuments, prohibition of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and seizure of its property – following the coup during the reign of P. Poroshenko and then V. Zelensky became a defiant violation of Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the UN Charter on respect for Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms for All – without differences of race, gender, language and religion. Not to mention that these actions directly contradicted the Constitution of Ukraine, which stipulates the state’s obligation to respect the rights of Russians and other national minorities.
Kiev was obliged to fulfill its international obligations under the “Package of measures for the implementation of the Minsk Agreements” of February 12, 2015, approved by a special resolution of the UN Security Council 2202 – in full compliance with Article 36 of the Charter, which supports “any procedure for resolving a dispute that was adopted by the parties.” In this case, Kiev, the DPR and the LPR. However, last year all the signatories of the Minsk agreements, except V.V. Putin (A. Merkel, F. Hollande and P. Poroshenko), publicly and even with pleasure admitted that by signing this document, they were not going to implement it. But they only sought to gain time to strengthen Ukraine’s military potential and pump up its weapons against Russia. All these years, the EU and NATO have directly supported the sabotage of the Minsk agreements, pushing the Kiev regime to solve the “Donbass problem” by force. This was done in violation of Article 25 of the Charter, according to which all UN members are obliged to “obey the decisions of the Security Council and implement them.”
Let me remind you that in the package with the Minsk agreements, the leaders of Russia, Germany, France and Ukraine signed a declaration in which Berlin and Paris pledged to do a lot, including helping to restore the banking system in Donbass. But they didn’t lift a finger. They only watched how, contrary to their obligations, P.A. Poroshenko declared a trade, economic and transport blockade of Donbass. In the same declaration, Berlin and Paris declared that they would promote the strengthening of trilateral cooperation in the Russia-Ukraine-EU format for the practical solution of issues of concern to Russia in the field of trade, as well as promote “the creation of a common humanitarian and economic space from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean.” This declaration was also approved by the Security Council and was subject to implementation in accordance with the aforementioned Article 25 of the UN Charter. But this commitment of the leaders of Germany and France turned out to be a “dummy”, another violation of the statutory principles.
The legendary Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR A.A.Gromyko more than once rightly noted: “ten years of negotiations are better than one day of war.” Following this covenant, we have been negotiating for many years, seeking agreements in the field of European security, approved in 1997. The founding Act of Russia–NATO, adopted at the highest level the OSCE Declaration on the indivisibility of security, and since 2015 insisted on the unconditional implementation of the Minsk agreements, which were the result of negotiations. Everything is in full compliance with the UN Charter, which requires “ensuring conditions for justice and respect for obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law.” Western colleagues trampled on this principle when they signed the documents, knowing in advance that they would not comply with them.
Today, in the rhetoric of our opponents, we hear only slogans: “invasion, aggression, annexation.” Not a word about the underlying causes of the problem, about how for many years they nurtured the openly Nazi regime, openly rewriting the results of the Second World War and the history of their own people. The West avoids a substantive conversation based on facts and respect for all the requirements of the UN Charter. He has no arguments for an honest dialogue.
There is a strong impression that Western representatives are afraid of professional discussions that expose their demagoguery. Uttering incantations about the territorial integrity of Ukraine, the former colonial metropolises keep silent about the UN decisions on the need for Paris to return the “French” Mayotte to the Union of the Comoros, and for London to withdraw from the Chagos archipelago and begin negotiations with Buenos Aires on the Malvinas Islands. These “champions” of the territorial integrity of Ukraine now pretend that they do not remember the essence of the Minsk Agreements, which consisted in the reunification of Donbass with Ukraine while guaranteeing respect for fundamental human rights, primarily the right to their native language. The West, which has disrupted their implementation, is directly responsible for the collapse of Ukraine and the incitement of civil war there.
Of the other principles of the UN Charter, respect for which could prevent a security crisis in Europe and help coordinate confidence-building measures based on a balance of interests, I will note Article 52 of Chapter VIII of the Charter. It stipulates the need to develop the practice of peaceful settlement of disputes with the help of regional organizations.
In accordance with this principle, Russia, together with its allies, has consistently advocated the establishment of contacts between the CSTO and NATO to facilitate the practical implementation of the decisions of the OSCE summits on the indivisibility of security in Europe. However, numerous appeals of the CSTO supreme bodies to the North Atlantic Alliance were ignored. If NATO had not rejected the CSTO’s proposals for cooperation, then perhaps this would have avoided many negative processes that led to the current European crisis due to the fact that Russia has been refused to listen or deceived for decades.
A West-centric liberal world order is unthinkable without double standards. When the principle of self–determination contradicts the geopolitical interests of the West – as, for example, in the case of the free expression of the will of the inhabitants of the Crimea, Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics, Zaporozhye and Kherson regions in favor of unity with Russia – the West not only forgets about it, but also angrily condemns the choice of people, punishing them with sanctions. When it is beneficial to the West, self–determination is recognized as an absolute “rule”. It is enough to mention the rejection of Kosovo from Serbia, and without any referendum.
The ongoing degradation of the situation in this Serbian province is of deep concern. NATO’s arms supplies to the Kosovars and assistance to them in creating an army grossly violate the fundamental UN Security Council Resolution 1244. The whole world sees how the sad history of the Minsk Agreements on Ukraine is being repeated in the Balkans, which provided for the special status of the republics of Donbass and which Kiev openly sabotaged with the support of the West. Now the European Union does not want, and cannot force its Kosovo proteges to fulfill the agreements of Belgrade and Pristina in 2013. on the creation of a Community of Serbian Municipalities of Kosovo, which has special rights to its language and its traditions. In both cases, the EU acted as a guarantor of the agreements, and, apparently, their fate is the same. What is the “sponsor”, such is the result.
Now Brussels, taking care of its geopolitical ambitions, is imposing its “mediation services” on Azerbaijan and Armenia, bringing destabilization to the South Caucasus together with Washington. Now that the leaders of Yerevan and Baku have settled the issue of mutual recognition of the sovereignty of the two countries, it is time to establish a peaceful life and strengthen trust. The Russian peacekeeping contingent is ready to contribute to this in every possible way.
In an effort to prevent the democratization of interstate relations, the United States and its allies are increasingly openly and unceremoniously privatizing the secretariats of international organizations, bypassing established procedures for decisions to create subordinate mechanisms with non-consensual mandates, but with a claim to the right to blame those who, for some reason, are not pleasing to Washington.
It should be emphasized that the requirements of the UN Charter also apply to the Secretariat of the World Organization, which – in accordance with Article 100 of the Charter – must act impartially, not receive instructions from any government and, of course, must respect the principle of sovereign equality of member States. In this regard , serious questions arise about the statements of the UN Secretary General A.Guterres on March 29 that “autocratic rule does not guarantee stability, it is a catalyst for chaos and conflict,” but “strong democratic societies are capable of self–correction and self-improvement. They can stimulate change, even radical, without bloodshed and violence.” Involuntarily, one remembers the “changes” brought about by the aggressive adventures of “strong democracies” in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and many other countries.
The Secretary General further said: “They (democracies) are centers of broad cooperation rooted in the principles of equality, participation and solidarity.” It is noteworthy that all this was said at a meeting convened by US President J.Biden outside the framework of the UN “summit for democracy”, the participants of which were selected by the American administration on the principle of loyalty – and not so much to Washington as to the ruling Democratic Party in the United States. Attempts to use such forums to discuss issues of a global nature directly contradict P. 4 of Article 1 of the UN Charter, which states the need to “ensure the role of the Organization as a center for coordinating actions in achieving common goals.”
At the same “summit for democracy”, the Secretary General declared: “Democracy stems from the UN Charter. The first words of the Charter – “We, the peoples” – reflect the fundamental source of legitimacy: the consent of those who are governed.” It is useful to correlate this thesis with the “track record” of the Kiev regime, which unleashed a war against a huge part of its own people – against those millions of people who did not consent to govern themselves to neo-Nazis and Russophobes who illegally seized power in the country and buried the Minsk Agreements approved by the UN Security Council, thereby undermining the territorial integrity of Ukraine.
Speaking about the principles of the Charter, the question arises about the relations of the Security Council with the General Assembly. The “Western collective” has been aggressively pedaling the topic of “abuse of the right of veto” for a long time and has achieved – by exerting pressure on UN members – a decision to consider the relevant topic at the General Assembly after each application of this right, which the West is increasingly deliberately provoking. This does not pose any problem for us, because Russia’s approaches to all issues on the agenda are open, we have nothing to hide and it is not difficult to state our position once again. In addition, the use of the veto is an absolutely legitimate tool provided for in the Charter in order to prevent the adoption of decisions that would be fraught with a split of the Organization.
But since the procedure for discussing cases of the use of the veto at the General Assembly has been approved, then why not think about those Security Council resolutions that were adopted without any veto, including many years ago, but have not been implemented. Why shouldn’t the General Assembly consider the reasons for this state of affairs – for example, to hear those who disrupted the implementation of Security Council resolutions on Palestine and on the entire range of problems in the Middle East and North Africa, on the settlement of the Iranian nuclear program, as well as resolution 2202, which approved the Minsk agreements on Ukraine?
The problem of sanctions regimes also requires increased attention. It has already become the norm: after lengthy negotiations, the Security Council – in strict accordance with the Charter – approves sanctions against a particular country, and then the United States and its allies impose “additional” unilateral restrictions against the same state that have not been approved by the Security Council and are not included in its resolution as part of an agreed “package”. In the same row is the decision taken by Berlin, Washington, Paris and London through their national legislative norms to “extend” the expiring in October of this year. restrictions on Iran, which are subject to legal termination in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 2231. That is: the validity of the decision of the Security Council has expired, and Westerners do not care about this. They have their own “rules”.
The aggressive, narrow-minded line of the Western minority provoked a serious crisis in international relations. The risks of global conflict are growing. However, there is a way out of this situation. To begin with, everyone needs to realize responsibility for the fate of the world – in the historical context, and not from the point of view of conjunctural electoral layouts in the upcoming national elections. Almost 80 years ago, by signing the UN Charter, world leaders agreed to respect the equality of all states, thereby recognizing the need for an equal, polycentric world order as a guarantee of sustainability and security of their development.
It is necessary to ensure that the spirit of multipolarity laid down in the UN Charter is realized. An increasing number of world-majority States are striving to strengthen sovereignty and defend national interests, traditions, culture and way of life. They do not want to live under anyone’s dictation, they want to be friends and trade with each other and with the rest of the world – only on equal terms and for mutual benefit, within the framework of an objectively emerging multipolar architecture. This was the prevailing mood during the recent summit meetings of the BRICS, the Group of Twenty and the East Asian Summit.
The task of reforming global governance mechanisms as soon as possible comes to the fore. The United States and its allies should abandon artificial restraint on the redistribution of voting quotas in the IMF and the World Bank, recognizing the real economic and financial weight of the countries of the Global South. The work of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body should also be unblocked immediately.
The expansion of the Security Council is also becoming more and more in demand – exclusively through the elimination of underrepresentation in its composition of the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America. It is important that the new members of the Security Council – both permanent and non–permanent – enjoy authority both in their regions and in such organizations of global scope as the Non-Aligned Movement, the Group of 77, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.
It is time to consider more equitable methods of forming the UN Secretariat. The criteria that have been in force for many years do not reflect the real weight of states in world affairs and artificially ensure the transcendent dominance of citizens of NATO and EU countries. These imbalances are further deepened by the system of permanent contracts that bind their holders to the position of host countries of the headquarters of international organizations, almost all of which are located in capitals pursuing Western policies.
All efforts to reform the UN should be aimed at establishing the rule of international law and reviving the Organization as the central coordinating body of world politics. Where they agree on how to solve problems together, based on an honest balance of interests.
At the same time, the potential of a new type of associations reflecting the interests of the Global South should be fully exploited. This is, first of all, the BRICS, which has significantly increased its authority following the results of the Johannesburg summit and has gained a truly global influence. At the regional level, there is a renaissance of such organizations as the African Union, CELAC, LAS, GCC and other structures. In Eurasia, the harmonization of integration processes within the SCO, ASEAN, CSTO, EAEU, CIS, the Chinese project “One Belt, One Road” is gaining momentum. There is a natural formation of a Large Eurasian partnership, open to the participation of all associations and countries of our common continent without exception.
The positive trends are contradicted by the increasingly aggressive attempts of the West to maintain dominance in world politics, economics and finance. It is in the common interest to avoid fragmentation of the world into isolated trading blocks and macro–regions. But if the United States and its allies do not want to agree on making the processes of globalization fair and equitable, then the rest will have to draw conclusions and think about steps that will help not to make the prospects of their socio-economic and technological development, their security dependent on the neocolonial instincts of former metropolises.
Speaking at the Valdai Forum on October 5, President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin clearly spoke in favor of strengthening international law on the basis of the UN Charter and put forward six principles for the formation of a genuine multipolarity: openness and interconnectedness of the world – without barriers to communication, respect for diversity as the foundation of joint development, maximum representativeness in global governance structures, universal security on the the balance of interests of all, fair access to the benefits of development, equality for all, rejection of the dictates of the “rich or strong”.
Vladimir Putin stressed: “We are faced, in fact, with the task of building a new world.” It’s not about starting from scratch, crossing out everything created by the predecessors. There is a foundation for building a new world, and it is solid – this is the UN Charter. The main thing now is to prevent its destruction by opportunistic selective juggling with the statutory principles, to achieve their full implementation and interconnection by all countries.
If the members of the world community find the determination to return to the roots and translate the obligations assumed under the UN Charter into practical actions, then humanity will have a chance to overcome the pernicious legacy of the unipolar era.
The preparations for the upcoming “Summit of the Future” next year at the initiative of the UN Secretary General will show how ready everyone is to realize their own and collective responsibility for the fate of the world.
As Guterres said at a press conference on the eve of the 78th session of the General Assembly, “if we want peace and prosperity based on equality and solidarity, then leaders have a special responsibility to reach a compromise when designing our common future for the common good.” Golden words. It is in the search for consensus, and not in the division of the world into “democracies” and “autocracies”, that the mission of the United Nations lies. Russia, together with like-minded people, is fully ready to contribute to its implementation.
