August 21, 2024
Mr. President,
Mr. Minister, we welcome your in-person participation in the Council’s open debate on conflict prevention. We thank all the briefers for the assessments provided.
Conflict prevention is undoubtedly one of the main tasks of the Security Council under the UN Charter, which is the key document to maintain international peace and security.
But, unfortunately, our world is not perfect, and in the area of conflict prevention the UNSC has yet much to do. So far, alas, there have been much more failures than “success stories”.
We have been consistent in our belief that effective conflict prevention must be based on the need to take into account national priorities and the uniqueness of each specific case. The New Agenda for Peace also suggests this. Far from supporting every provision of this agenda, we do, however, share the conclusion that an important factor for effective conflict prevention is precisely the national responsibility of the state, which means that the state itself is responsible for the well-being and security of its citizens. Indeed, who but the national authorities can be better aware of the needs of the society and the risks this society faces. Accordingly, the Government of each sovereign state should decide independently whether certain measures or strategies are really needed for preventing conflicts in the country, stopping violence, tackling negative consequences of crises, or addressing any other challenges relevant to any given context.
We assume that nationally developed strategies to prevent conflict and violence is something that serves best the national interests; such strategies tend to be based on priorities of the state and are in line with the principle of national responsibility. They should not be adjusted to the interests of foreign donors.
Moreover, the very idea of developing such strategies is not a new one. Many countries have long had similar domestic national practices, albeit under different names. It is important to realize, however, that there is no such thing as a universally applicable approach to conflict prevention as is presented in the New Agenda for Peace. Nor are there universal solutions for every crisis. The UN Secretary General also recognizes this in his policy brief, noting that decisions applied may be selective or plagued by double standards.
Mr. President,
Someone may not like what I’m going to say, but we are used to telling the truth.
Despite the fact that all countries are equal in the face of the threat of conflict or violence, some states initially put themselves above others, they want to lecture others, but in no way are they ready to listen to criticism about them. This is also one of the problems of today’s prevention. As long as some actors try to divide the world into “teachers and students,” the breeding ground for new conflicts will only expand. And if we add to this the historical injustice that has not yet been redressed when it comes to developing countries, primarily African states, it becomes clear that the countries of the Global South face much more difficulty both in preventing conflicts and crises and addressing the consequences entailed. Despite the fact that the era of colonialism is considered to be consigned to history, in our world today there are still a huge number of ways of preserving and deepening the dependence of those states who suffered from the colonial yoke. In order to preserve their fading hegemony, the former colonial powers and their allies by hook or by crook secure their dominance in the world, trying (vainly) to impede the creation of a just, multipolar world order. What is also in play here is entrenching the commodity-based nature of developing countries’ economies, imposing harsh and essentially fettering IMF programs, and triggering brain drain. All of this perpetuates economic underdevelopment, poverty and political instability in developing countries, which creates an ideal fertile ground for conflicts.
Instead of facilitating the development on the scale and in the form the Global South needs, those self-proclaimed “lords of the world” prefer to supply larger quantities of weapons to hot spots taking advantage of people’s suffering, steal resources and appropriate other people’s assets. And those who oppose such injustice are doomed to unilateral sanctions and unlawful restrictive measures. What kind of prevention can we talk about in such conditions?
And this is despite the fact that the nascent conflicts are often so obvious that it is much harder not to notice a looming problematic situation than to sound the alarm in this regard. However, many Members of the Security Council prefer to demonstrate selective deafness and blindness, and then blame anyone for the conflict except for themselves.
You don’t have to go far for examples. Was it really not clear what would come of the unchecked NATO expansion to the east, which was done in violation of the basic agreements and principles that had allowed to end the cold war? This was coupled with other factors – disregard for Russia’s interests, neglect of the threats to Russia’s security, a very selective approach to the observance of fundamental human rights and freedoms, and blatant “double standards” Thus, for many years there have been created a volatile mixture that sooner or later was going to explode. And we all understood that. The detonator of the armed conflict in Europe was the anti-constitutional coup in Ukraine in 2014, which its Western patrons had prepared for a long time, ardently supported, and then ignored in every possible way the inconsistency of the nationalist regime they created with the basic principles of good-neighborliness and interethnic peace. Nor did they notice its ugly neo-Nazi and Russophobic manifestations. The last chance to avoid a crisis and return the situation to non-conflict tracks was the Minsk agreements approved by the Security Council, which the Kiev regime and the West deliberately ignored. How many times have we raised this issue, this subject as a whole, in the UN Security Council and the General Assembly and warned what it may be fraught with? How many times have Western countries in this room said black is white and avoided an honest conversation?
In the end of the day, we have what we have, and those who did not want to see the obvious are now holding forth, including in this room today, about the importance of prevention. And they are trying to the best of their ability to impede the formation of a fair, pan-European system of indivisible security for all, putting against it their selfish interests and hegemonic aspirations. Simultaneously, they are artificially stirring up the situation in the Middle East and East Asia, where they promote bloc approaches without trying to find solutions that would meet the interests of all key players. Who will be blamed then for the failure of prevention?
Our Western colleagues are well aware of what could come from it, but they pretend not to hear the obvious requests for peace, stability and equality from those who, as Mr. Borrell puts it, live in the jungle around their “beautiful garden”. It is far more important for them to retain their dominance and continue taking advantage of the rest of the world rather than ensuring conflict prevention. So what are we talking about today? What global, regional and national aspects of prevention can we talk about in such conditions?
Colleagues, we can’t talk about real prevention until a more equitable world order takes shape and all countries of the world have equal conditions for development and nation-building. Let us work together to reach this goal.
Thank you for your attention.