20 May 2025
Mr. Prime Minister,
We welcome your personal participation in today’s open debate. We thank the Secretary-General and the briefers. We consider the topic proposed by the Greek presidency to be pressing. Maritime security issues occupy an important place in the architecture of global stability and undoubtedly deserve the attention of responsible members of the international community.
At the same time, we would like to stress that most of the issues raised at today’s debate – transnational organized crime, illicit arms trade, drug trafficking, human trafficking, illegal exploitation of marine resources – are not part of the remit of the Security Council, they rather fall under the purview of other bodies of the UN system – primarily, the UN Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, as well as the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly. All of these are undoubtedly serious challenges, but they should be addressed in specialized fora, which have the relevant expertise. Thus, as far as maritime security issues are concerned, the UNSC should focus on those aspects that pose a direct threat to international peace and security.
What falls within this category, by the way, is the risk of disruption in global supply chains, which was mentioned in the concept note of today’s event. We note that of late we’ve observed more frequent actions geared towards creating artificial impediments and threats to maritime trade. The stability of this trade is important for all countries, but for small island States or coastal developing States it is a matter of survival. These actions are taken as part of so-called unilateral coercive measures (UCMs), which is a favorite tool of Western countries – especially EU members – to impose on others their own policies and preferences, which at times are very exotic.
UCMs are per se illegal, and their use contravenes international law. Hence, the attempts by Western countries to justify their illegal actions at sea by referring to the UCMs they themselves introduced contradict the maxim dating back to the times of Roman law: “No one can take advantage of his own wrong”. References to supposed attempts to circumvent UCMs are used to label some vessels as belonging to the so-called “shadow fleet”. This term is not internationally recognized, nor is there any transparent international mechanism behind it.
Actions against civilian vessels at sea are blatant and unprecedented. They are comparable perhaps only to piracy; the only difference is that the role of “pirates of the Baltic Sea” is taken on by NATO countries. For example, the Internet has recently been overflowing with images of Estonian patrol ships trying to forcibly seize a tanker sailing in international waters. The ship’s captain was given an ultimatum demanding to change course and sail into Estonian territorial waters. Then, t§wo attempts were made by an assault team to board the tanker from a helicopter. When they failed to do so, an Estonian naval craft literally tried to ram the tanker. All of this was done under the pretext which has no international legal grounds, namely under the pretext of “combatting the shadow fleet”. We emphasize that this is not the first such instance – there have been plenty of others as well.
Even in territorial waters, such actions would constitute a flagrant violation of the right of peaceful passage, while in international waters they are nothing but an infringement of the freedom of navigation. These are the fundamental norms of customary international law codified in the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The inviolability of these norms, as well as of the principle of the flag state exclusive jurisdiction over the ship, ensured stable and predictable functioning of the system of international maritime trade. That is why the Convention contains a closed and very limited list of situations wherein a vessel flying a foreign flag may be stopped for inspection. Neither in this list nor in the Convention as a whole will you find a single mention of the so-called “shadow fleet”.
In that connection, we would like to remind the newly-minted “Baltic pirates” and their EU “cheerleaders” that stopping a ship on any other ground not mentioned in the Convention is, by definition, a flagrant violation of the freedom of navigation and the right of peaceful passage or transit passage.
Thus, the inappropriate behavior of EU countries sets a very dangerous precedent. If other states follow suit, global supply chains will be disrupted and maritime trade would simply come to a halt. This habit of using NATO naval forces and assets for such illegal actions will do nothing but pave the way to military escalation and the creation of serious challenges to maritime security.
Mr. President,
Another example of Western countries undermining maritime security is the terrorist attack on two Nord Stream pipelines in the Baltic Sea in September 2022. This crime was committed in the exclusive economic zones of Denmark and Sweden and outside any armed conflict zone, and it had dire consequences in terms of the environment, energy and safety of navigation.
Despite the fact that almost three years have elapsed since the terrorist attack on the Nord Stream pipelines, those who organized and perpetrated the attacks have neither been identified nor held accountable. The Russian Federation has repeatedly raised this issue in the Security Council and proposed crafting a “product” that would send an unambiguous message on the need for a comprehensive investigation into what happened with the involvement of all parties concerned. However, all our initiatives were invariably blocked by Western members of the Security Council, with Germany, Denmark and Sweden deliberately cutting our country off from the investigation. And the profound conclusion drawn by the so-called “investigators” is that the pipelines were indeed blown up. This is the real cost of today’s statements by Western delegations regarding their alleged “concern” for maritime security. We believe that it is your actions that pose a direct threat to maritime security, as well as your inaction in combating impunity when it comes to specific crimes targeting transboundary submarine infrastructure.
Thank you.