# Address by Sergey Lavrov, Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation, at the 63rd Session of the UN General Assembly, 27 September 2008

Source: .
On 11 September 2001, the world changed, and it rallied together in the fight against the threat of terror, a threat that was common for all and knew no boundaries. I am referring to threat of terrorism. The world displayed an unprecedented level of solidarity by rejecting old phobias and stereotypes. It seemed that the global counter-terrorism coalition became a new reality that from then on would define the development of a system of international relations free from double standards and beneficial to all.
The cohesion in the face of the deadly threats emerging from Al-Qaida and other elements of international terrorism made it possible to achieve tangible success during the initial stage. But later, problems began to appear. A painful blow to the unity of the anti-terrorism coalition was delivered by the war in Iraq, when—as it turned out later, under the false pretext of the fight against terror and nuclear arms proliferation—international law was violated. The deepest crisis was thus created in a completely artificial way and even today it is far from being resolved.
Ever more questions are being raised about what is going on in Afghanistan. First and foremost, what is the acceptable price to pay in terms of the loss of civilians' lives in the ongoing counter-terrorism operation? Who decides on criteria for determining proportionality in the use of force? And why are the international contingents that are present unwilling to engage in the fight against the proliferating drug threat that causes increasing suffering in the countries of Central Asia and Europe? These and other factors give us reason to believe that the counter-terrorism coalition is faced with a crisis.
Looking at the core of the problem, it seems that this coalition lacks the requisite collective arrangements: equality among all its members in deciding on strategy and, especially, operational tactics. But in order to control the entirely new situation that evolved after 9/11, which required genuine cooperative effort, including joint analysis and coordination of practical steps, mechanisms designed for a unipolar world began to be used; decisions were taken in a single centre of power, while the rest merely had to follow.
We ended up with a privatization of the international community's efforts in the fight against terrorism. The inertia of the unipolar world also revealed itself in other spheres of international life, including unilateral steps taken in anti-missile defence and the militarization of outer space as well as in attempts to bypass parity in arms control regimes, expansion of political-military blocs, and politicization of the issues of access to and transport of energy resources.
The illusion of the existence of a unipolar world confused many. For some people, it generated a desire to place all of their eggs in one basket. In exchange for absolute loyalty, there was an expectation of carte blanche to resolve all problems, using any means. The emerging syndrome of complete permissiveness that developed led to a rampage on the night of 8 August, when aggression was unleashed on South Ossetia. The bombing of the sleeping city of Tskhinvali and the killing of civilians and peacekeepers trampled under foot all existing settlement agreements, thus putting an end to the territorial integrity of Georgia.
Russia helped South Ossetia to repel that aggression, and carried out its duty to protect its citizens and fulfil its peacekeeping commitments. Russia's recognition of the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia was the only possible step to ensure not only their security, but also the very survival of their peoples, considering the previous record of chauvinism of the Georgian leaders—starting with the Georgian leader Zviad Gamsakhurdia who, in 1991, under the slogan of "Georgia for Georgians", ordered the deportation of Ossetians to Russia, abolished the autonomous status of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and later unleashed a bloody war against them.
That war was brought to an end at the cost of innumerable human lives, and peacekeeping and negotiation mechanisms were established with the approval of the United Nations and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). However, the current Georgian leadership has pursued a persistent policy of undermining those mechanisms through relentless provocation, and finally nullified the peace process by launching a new murderous war on the night of 8 August.
This problem is now closed. The future of the peoples of Abkhazia and South Ossetia has been reliably secured by the treaties between Moscow and Tskhinvali and Sukhumi. With the implementation of the Medvedev-Sarkozy plan, to which we are strongly committed, the situation around the two republics will finally be stabilized. It is important that this plan should be strictly and unswervingly implemented by all parties. We are concerned, however, by the attempts to rewrite it after the fact.
I believe that everyone here has tired of playing the role of extras for the Georgian regime, whose words contain not a shred of truth and whose foreign policy is aimed exclusively at provoking confrontation throughout the world in the pursuit of their own objectives which invariably run counter to the objectives of the Georgian people and to the goal of ensuring security in the Caucasus.
Today, it is necessary to analyse the crisis in the Caucasus from the viewpoint of its impact on the region and the international community as a whole. The world has changed yet again. It has become absolutely clear that the solidarity demonstrated after 9/11 must be revived through approaches untainted by geopolitical expediency and built on the rejection of double standards when fighting against any violations or breaches of international law—whether on the part of terrorists, political extremists or any others.
The crisis in the Caucasus has proved again that it is impossible to resolve the problems we face when blinded by the mirage of a unipolar world. The price we will have to pay in terms of human lives and destinies is too high. We cannot tolerate any attempts to resolve conflict situations by violating international agreements or by the unlawful use of force. If we allow that to occur once, then we run the risk of unleashing it in the future.
One cannot invoke the duty to defend in the abstract, and then be outraged when that principle is used in practice—and in strict conformity with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter and other norms of international law. In South Ossetia, Russia defended the highest of our common values, the most essential human right: the right to live.
The existing security architecture in Europe did not pass the test of recent events. Attempts to adjust it to the rules of a unipolar world led to a situation where that architecture proved incapable of containing an aggressor or preventing the supply of offensive weapons to it, contrary to all existing relevant codes of conduct.
We propose that this issue should be addressed in a comprehensive manner. President Dmitry A. Medvedev, of Russia, speaking in Berlin on 5 June, proposed an initiative on developing a Euro-Atlantic security treaty, a type of "Helsinki II". This work could have been started at the Pan-European summit with the participation of all States as well as all organizations working in the region.
The treaty which we are proposing is meant to create a reliable collective security system that would ensure equal security for all States and set out, in legally binding form, the bases of relations among all participants, with a view to strengthening peace, ensuring stability and promoting integrated and manageable development efforts across the vast EuroAtlantic region. This would be a process in which all parties would reaffirm their commitment to fundamental principles of international law, such as the non-use of force; peaceful settlement of disputes; sovereignty; territorial integrity; non-interference in internal affairs; and the inadmissibility of strengthening one's own security by infringing upon or endangering the security of others. We also need to consider together new mechanisms to ensure compliance with those fundamental principles. Naturally, such a treaty should organically fit into the legal framework of the United Nations Charter and its principles of collective security.
The cold war distorted the nature of international relations and turned them into an arena for ideological confrontation. Only now, after the cold war has ended, can the United Nations, created on the basis of a polycentric vision of the world, fully realize its potential. Today as never before, it is important that all States reaffirm their commitment to the United Nations as a global forum, to which there is no alternative and which possesses a universal mandate and generally recognized legitimacy, and as a centre for open, candid and frank debate and coordination of world policies on a just and equitable basis free from double standards. This is an essential requirement to ensure that the world regains its equilibrium.
The multitude of challenges that humanity is facing require comprehensive strengthening of the United Nations. In order to keep up with the times, the United Nations requires further rational reform to be able to gradually adapt itself to existing political and economic realities. On the whole, we are satisfied by the progress of the reform, including the initial results of the activities of the recently established Peacebuilding Commission and the Human Rights Council.
With regard to expansion of the membership of the Security Council, we will, of course, welcome proposals that do not divide United Nations Member States but rather facilitate the search for mutually acceptable compromises and lead to a broad-based agreement.
Of increasing importance in the reform process is the promotion of dialogue and partnership among civilizations. Russia supports the Alliance of Civilizations and other initiatives in that regard. We reiterate our proposal that a consultative council of religions be established under United Nations auspices, taking into account the increasing role of the religious aspect in international life. That would assist in strengthening moral principles and incorporating them into international affairs.
Among the priorities of United Nations activities, a number of urgent issues have recently appeared on the Organization's agenda, including climate change and food and energy security. Those problems are global and interrelated, and they can be addressed and resolved only through a global partnership at a qualitatively new level, with active involvement by Governments, the scientific and business communities and civil society.
In particular, the current financial crisis requires urgent attention and synergy of efforts. From this rostrum, the President of France has put forward important initiatives aimed at a cooperative search for ways to revitalize the international financial system that involve the world's leading economies. In that context, we support the further development of partnerships between the members of the Group of Eight and key States in all developing regions. The Economic and Social Council could also play a role here. Russia will continue to participate responsibly in the work of various bodies of the United Nations system and in other contexts to help find an equitable solution to all those problems.
The international development assistance mechanisms being established in Russia will help us to increase the extent and effectiveness of our participation in international efforts to fight hunger and disease, to promote broader access to education and to overcome energy shortages, which will be our additional contribution to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. It is only natural that, in so doing, we should pay particular attention to assisting nearby countries. All countries have partners with which they share traditional friendly relations based on a common history and geography. It is wrong to artificially undermine such relationships for the benefit of geopolitical schemes and against the will of the people.
We will continue to work together with all our neighbours. First and foremost, along with the other countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States, we will continue to develop the integration processes within the Collective Security Treaty Organization and the Eurasian Economic Community in order to preserve and promote our common heritage of culture and civilization, which, in a globalizing world, is a major resource of the Commonwealth and of each of its member States. That is why we have a particular interest in cooperating with those countries, and it is also why they view Russia as an area of special interest. We will therefore base our relations on the principles of equality, mutual benefit, respect for and consideration of one another's interests and compliance with existing agreements, in particular those on the peaceful settlement of disputes. That is also the way in which we intend to develop our relations in other regions of the world: openly, on the basis of international law and without any zero-sum games. Those principles were set out in the foreign policy concept approved by President Medvedev in July this year.
Russia is consistently implementing its network diplomacy and promoting cooperation in various formats: the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the BRIC countries—Brazil, Russia, India and China—partnership mechanisms with the European Union, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the League of Arab States and regional organizations in Latin America.
The developments that occurred in August gave us yet another occasion to think about the responsibility to report events accurately. Distortions of reality hamper international efforts to settle conflicts and crises and revive the worst practices of the coldwar era. If we wish to prevent the truth from becoming the first casualty of war, we must draw the appropriate conclusions, in particular in the light of a provision of the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, which states that States have the duty to refrain from propaganda for wars of aggression. That is in line with the Guidelines on protecting freedom of expression and information in times of crisis, recently adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. I propose that the United Nations also issue a statement on that issue, this time in a universal context.
The obvious global effects of the crisis in the Caucasus show that the world has changed for everyone. There are now fewer illusions and fewer pretexts for refusing to respond to the most urgent challenges of modern times. That is precisely why we hope that the international community will, on the basis of common sense, finally manage to develop a programme of collective action for the twenty-first century.
This work is excerpted from an official document of the United Nations. The policy of this organisation is to keep most of its documents in the public domain in order to disseminate "as widely as possible the ideas (contained) in the United Nations Publications".
Pursuant to UN Administrative Instruction ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2 available in English only, these documents are in the public domain worldwide:
* Official records (proceedings of conferences, verbatim and summary records, …)
* United Nations documents issued with a UN symbol
* Public information material designed primarily to inform the public about United Nations activities (not including public information material that is offered for sale).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse