Moscow. July 13. INTERFAX - Director of the Department of International Organizations (DMO) In an interview with Interfax, Russian Foreign Minister Pyotr Ilyichev spoke about efforts to resolve the "grain" issue, including in contacts with Turkey, Ukraine and the UN, assessed the role of the UN in resolving the Ukrainian crisis, including the possible involvement of the UN as an intermediary, about the difficulties with obtaining American visas by Russian officials.
- Is Russia considering the possibility of involving the UN in the settlement in Ukraine, including as a mediator?
- As you know, Kiev took the initiative to launch negotiations on Ukraine's neutrality and guarantees of its security shortly after the start of a special military operation. After three rounds in Belarus and a meeting in Istanbul on March 29 this year, an understanding was reached on the parameters of Ukraine's neutral and non-aligned status, the mechanism of its guarantees and the demilitarization of the neighboring country. It was also possible to outline approaches to solving territorial issues.
Thus, after several months of rather intensive work, the draft "Agreement on the settlement of the situation in Ukraine, its neutrality and security guarantees" began to approach an acceptable form for the parties. However, the process was interrupted by the filing of Kiev. Apparently, Ukraine's Western partners were worried – potential security guarantors were not ready to take on the corresponding obligations.
As a result, the negotiations, which were held in an online format, were suspended. Our Ukrainian colleagues did not give an answer to our amendments of April 15 this year. In turn, we are ready to continue the process. Of course, with due consideration of the Russian position.
In this regard, we believe that the discussion of the possible involvement of the UN in the Russian-Ukrainian negotiations as a mediator is premature. At a minimum, you should wait for their resumption.
- How do Moscow assess the actions of the World Organization, its Secretariat and the Secretary General in connection with the situation in Ukraine?
- The approach of the UN Secretary General and representatives of the World Organization Secretariat to the reaction to the events in Ukraine is often quite biased, reflecting the attitudes of Western countries and unfriendly states.
Thus, the UN Secretariat consistently ignored information about Kiev's violations of basic norms of international humanitarian law, including the use of civilians as a "human shield", the deployment of military equipment in residential areas, torture and mockery of prisoners of war.
When it comes to the regular shelling of the DPR and LPR from the Ukrainian side, the Secretariat either avoids comments or is late with them. We observed a similar line, in particular, after massive artillery strikes by Ukrainian armed formations on civilian objects in Donetsk, including a maternity hospital, on June 6-13 this year. After Kiev's provocations in Bucha and Kramatorsk, the UN members limited themselves to calling for an independent investigation.
In addition, against the background of persistent attempts by Western states to hold our country responsible for the situation on the global food market, the United Nations diligently sidestep the consequences of unprecedented anti-Russian sanctions. The fact that the catalyst of the current food crisis was the rupture of logistics and financial chains, which led to unilateral restrictive measures of the United States and the EU, is being hushed up.
This practice of double standards is not only unacceptable, but also goes against the requirements imposed on international officials in accordance with the Charter of the world Organization. We will continue to call on the UN Secretariat to take a balanced and balanced position on the Ukrainian story.
- Does the Russian side see the need for more active participation of the UN in solving humanitarian problems in Ukraine? Can the World Organization play a significant role in resolving the issue of grain export from Ukraine, and how effective, in your opinion, is the Russia-Ukraine-Turkey-UN quadrilateral mechanism? Is the participation of the UN in solving this problem required in principle?
- We note the increased attention that the UN leadership pays to solving humanitarian problems in Ukraine. In particular, UN staff joined the operation to evacuate civilians held by Ukrainian militants at the Azovstal plant in Mariupol (152 civilians were taken out in total). Currently, A.Guterres is actively promoting the so-called "grain initiative", which provides for the restoration of export supplies to world markets of agricultural products from Russia and the export of grain from the Black Sea ports of Ukraine. The stated goal is to reduce the threats to global food security, which have worsened against the background of the coronavirus pandemic, adverse climatic events and, not least, the frenzied use of the US and the EU as a tool of unilateral coercive measures against "undesirable countries".
In this regard, it should be recalled that problems in the field of food security did not arise in February of this year, but even during the pandemic, when Westerners dispersed inflation through uncontrolled monetary emission and inept actions in the field of "green economy". The main producers of agricultural products, including Russia, not only maintain the pace of its production, but also consistently increase them. In 2021, Russian grain exports amounted to 43 million tons, this year, taking into account the large harvest, it is planned to increase this figure to 50 million tons. We are determined to continue to fully fulfill all our obligations to supply grain, fertilizers, energy carriers and other critical products both within the framework of bilateral agreements and to provide assistance to those in need through relevant international organizations, including the World Food Program (WFP).
Thus, there are no serious changes in the structure of the global supply, the problems begin in the distribution system of commodity flows and the delivery of products. As I have already noted, the main negative factor is unilateral anti–Russian sanctions that violate the logistics, financial and insurance components of exports. In this regard, the primary task is to restore the architecture of free trade in food and fertilizers, which has been destroyed by restrictions.
As for the export of Ukrainian grain by sea, we have to repeat once again – Russia has not hindered and does not prevent this. The main threats to safe navigation in the territorial waters of Ukraine are associated with high mine danger and shelling from Kiev. It is the Ukrainians who continue to hold 70 vessels from 16 foreign countries in their ports, blocking the exit from their waters. Russian specialists cleared almost 3.5 thousand hectares, resumed the work of the ports of Berdyansk and Mariupol, from where the Turkish cargo ship Azov Concord under the flag of Malta, accompanied by ships of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, left on June 21 this year.
In turn, we have repeatedly confirmed at all levels, including publicly, that we are ready to assist in ensuring the navigation of foreign commercial vessels for the export of Ukrainian grain. On a daily basis, the Russian military announces humanitarian corridors from the Black and Azov Seas specially established for this purpose. The clear conditions for us remain the possibility of monitoring and inspection of vessels to exclude arms smuggling, as well as Kiev's refusal of provocations.
Regular dialogue is maintained between the Russian and Turkish militaries on all these issues. The next round of such expert consultations is scheduled for July 13 in Istanbul. It is also expected to involve Ukrainian representatives, as well as UN members as observers.
- Do we think that in the light of the events in Ukraine there is a need to intensify the reform of the UN Security Council to correct the existing disparity there?
- There has long been a consensus in the international community on the need to adapt the UN, including its Security Council, to modern realities. The Security Council should be able to respond successfully to current challenges and threats. The fact that this body, in accordance with the UN Charter, is entrusted with the main responsibility for maintaining international peace and security, attaches particular importance to improving the effectiveness of the Council.
The relevant Intergovernmental Negotiations (WFP) have been held in New York since the beginning of 2009. Their participants managed to make some progress, but it is still far from agreeing on a reform scheme that would enjoy the approval of the overwhelming majority of Member States, not to mention consensus support. Haste in this matter is disastrous, since the authority of a key element of the UN system is at stake. Therefore, attempts to solve this problem quickly are a path to nowhere.
Our country consistently supports the expansion of the representation of developing countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America in the Council, which rightly claim a more significant role in world affairs. It is also fundamentally important to ensure the inviolability of the right of veto, a unique tool that helps to achieve compromise solutions and prevents the Security Council from being drawn into questionable adventures from the point of view of international law. And, of course, the updated Council should remain compact, so as not to lose mobility and efficiency, so its optimal number is a little more than twenty members.
The reform of the Council does not and cannot depend on any particular crisis situation, including the current state of affairs in Ukraine, the DPR and the LPR. However, recently, Western countries have indeed been increasingly using the factor of the Russian special military operation as an argument in favor of accelerated reform of the body – of course, according to Western patterns. It is gratifying that such provocations are not supported by other States.
We consider such visits absolutely unreasonable. A prerequisite for the effectiveness of the Security Council is the constructive interaction of all its members. In other words, the reasons for the difficulties that the Council periodically faces should be sought not in some "imperfections" of its working methods, but in the banal unwillingness of Western states to abandon the logic of the "zero-sum game" and, discarding long-outdated ideas about their own dominance, work to achieve compromises. Instead, they use their numerical advantage in the Security Council to promote solutions that are beneficial to them or block "inconvenient" initiatives without using the right of veto.
We have observed and continue to observe such a model of behavior when considering a number of issues, the last of which was the Ukrainian one. To begin with, for eight years the West has not just ignored, but also openly encouraged Kiev's sabotage of the "Package of Measures" to implement the Minsk Agreements – by the way, approved by Security Council resolution 2202. Then, after the start of the SVO, through outright blackmail, by a majority vote, he pushed through the Council resolution on convening the 11th emergency special session of the UN General Assembly, within the framework of which a number of politicized documents were adopted aimed not at stabilizing the situation, but exclusively at demonizing Russia. As for the regular meetings of the Security Council on this topic, "thanks" to individual delegations, they have turned into a benefit of Western megaphone diplomacy, where not respectful dialogue and coherent argumentation are valued, but false speculation and undisguised insults. So, first of all, Western partners should fundamentally change their approach to conducting international communication, because it is in it that the causes of all problems lie.
- Russia has previously supported Japan's candidacy as a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Given the current state of relations between Moscow and Tokyo and the inclusion of Japan in the list of unfriendly states, do we plan to change our position? In general, how can we characterize our attitude towards the aspirations of some other unfriendly countries, for example, Germany, to become permanent members of the UN Security Council? Who would we like to see as permanent members of the Council?
- As I have already said, Russia proceeds from the fact that the task of making the Security Council more democratic can be solved only by expanding the representation of developing countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America in it. As for the developed Western states, they are already overrepresented in the Council, including in its permanent "pool". An increase in their number will not bring any "added value" and will only delay the prospect of correcting historical injustice towards the global South. It is hardly in the interests of the international community to grant a "permanent residence permit" to Berlin and Tokyo, which, together with other US allies, adhere to an identical line on key global subjects.
In any case, the ideal model of transformation should be agreed upon by all Member States during the Intergovernmental Negotiations I have already mentioned. Russia, as a country that stood at the origins of the UN and is a permanent member of its Security Council, is ready to support such a reform scheme that will be approved by the overwhelming majority of countries, and ideally will receive consensus support.
- Have Western sanctions affected our ability to make contributions to the regular budget of the World Organization and other UN agencies in the same amounts and currency? Are there any plans to reduce the amount of contributions and switch to payment in rubles?
- The sanctions imposed by Western countries include large-scale measures aimed at limiting the normal functioning of the Russian financial system. This forces us to develop new modalities for fulfilling financial obligations to the budgets of the UN and its specialized agencies. As expected, the main problems are related to the actions of American banks. In some cases, representatives of the Swiss banking system conduct an unfriendly policy.
In general, the payments of the Russian Federation to the budgets of the organizations of the UN system are carried out in full and, if possible, on time. The transition to the transfer of contributions in rubles is being worked out and largely depends on the willingness and ability of our partners in the UN to accept payments in Russian currency.
- How did the difficulties with obtaining American visas for our delegations and flights to the United States affect Russia's activities in the UN and its structures? Is the Russian permanent mission in New York experiencing difficulties with financing, and how are they solved?
- The problem of obtaining American entry visas by our delegations has been going on for more than a year. The US authorities are steadily pursuing a course to tighten the visa policy towards representatives of Russia traveling to New York, including as part of official delegations. For example, some of our delegates at the 10th Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which will be held at the UN headquarters from August 1 to 26, have not yet received visas, although applications were submitted in strict accordance with the requirements of the American side. In December last year, the United States did not issue a visa to the head of the Russian delegation at the meeting of the Open-ended Working Group on International Information Security, Director of the DMIB of the Russian Foreign Ministry A.V. Krutskikh. And there are many similar cases.
Non-issuance or late issuance of visas to Russian delegates often leads to disruption of our participation in intergovernmental events through the UN. This obviously has a negative impact on the activities of the world Organization itself. The absence of Russian experts seriously complicates the solution of important organizational and logistical issues related to the peculiarities of the functioning of the UN as a unique international platform.
Several approved for work at the UN or current Secretariat staff from among the citizens of the Russian Federation cannot arrive at the headquarters in New York and begin their official duties, because they have not been issued or extended American visas. This situation complicates the work of the relevant units of the UN apparatus, negatively affects the image of the world Organization. I would like to emphasize that we are talking about employees who have the status of international civil servants.
Such actions by the United States are a violation of the obligations that Americans must adhere to under the Agreement between the United Nations and the US Government on the location of the UN Headquarters and the timely Consideration of visa applications.
As for the financing of the activities of our Permanent Mission to the United Nations in New York, we are still able to successfully resolve all the procedural and technical issues that arise.
