"Russia is aware of its special responsibility for the future of the United Nations"
The unocentric system is in crisis, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Vershinin said in an interview with Izvestia. Western countries are constantly trying to use the organization's mechanisms for personal gain. In addition, binding decisions of the Security Council are increasingly ignored, and the distribution of powers between the main UN bodies is disrupted. To solve these problems, it is necessary to include more countries of the world majority in the Security Council, the diplomat stressed. At the same time, Russia is against forcing reforms in connection with the 80th anniversary of the United Nations or the adoption of a de facto non-consensual "Pact of the Future." About the role of the USSR in the creation of the United Nations, the latest achievements of the organization and future reform — in an exclusive interview with Sergei Vershinin "Izvestia".
"Our country played a decisive role in the establishment and development of the United Nations"
— This year the United Nations celebrates its 80th anniversary. How will this date be celebrated in the international arena? Are events being prepared in Russia?
— The 80th anniversary of the United Nations is an important event both for Russia and for the entire world community. The World Organization remains a unique international forum in terms of its representation, legitimacy and universality. A more perfect platform for multilateral diplomacy has not yet been invented. I am confident that as the process of forming a multipolar world order accelerates, the importance of the organization will steadily increase. In this context, the celebration of the UN's anniversary is an occasion not only to recall its status as a central mechanism for finding collective responses to modern challenges, but also to confirm the organization's enduring importance for future generations.
Our country has played a decisive role in the establishment and development of the United Nations. In fact, on the basis of Soviet proposals, the modalities of its functioning were approved. On June 26, 1945, during a conference in San Francisco, the then Soviet Ambassador to the United States, Andrei Gromyko, signed the UN Charter, as a result of which the Soviet Union became one of its founders.
It is also important to mention that the UN anniversary is inextricably intertwined with another milestone of universal significance — the 80th anniversary of victory in World War II. It was the heroic feat of millions of soldiers and ordinary citizens of the USSR, as well as other states of the anti-Hitler coalition, that paved the way for the birth of the organization. As the power that made the most significant contribution to the Great Victory, the Soviet Union became a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
Russia is already preparing programs of solemn and commemorative events dedicated to the most significant historical dates, including the signing of the Charter (June 26) and UN Day (October 24). Good opportunities for various initiatives will present themselves during the high-level week of the 80th session of the General Assembly (September 23-29) and the October Russian presidency of the Security Council.
We intend to initiate a number of events by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The focus will be on working with the academic community and a foreign diplomatic corps accredited in Moscow. We intend to make extensive use of the potential of our diplomatic missions in key UN "locations" (New York, Geneva, Vienna, Rome, Paris, Nairobi, Bangkok), where cultural events (exhibitions, concerts, film screenings), receptions, and so on will be organized. The Russian Association for the Promotion of the United Nations also plays an active role in the preparation of festive events in our country. Within its framework, a specialized "UN–80 Committee" has been formed, through which it is planned to hold a series of scientific and practical conferences, seminars, round tables and exhibitions, and publish thematic analytical materials.
We will try our best to reflect the key role of our country in the creation of the organization, consolidating and respecting the main goals and principles of its charter today.
— How do you assess the past 80 years in terms of the effectiveness of the UN?
— It is enough to look at the preamble of the UN Charter, where it says that the main purpose of the organization is "to save future generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lives has brought unbearable grief to humanity." In other words, to prevent another conflict on a global scale. The fact that we are currently having this conversation confirms: The UN is still coping with its mission.
However, the success story of the organization, of course, is not limited to this. She has a number of breakthrough achievements in her "piggy bank", whether in the areas of maintaining peace and security, promoting socio-economic development or promoting human rights. As an example, there are many armed conflicts that have been "extinguished" with the help of UN peacekeeping tools since the late 1940s. Or a set of agreements in the field of arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation agreed under its auspices. The organization's significant contributions in the fight against poverty, hunger, inequality, pandemics and climate change cannot be ignored. Humanity has made tangible progress on all these tracks.
Separately, it is worth mentioning the role of the United Nations and its charter as the foundation of the modern world order. It is in the founding document of the organization that the fundamental international legal principles are fixed, which have formed a kind of "code of conduct" on the world stage, including the sovereign equality of States, non-interference in their internal affairs and the right of peoples to self-determination. It is only necessary that countries strictly comply with them. And they did it in its entirety and interrelation.
However, organizations are accused of excessive bureaucratization, parallelism of efforts, and irrational spending of funds. Sometimes it even comes to calls to "slam the door" and switch completely to other multilateral formats. However, in my opinion, we should act carefully here: many of these alternatives are very promising, but they do not have the universal and unique qualities of the United Nations.
A well-known, but no less relevant, quote from the second Secretary General of the United Nations, Dag Hammarskjold, comes to mind: "The United Nations was created not to lead humanity to heaven, but to save it from hell." Disappointment in the organization is mostly caused by high expectations regarding its capabilities.
The main thing is that the effectiveness of the United Nations is directly dependent on the political will, negotiability and foresight of its member States. And any document adopted within the UN walls is not the result of the simplest compromises.
It is unrealistic to think that the UN is able to solve all the world's problems at once. Overcoming many of them sometimes takes decades, during which States scrupulously seek to find "common denominators." The main thing is that we have a universal platform where we can conduct such mutually respectful work on the basis of equality of all states.
"The oonocentric system is in crisis"
— Does the UN continue to play a central coordinating role in world politics?
— Unfortunately, the oonocentric system is currently in crisis. Its origins are the attempts of the collective West, unwilling to share influence with the global majority, to transform the organization from a tool for building a multipolar world order into a mechanism for realizing its selfish interests. As a result, the authority of the UN is declining, and it is losing its ability to fully perform its functions. You don't have to go far for examples.
Take, for example, the situation around the Security Council: the Westerners repeatedly take it "hostage", using it not to reach mutually acceptable solutions to current challenges, but to settle scores with "undesirable" governments and conduct high-profile PR campaigns. It is impossible not to mention the increasing tendency to ignore the binding decisions of the Security Council. Much has already been said about the sabotage of resolution 2202, which approved the Minsk Agreements. But the story does not end there: the Euro-Atlanticists, for example, continue to disregard the instructions of the Security Council in the context of the Middle East settlement, the Bosnian and Kosovo plots.
By the way, at the moment such a "crusade" in the HAGUE is being conducted against our country. Immediately after the start of the conflict, the Westerners, having failed to push through their politicized approaches to the Ukrainian crisis in the UN Security Council, switched to the General Assembly, convening the 11th emergency special session. Thus, the distribution of powers between the main UN bodies was violated. But in the GA, where decisions are only advisory in nature, Kiev's Western patrons shamelessly use pressure tools to gain the votes of member states in favor of their resolutions, which are then presented as the "collective will of the civilized world." Within the framework of this special session, several such documents were adopted, and each of them only makes the prospects for a settlement more illusory.
The actual usurpation of the UN secretariat by Western countries cannot contribute to strengthening the effectiveness of the UN. UN officials are increasingly allowing themselves biased statements and actions — in violation of Article 100 of the Charter, which calls on them to adhere to an equidistant line.
A serious problem is the unhealthy desire of the collective West to move away from the international legal principles enshrined in the UN Charter in line with the concept of a "rules-based world order." Its purpose is to replace generally accepted postulates with certain prescriptions, the content of which varies arbitrarily depending on the political situation. Then the United States and the company shamelessly impose them on the rest of the world, and those who disagree are punished with illegal unilateral sanctions.
Russia is aware of its special responsibility for the future of the United Nations and confidently opposes the destructive course of the collective West. We counter the opponents' attempts to impose their own vision of human development with an approach based on strengthening the UN-centered system of international relations and the supremacy of the principles of the UN Charter in their entirety and interrelationship.
It is important that we are far from being alone in this noble cause. In particular, one of the main platforms for promoting the interests of the global majority is the Group of Friends in Defense of the UN Charter (GCU), established in 2021. This association is not aimed against anyone, its only task is to defend universal international legal norms in the face of the aggressive revisionist line of Washington and its satellites.
We intend to continue our efforts together with like-minded people to promote the formation of a more democratic world architecture, as well as to restore and strengthen the effectiveness of the United Nations as a central mechanism in global affairs.
— Recently, the need for UN reform has been discussed. What does Russia offer?
— Nobody can doubt the timeliness of the UN reform. It is within its walls that the pulse of world politics "beats", and it should reflect as accurately as possible the current processes of the formation of genuine multipolarity.
In such a situation, there is no other option but to continue discussions on a model of transformation acceptable to all. There is no room for haste in this crucial issue: an eventual reform formula must gain the support of the overwhelming majority of Member States, and ideally their consensus approval. Otherwise, we will get an organization that is not universally respected. There is a high probability that in such a scenario, a number of countries will want to leave the UN altogether, and then the UN-centric architecture will "fall apart." That is why we are against attempts to condition accelerated progress on the reform track by referring to the 80th anniversary of the United Nations or to de facto non-consensual documents such as the "Pact of the Future".
Russia, as the founding State of the organization, takes an active part in reform discussions. Our position is simple: any initiatives should be aimed at a real increase in the effectiveness and credibility of the United Nations. Special attention should be paid to the growing role of the world majority in all organs of the UN system, in proportion to its growing authority.
A prerequisite for productive UN reform is the preservation of the intergovernmental nature of the organization. We must not forget that the obligations arising from its Charter are borne only by the Member States. The expanded involvement of non-governmental "players" in the organization's activities will only make it easier for Westerners to bend the UN to their will.
It is also important to ensure unquestioning observance of the principle of the "division of labor" laid down in the Charter between the main organs of the United Nations. For example, the General Assembly should not interfere with the exclusive prerogatives of the Security Council in matters of peace and security. At the same time, it is necessary to stop bringing to the site of the Security Council subjects that are not within its terms of reference: human rights, environmental protection and other socio-economic dossiers.
Adaptation of the activities of another main UN body, the secretariat, is highly demanded. It is high time to recall Article 101 of the Charter, which prescribes the appointment of personnel to UN posts based on the principle of the widest possible geographical representation. If this postulate were really respected, the secretariat would not turn into another "mouthpiece" of Western propaganda.
"The historical injustice against the African continent must be overcome"
— Are there any concrete reform proposals that could suit all Member States?
— An effective restructuring of the United Nations is impossible without a qualitative transformation of its key body, the Security Council, without exaggeration. The need to make it more representative is obvious: its current structure, characterized by the numerical majority of the collective West, does not meet the current multipolar realities. And until the situation changes, the Westerners will continue, as if nothing had happened, to turn the Security Council into a platform of political self-promotion for squabbles and showdowns, thereby blocking its work.
At the same time, it is important to identify a number of fundamental nuances of Russia's position. I am convinced that it is possible to improve the quality of discussions and the effectiveness of the council solely by increasing the representation of the countries of the world majority, which are destined to become the mainstay of the multipolar world order. This is especially true in Africa, which for many years remained the object of Western colonial oppression. This shameful historical injustice against the African continent must be overcome, and within the parameters set by the regions themselves.
In addition, Western states maintain an identical line on all key international issues. What will an increase in the number of such countries in the council lead to, other than the complete paralysis of this body? That is why the overstuffed claims of Germany and Japan to obtain permanent jobs cannot be called anything other than completely unfounded.
Despite the fact that all Member States speak in favor of reforming the Security Council in one form or another, it has not been possible to approach consensus on any of the basic elements of the reforms. In such circumstances, there is no alternative to continuing discussions in the format of intergovernmental negotiations (WFP), which have been ongoing since 2009. The goal is to achieve unanimity on all five "clusters": the category of membership, the right of veto, regional representation, the size of the Security Council and its working methods, and relations between the Security Council and the General Assembly. Only then will it be possible to think about moving to a single negotiating text.
The most important thing is that such work, as in the case of UN reform in general, should not be limited to any arbitrary time schedules, which some delegations are calling for. Forcing the WFP, stuffing deliberately unconsensual draft reform resolutions of the GA in the hope of obtaining the minimum required two-thirds of the votes will only lead to a further decline in the authority of the Security Council.
— How do you assess the role of the United Nations in resolving conflicts in Yemen, Libya, and Sudan?
— The United Nations and its role should be viewed in two projections: as an association of member states and as a secretariat - an apparatus of international officials who implement the decisions taken by the members of the organization.
The United Nations, as an intergovernmental organization, has no alternatives in terms of universality in the field of "crisis management," including in Yemen, Libya and Sudan. All three countries are on the agenda of the UN Security Council. During regular meetings of the Security Council, it analyzes the operational situation "on the ground", searches for ways to facilitate conflict resolution, and adopts the necessary resolutions.
This format of work was conceived 80 years ago in order to find collective solutions to global problems and ensure their implementation peacefully through dialogue and without destructive outside influence.
However, in the context of the conflicts in Yemen, Libya, and Sudan, we clearly see attempts by major Western players to roughly impose their own ready-made "recipes." At the same time, Westerners are acting both bypassing the UN and setting up the UN members to become agents of their interests.
Due to the constant interference, the settlement processes are slow. In Yemen, the parties cannot sign the peace roadmap agreed more than a year ago. In Libya, the United States and its allies, instead of helping to restore the unity of the country, are directing all efforts to curb the growth of Russia's influence. In Sudan, under the guise of caring for the civilian population, Westerners want to undermine the legitimacy of the official authorities in order to implement thwarted democratization projects. In November 2024, Russia was forced to use the right of veto, blocking the British draft resolution of the UN Security Council, which provided for the creation of mechanisms for interference in the internal affairs of Sudan.
Russia will not allow the UN platform to be abused and placed at the service of purely Western interests. We are constantly working to consolidate the coordinating role of the organization and the Security Council in maintaining international peace and security.
As for the participation of the UN secretariat, the UN members are doing a lot of useful things: they provide humanitarian assistance, help restore socio-economic infrastructure, and healthcare. Field missions are operating in Yemen and Libya to help develop measures to bring the positions of the warring parties closer.
By the way, the United Nations Transition Support Mission (UNMISS) was operating in Sudan until February 29, 2024. However, its leadership abused the trust of local authorities and got into democratizing projects with the help of well-known Western countries. As a result, the head of UNMISS, Volker Pertes, was declared persona non grata, and the mission itself was curtailed.
In this regard, it is important that UN staff at any level strictly comply with the provisions of the UN Charter, including its Article 100, which prohibits taking instructions from any government or authority.
We are working closely with the United Nations, both in Moscow and outside of Russia, and we are encouraging them to pursue an impartial line in Yemen, Libya, Sudan, and elsewhere. Only by observing this principle can a lasting and satisfactory settlement be achieved.
— In the middle of the last century, almost simultaneously with the creation of the United Nations, the Arab-Israeli conflict broke out in the Middle East. Is it possible to revive the Palestinian-Israeli settlement amid the current crisis?
— The Arab-Israeli conflict remains one of the longest and most complex modern conflicts, based on contradictions dating back to the colonial period. The well-known Franco-British Sykes-Picot Agreement, and then London's decisions on mandatory Palestine (the Balfour Declaration and the White Paper), became the time mines that continue to fuel tension and contradictions. Washington's geopolitical experiments bypassing the solution of the Palestinian problem do not contribute to improving the situation, reaching a sustainable and long-term settlement. In fact, it was the failed course of the United States last year in the Middle East that led to the current explosion, unprecedented violence and bloodshed in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, Lebanon and Syria, and more broadly in the region.
At the same time, the generally recognized international legal framework for the Palestinian-Israeli settlement is known and remains unchanged. Its "nodal" element— the two—state solution, is spelled out in one of the very first decisions of the UN General Assembly, adopted just two years after the birth of the organization. Resolution 181 contains a plan for the partition of Palestine, according to which two states should be created — a Jewish and an Arab one, Jerusalem is designated as a special unit (corpus separatum) enjoying a special international regime. However, of the two States mentioned in the resolution, only Israel was created. The task of forming a sovereign and viable State of Palestine within the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital still needs to be solved. This will ensure the fundamental rights and just aspirations of the Palestinians, including self-determination.
Another landmark decision of the UN General Assembly on Palestine is Resolution 194, adopted in 1949, on the rights of Palestinian refugees to return and restitution. In order to facilitate its implementation, the General Assembly established the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) in the same year. Initially, the Agency cared for 750,000 Palestinians in East Jerusalem, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria. Over the past 75 years, this number has increased many times and reached 5.9 million people, to whom UNRWA provides support in such areas as education, health, social services, improving infrastructure and living conditions, primarily in refugee camps.
Unfortunately, despite the persistence of the problem of Palestinian refugees in the absence of a full-fledged State and the growing needs of them amid the deteriorating humanitarian situation, UNRWA is going through perhaps the most difficult period of its existence. On January 30, Knesset laws came into force on the termination of the agency's activities in the "sovereign territory of Israel" and a ban on contacts between Israelis and UN members. As a result, the continuation of relief operations in East Jerusalem, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, as well as in neighboring Arab countries was in danger of serious reduction, if not complete curtailment.
Obviously, this is another form of collective punishment of millions of Palestinians, and the corresponding arbitrary actions of Israel, violating key norms and principles of international law, cannot but cause deep disappointment.
It should be noted that the Russian public has not remained indifferent to the crisis around UNRWA — the International Public Foundation "Russian Peace Foundation" has submitted an application for the agency's nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize. Given the long-term humanitarian contribution of UNRWA and the high price that its staff paid during the current crisis (273 people died), we consider this award more than deserved and timely.
"Countries should determine their development priorities without external pressure"
— Under the auspices of the United Nations, cooperation in the socio-economic sphere is also actively developing. How do you assess the results of the work on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development?
— Russia considers the 2030 Agenda as a consolidating factor requiring the unification of the efforts of the international community and the mobilization of available resources. We advocate an integrated, inclusive and non-discriminatory approach to the implementation of the 2030 Agenda.
Unfortunately, the implementation of the 2030 Agenda is currently facing serious challenges. The funding gap for the Sustainable Development Goals contained in it is about $4 trillion per year. According to the UN secretariat, only 17% of the 169 tasks listed in the 2030 Agenda are being implemented within the planned targets, approximately 48% have minimal progress, and 35% have stagnated or even regressed.
The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated existing problems and revealed the shortcomings of previous models of economic development. In order to combat its consequences, the issuing states of "global" currencies filled national financial systems with "cheap" money, which provoked the formation of imbalances in global financial markets and exacerbated the crisis.
Against the background of attempts by the collective West to implement an accelerated "greening" of the economy, investments and lending to traditional extractive and processing sectors have significantly decreased, which has led to an increase in energy prices. The States of the Global South have become the real hostages of the current situation.
By forcing them to abandon the use of fossil energy sources and encouraging them to assume increased climate commitments, Western countries are, in fact, shifting the main burden of real action in this area onto the shoulders of the developing world.
Inflation and the debt burden are exacerbating the situation. The 25 least developed countries spend 20% of their budget revenues on servicing their external debt. Since 2011, the number of highly indebted countries has increased from 22 to 59. African countries spend four times more on debt servicing than the United States and eight times more than Germany. The highest interest rates apply to countries in Africa, Latin America, Asia and the Pacific.
The geopolitical ambitions of the collective West have a negative impact on the flows of official development assistance (ODA). According to the OECD data for 2023, this aid to Ukraine increased by 9% and reached $20 billion. Additional expenses for assistance to Ukrainian refugees in developed countries amounted to $31 billion. At the same time, all African countries received only $42 billion in official development assistance in 2023.
The ideological attitudes that the West uses towards developing countries are regrettable. Increasingly aggressive attempts are being made to introduce Western cliches regarding human rights and gender into the global development dialogue, to impose alien ideas about democracy on the Global South, and to consolidate these topics as "cross-cutting". We are convinced that the priorities of their development should be determined by the countries themselves without external pressure. Ultimately, the only way to achieve tangible development results is to focus common efforts on solving socio-economic problems.
— Will the work on the 2030 Agenda continue, or will new development priorities appear?
— The concept of sustainable development has been evolving in the international community for more than 40 years. The first successful precedent for agreeing on specific guidelines for global development under the auspices of the United Nations was the Millennium Assembly, held in 2000, which resulted in a list of eight Millennium Development Goals.
As a result of the global campaign to achieve them, the well-being of millions of people around the world has improved. However, the progress achieved has been uneven. Impressive results on a global scale were achieved mainly due to the high growth rates of several large emerging economies, primarily China and India. At the same time, the Millennium Development Goals have not been fully implemented in most African countries, and in some countries the situation has even worsened over the past 15 years. In addition, they have been heavily criticized by the international community, in particular for the lack of clear subtasks and consideration of inequalities between countries. These issues were taken into account during the work on the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals, which began two years before their adoption.
Currently, there are no institutionalized processes on the UN platform for the formulation of a new global development agenda for the period after 2030. However, many people are really starting to think about where we should all go after crossing the horizon of the Sustainable Development Goals and how to overcome the growing inequality between countries in the world. Based on the available experience, it can be assumed that as we approach the well-known "control point", the world community will have to carefully analyze both the successes achieved in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda and the factors that prevented its full implementation in order to fully take them into account when developing new global development guidelines. Obviously, this process will be more actively influenced by the new poles of power.
For our part, we suggest thinking about the potential and content of the idea of "equitable development", which has already surfaced in the BRICS documents, an approach that takes due account of the national characteristics of different categories of countries, the unique needs of their economies and civilizational differences in order to overcome the current gaps in the level of socio-economic progress between geographical regions.
— In recent years, global economic processes have been shifting to the east. Has this affected the activities of the international UN structures?
— Of course, it did. It must be clearly understood here: the UN is not something that exists in a vacuum from external processes. On the contrary, it is a living organization that evolves along with the system of international relations, into which it is tightly incorporated. Therefore, when today, including in the public environment, the United Nations is criticized for inaction or for the inability to solve the problems of humanity that have accumulated over the centuries, there can only be one answer to such remarks: the effectiveness of the United Nations directly depends on the ability of the member countries themselves to negotiate and join forces in the face of global challenges. And if the world is moving towards a block division, then this will inevitably affect all processes within the organization.
Using the same analogy, the UN can analyze how much the "center of gravity" of global economic activity has shifted in recent years. This is most clearly seen in the example of regional economic commissions. These are the structures that are part of the UN Economic and Social Council, which are charged with monitoring the implementation of the 2030 Agenda at the regional level and providing technical assistance to their member countries. Russia is the founder and active participant of two commissions at once: for Europe (UNECE) and for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP).
Until recently, the UNECE actually acted as the flagship commission against the background of its "sisters". It is under its auspices, in particular, that more than fifty transport conventions have been developed, which today form the legal basis for all cross-border freight transport in Europe and beyond.
Remarkably, most of these tools were agreed upon and put into effect during the peak periods of the Cold War. What does this mean? That our predecessors were wise enough to put politics aside when it came to solving the economic problems of their own population.
Unfortunately, current Western politicians do not have the same understanding, and as a result, the UN Economic Commission for Europe is practically paralyzed today. The mutually beneficial sectoral dialogue there has now been reduced to an endless series of anti-Russian demarches, primarily from the EU. The situation has already reached such an absurd point that this group is blocking Russian technical assistance projects to Central Asian countries, effectively depriving them of international assistance. It doesn't work to encourage colleagues to use common sense. All that remains for us to do is try to preserve the few existing areas of interaction. We are grateful to our colleagues from line ministries and departments, as well as partner countries, for understanding the problem and their willingness to continue working in such difficult conditions.
But in another UN Economic commission, ESCAP, the situation is exactly the opposite. Attempts by our opponents to undermine the work of the commission with their demarches were met with strong resistance from the countries of Asia and the Pacific. As a result, ESCAP has made significant progress in its activities over the past few years. Under its auspices, in particular, a Framework Agreement on Simplification of procedures for cross-border Paperless Trade in the Asia-Pacific region was agreed and entered into force, to which Russia joined in 2023. Transport and environmental cooperation is developing rapidly.
As for technical cooperation projects, they are also carried out unhindered in ESCAP. The "target audience" is the same — Central Asia and Transcaucasia — which makes it possible to partially offset the consequences of the crisis in the UNECE.
So, as you can see, yes, the shift in the geographical focus of international activity is indeed becoming more obvious at the UN.
"The problems of needy countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America do not concern Western capitals"
— The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) is celebrating its 80th anniversary this year. How do you assess the potential of FAO? What contribution has Russia made to its strengthening?
— Today, FAO remains one of the key structures of the UN system. It provides assistance to member countries in improving their food systems, as well as ensuring global food security in general. The range of programs implemented through this structure is extremely wide.
In particular, FAO successfully advises national governments on effective agricultural policies, promotes the transfer of new technologies, and forms effective systems for the use of land, water, forest, and fisheries resources, as well as environmental protection. In addition, the organization develops international quality standards for various types of agricultural products that are used in international trade, taking into account WTO requirements. The Codex Alimentarius Commission is actively working with WHO. Russia has consistently participated in all the above-mentioned areas of sectoral international cooperation, and the role of our country and the efforts of relevant departments are significant.
We use the potential of FAO to assist friendly countries, including in restoring or developing their agricultural production. Domestic experience is in demand in managing soil resources, combating antimicrobial resistance, and improving nutrition quality. In 2020-2021, with the financial support of our country, it was possible to stop the outbreak of the spread of desert locusts in Africa and the Middle East. Another successful example of our cooperation with FAO is the annual presentation of the World Soil Prize named after Konstantin Glinka, a Russian soil scientist.
To provide food aid to those in need, along with bilateral channels, we will use the potential of relevant international organizations, in particular, the United Nations World Food Program (WFP). In addition to traditional Russian food supplies, we have been financing WFP projects at the intersection of humanitarian aid and development assistance for many years. Thus, with our participation, programs have been developed and continue to be successfully implemented to strengthen national school nutrition systems in Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Armenia, the countries of Southeast Asia and Africa.
— How does Russia assess the role of the United Nations in the fight against climate change?
— Today, no one doubts the fact that the Earth's climate is changing. According to a recent report by the World Meteorological Organization, 2024 was the warmest year on record. This is confirmed by our colleagues from Roshydromet. Naturally, this issue has become fixed as one of the main topics for discussion by the international community.
The importance of the United Nations in the climate process cannot be overestimated. The following mechanisms play a central role in intergovernmental discussions and the development of collective solutions to respond to this global challenge: the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement. We consider them not only a reliable, but also a well-established international legal framework for a long-term climate settlement. We are convinced that this UN "platform" should continue to retain the status of a unique negotiating mechanism on combating climate change.
Unfortunately, we see incessant attempts by Western countries to "drag" human rights, gender, migration, peace and security, as well as other issues that are very indirectly related to climate issues into the agenda of the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. Under the pretext of achieving carbon neutrality, artificial protectionist barriers are being openly created.
In fact, the international negotiation process is being "climatized" in various fields — trade, finance, energy, transport, industry, agriculture. We believe that the UN should stand guard over the relevant mandates of international legal mechanisms.
— The issue of ensuring global food security is being actively discussed. What does Russia offer?
— The crisis phenomena in the field of global food security have been around for a long time and continue to accumulate. These include the COVID-19 pandemic, attempts to accelerate the transition to a green economy, climate change, and financial and economic voluntarism in Western countries, ranging from uncontrolled monetary emissions to sanctions pressure and trade wars. This, however, did not prevent Western capitals from "playing the food card" in connection with the Ukrainian crisis, accusing Russia of almost provoking mass starvation and presenting Ukraine as a "global breadbasket."
In fact, the picture looks very different, as demonstrated by the implementation of the Black Sea Initiative in 2022-2023. The agreement, concluded under the humanitarian slogan of helping vulnerable countries of the Global South, in practice resulted in the commercial export of Ukrainian grain to "well-fed" countries, primarily the EU (of the 32.8 million tons of cargo, more than 70% (26.3 million tons) were shipped to high- and upper-middle-income countries).
This is not surprising if we recall that the owners of a significant part of Ukrainian arable land (more than 17 million hectares) are such Western corporations as Cargill, DuPont and Monsanto. They were the ones who first bought up the land (after Kiev lifted a 20-year moratorium on its sale at the request of the IMF), and then became, in fact, the main beneficiaries of grain exports. In turn, Europeans who purchase Ukrainian food at dumping prices process it in their factories for further resale as finished goods with high added value. Thus, it turns out that Westerners actually earn several times — on the export, sale, processing and resale of agricultural products. Kiev's humanitarian generosity was reduced to the Grain from Ukraine PR campaign, in which over three years, a little more than 200 thousand tons of grain were delivered to 12 countries using $290 million received from donors.
Meanwhile, Russia has been and remains the largest supplier of agricultural products, primarily wheat and fertilizers, to world markets, with annual export volumes of 60 and 40 million tons, respectively. We continue to faithfully and fully fulfill all our commercial and humanitarian obligations, with a focus on the needs and requirements of vulnerable countries.
In particular, Russian initiatives on gratuitous supplies of grain and fertilizers to the poorest countries deserve special attention. As part of these actions, 200 thousand tons of wheat were shipped to the Central African Republic, Burkina Faso, Zimbabwe, Mali, Somalia and Eritrea; about 200 thousand tons of fertilizers were sent to Malawi, Kenya, Zimbabwe, Nigeria and Sri Lanka. We did this without any fuss or political fuss, responding exclusively to the needs of the population of these countries.
The main obstacle to our products' access to world markets remains the blocking effect of illegal unilateral Western sanctions, ranging from disruption of financial and logistics chains, denial of insurance, and asset freezes to outright bans on related supplies. This leads to an increase in the final cost of products for consumers up to 8%. However, the difficulties and problems of the needy countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America clearly do not concern the Western capitals. They continue to regularly stamp out new "sanctions packages" amid hypocritical talk that their restrictions on Russian food and fertilizers do not apply.
— What does Russia plan to propose in the area of international information security (IIB) at the UN in 2025?
— The signing of the UN Convention against Cybercrime will be a landmark event in the anniversary year for the United Nations. Let me remind you that this first universal international agreement in the field of IIB was developed on the initiative of our country and approved by the General Assembly in December. The document signing ceremony is scheduled to take place in July in Hanoi. We know that many countries, including those from the developing world, will send their delegations there, and some have already launched domestic procedures to join the Convention. The entry into force of the treaty will allow its participants to start interacting within the framework of the Convention's mechanisms for combating cybercriminal. In parallel, work will be carried out on the site of the UN special Committee on the preparation of additional protocols designed to expand the scope of the document to various types of crimes using information technology, including for terrorist and extremist purposes, for drug and arms trafficking, and others.
In 2025, we will have to decide on the format of the future negotiation process on the IIB in the context of international security. The mandate of the Open—ended Working Group (OEWG), which has been in force since 2021, expires in July, and the question of its successor remains open. There is a preliminary agreement that a permanent mechanism for the IIB should be established in the United Nations. Our task is to target the future negotiation format for specific work. We are talking about agreeing, by analogy with the Convention against Cybercrime, on universal agreements on security in the field of ICT use and capacity—building measures for developing countries. As well as on the further development of the UN Global Intergovernmental Register of Contact Points for the exchange of information on computer attacks or Incidents, launched in 2024.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
