Russia’s term starts on March 1 and will last for one month. Therole of the president of the Security Council involves setting theagenda, presiding over meetings, and overseeing any crisis.
On the eve of occupying the presiding chair at the Council,Russia's envoy to the UN spoke with RT about what will be on theagenda and other acute international issues.
RT: What will Russia's priorities be during its UNpresidency? What’s top of the list to tackle?
Vitaly Churkin: It is a long list and it’s looking like avery crowded month in March. The highlight of our presidency isgoing to be a ministerial debate on Afghanistan, which will bechaired by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and we expect theparticipation of a number of foreign ministers from both SecurityCouncil member and non-member states, because everybody will beinvited to speak to members of the UN – those who choose toparticipate.
The mandate of the UN mission in Afghanistan is going to beextended for another year – and that of course is going to be avery important year for Afghanistan with the upcoming presidentialelections in April of 2014 with the unclear prospects of themilitary presence, when US forces and ISAF international forces aregoing to pull out in 2014, the unclear prospects for a nationaldialogue and reconciliation.
So, there are so manyimportant issues with a lot at stake before the Security Council,we think that this is going to be a very important element for ourprogram of work for the month of March.
RT: What to do with Syria next? How is Russia going totry to bring people together there over the next month?
VC: There is nothing specific at this point in ourprogram of work on Syria. But of course Syria comes our way everynow and then under different circumstances. For instance, yesterdaythere was a stirring briefing to the consultation of the SecurityCouncil of humanitarian agencies describing the awful situation inthat country. So, of course, there is a lot of worry and frequentdiscussions in the Security Council on the situation in Syria.
Our position is very simple: we believe that violence must stopand for that dialogue must be established without precondition. Andthe government is saying that they have outlined their negotiatingteam and they outlined their proposals for dialogue. There is aGeneva document of June 2012, which, we believe, should serve asthe consensus basis for dialogue.
Unfortunately, in the past few days the opposition seems to havebeen backtracking from their original statement, which was made bythe leader of the national coalition Mr. Khatyb, about theirreadiness to start dialogue with the Syrian government.
This is the key issue. Without dialogue, I am afraid, andwithout the political will on the part of all Syrians, of the mainstake holders in that country, the international community can’t domuch. We can’t resolve that crisis for them.
We can help them. Russia is trying to do exactly that by talkingat the same time with the government and various opposition groupsurging them to enter dialogue.
But unless they themselves make their determination I am afraidthe violence will continue and the crisis will continue tospiral.
RT: The Syrian opposition has been promised more'non-lethal' help from the US today. Where is the 'lethal' supportcoming from? What’s Russia’s view on that?
VC: There is a general understanding that maybe Qatar issupplying weapons to Syria, but here I am basing myself mostly onnewspaper accounts and on previous experience, because it’swell-known now, that in the course of the crisis in Libya, forinstance, Qatar happened to be a major supplier of weapons intothat country.
You know there is all this talk about non-lethal assistance fromthe US. There is a certain clear division of labor. The US for anumber or reasons chooses not to sully its hands with direct supplyof weapons to the armed groups, because among them are terroristsand others, with whom the US would prefer not to be associated.
But at the same time they give a wink and a nod to those whoprovide direct military aid to rebel armed groups. All this is veryunfortunate, because it takes attention away from the need to entera political dialogue.
Instead of asking for more assistance of various sorts, theopposition groups, including the national council, should besticking to their initial offer or expression of readiness to entera dialogue, should be amplifying their political program, becausewe are not seeing a political program from them. The government andthe speech of President Assad in January did outline a politicalprogram. Maybe it was not satisfactory for the opposition, but atleast it was there. They should have and should now reciprocate byoutlining their political program, which they could bring to thetable of dialogue with the government and Russia and we hope otherimportant members of the international community would be there tofacilitate those discussions.
RT: Ambassador, let's talk about nuclear tensions overIran. Recent talks in Kazakhstan brought no breakthrough. Furthertalks were agreed. What are your thoughts about that?
VC: My understanding was that it was a sort of a positivemeeting and it’s of course very good news that they’ve already nowagreed to have an expert meeting within weeks and then in earlyApril – another session of these negotiations between Mrs. Ashtonand Mr. Jalili and political directors from the six countries, whoare accompanying those talks and negotiating with Iran.
But my understanding is that they yet have to tackle the coreissues and the six brought new proposals to the table with theactive participation of Russia in that process they just had inKazakhstan.
RT: Was there anything radically new in those talks?Do we know?
VC: Not really radically new. But there are some newimportant elements, which should make it more attractive for theIranians to finally enter the negotiations at the core of thematter. And that is yet to happen.
RT: I’d like to ask you about the Bradley Manningcase. I am sure you are absolutely up to speed with that. In thelast hour or two Bradley Manning, the AmericanPrivate-whistleblower…
VC: I am sorry. This is not something we with at theUnited Nations. And I am not up on this.
RT: Absolutely! Nothing wrong with that answer, Sir,at all. Last quick question, North Korea, it’s audaciously goinghead with its nuclear test. Doesn’t that strong criticism that camefrom the UN only amount to a slap on the wrist?
VC: We very quickly made a press statement, where wecondemned this nuclear test and expressed our determination toprovide an adequate reaction in the form of a resolution of aSecurity Council. The US has prepared a draft of this resolution,but so far they’ve chosen not to engage the Russian delegation inthe discussion of that resolution.
We believe that there should be a strong signal from theSecurity Council to the DPRK of disapproval of this dangerouscourse of action. But, at the same time there should be aresolution which would help lead towards the resumption ofsix-party talks and a diplomatic final resolution of this issue ofthe denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.
