US, NATO masters of double standards

Speech by Vassily Nebenzia, Russian Permanent Representative at the UN

At the meeting on 10 October, Russia already provided a clarification of reasons that led up to the referenda in the Donetsk and Lugansk republics, as well as Kherson and Zaporozhye regions.

The final results of the vote were announced on 28 September. The sweeping majority of those who voted at the referenda supported accession of their respective regions to Russia: 99 percent in the DPR, 98 percent in the LPR, 93 percent in the Zaporozhye region, 87 percent in the Kherson region.

Despite the complicated security situation and provocations of the Kiev regime, the overwhelming majority of those eligible to vote decided to cast a ballot – from 76 percent in the Kherson region up to 97 percent in the DPR. The results of the vote are self-explanatory: the population of those areas does not want to get back to Ukraine and made a free and conscious choice in favour of Russia.

The referenda were held in full compliance with the norms and principles of the international law, no matter how hard our Western opponents or even the Secretary-General (who all of a sudden decided to speak on behalf of the entire United Nations in the absence of such mandate) try to prove the opposite.

More than 100 international observers from Germany, Italy, Venezuela, Latvia, and other states, who monitored the voting, also recognized the results to be legitimate.

Proclaimed commitment to safeguarding the international law that we heard today from representatives of the US and NATO states was a clear manifestation of hypocrisy and double standards. Rather indicatively, they even abstained from mentioning their favourite brainchild, the "rules-based order" for a while.

Let's turn to Kosovo's case. The most eloquent critics of the referenda were among the first to support Kosovo's independence. They insisted that Kosovo had the right to a remedial secession.

It was the official legal position of the West, which they expressed in written submissions to the International Court of Justice, as it was preparing an advisory opinion upon request of the General Assembly in 2008, even though by that moment Kosovar Albanians had not been imposed to any threats for a long time.

Yugoslavia did not exist any more, and in Serbia which was devastated by NATO states, foreign contingents were deployed in place of peacekeepers. No referendum was deemed necessary in Kosovo – only a unilateral declaration of independence, adopted ultra vires by provisional self-government body.

But it was enough for the West to recognize Kosovo's independence.

They used to say the international law did not prohibit declaring independence. What do they say today? They say Kosovo is different. So NATO was prepared to save Kosovar Albanians from threats that did not exist at that moment. But when it comes to the residents of Donbas, Kherson, and Zaporozhye, those are regarded as "second-class" people, who see extermination by the Kiev regime is no concern of the civilized West, because those regions dare to support Russia.

The draft resolution under consideration today is riddled with these ugly double standards that the West ventures to impose.

We have never seen our Western colleagues pay as much attention to other statements by the Secretary-General, where he calls to resolve conflicts in other parts of the globe (i.e. unleashed by Western countries), where women and children die and economies breakdown. In particular, they ignore the SG's call to abstain from illegal unilateral economic sanctions. The West remains completely deaf to the problems of the "global South" and calls to address them, but at the same time pulls all strings to propel the story around Ukraine – not for the sake of Ukraine's prosperity though, but rather to try and hurt Russia.

The resolution provides some selective quotes from the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States, but does not say a word about the right to self-determination that opened the path towards decolonization thanks to which many of those who are present here today received an opportunity to have a seat on the General Assembly. Today they try to make you forget that the West was up against this process, while the Soviet Union facilitated it.

In the recent days we have seen the West, driven by neo-colonial instincts, launch an unprecedented large-scale blackmailing and arms-twisting campaign with regard to developing states in order to make them support the anti-Russian draft resolution.

The campaigning took place in Washington. At the same time, teams of political emissaries from the United States and its allies were literally besieging the capitals of non-alignment movement states and threatening them with reprisals for "disobedience".

This story even made it to the leading Western media. "Politico" cited some sources in the State Department, which clearly demonstrated the real attitude of Washington and other Western countries to the voices of developing states.

According to them, when it comes to voting on an anti-Russian draft resolution in the GA, "every Fiji counts, every Palau counts". How do representatives of Fiji and Palau like such words, I wonder? These are classical methods that slave-owners and colonizers would employ, who are used to seeing the world through the lens of colonialism.

I will tell you frankly that in the recent days, we have been approached by quite a few colleagues representing the "global South", who said that they had been subjected to economic blackmail and direct threats from Americans and Europeans. So it is clear that whatever the result of the vote, we will need to view it while being mindful of this unprecedented Western blackmailing campaign in the General Assembly. There is and there can be no place for such methods in the United Nations.

Today we have gathered at a truly historical meeting. Here and now, the United States and its satellites are teaching us a lesson of "desovereignization".

We regret that corrupt Western blackmailers who tried to tear out the voices of developing states were joined by the President of the General Assembly, whose procedural ploy on 10 October, the first day of the resumed special session, not only deprived member states of the opportunity to vote by a secret ballot without coercion, but also gave the blackmailers more time for their manipulations. I hope that despite all this, there will be enough delegations in this hall who will be ready to oppose the Western dictation and vote independently, not being scared of the eye of the "Big Brother".