Leonid Ivashov: Let late, but for Russian foreign policy came the moment of truth …

"WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED to release future generations from the scourge of war … to reaffirm faith in the principal human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, … in the equal rights of nations large and small, and to make the conditions under which justice can be maintained and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law … "

In the words of this passage concluded pretentious post-war goals and intentions that June 26, 1945 in San Francisco Tired laid in its founders. Let me remind you that the proponent of the creation of the UN was an outstanding Yankees president FD Roosevelt. He is personally prescribed the main provisions of the Charter of the United Nations. Roosevelt did not live to see the birth of his brainchild two months. But he managed to do the main thing — to convince everyone on whom depended on the decision, the need for the creation of a universal international organization established to prevent war and preserve peace, promote the development of the world's population. In this and like-minded ally FD Roosevelt spoke IV Stalin, who commissioned Russian delegation in San Francisco in the strongest manner to the efforts of the President of the United States to establish the United Nations.

Can not afraid to say that the UN deal moved the two most prominent geopolitics of the twentieth century. IV Stalin did not object to informal discussions about Roosevelt need to disarm all nations of the world, excluding the United States, the USSR, Britain and China. Only four of these countries could have a military that would report to the United Nations and whose suppressed whatever trials to start a war or armed conflict. In other words, no NATO and other armed alliances and coalitions. But how annoying it did not sound, it happened differently. After Stalin and Roosevelt went some small fry, and the farther, the smaller but more brazen. Dream up a little and imagine what would uttered each other two majestic about the current UN affairs. Would sound, for sure, the phrases: "How have we come to Obama and … Everyone is doing the opposite of what we are arranging at the end of the war. We have found peace, they want war and conflict. "

The core of the UN Charter is the head of V «Council Security. " Art. 24 says that it (UN) members on lozhut Council Security primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. And we look at all the last few years, after artificial destruction of the USSR? The gradual erosion of the main objectives and principles of the most important international organization of the world's population, directly to configure the functions of the Security Council on diametrically reversed. UN Security Council has permitted initially angry armed NATO against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and later authorized its occupation and partition. After that authorized military intervention in Afghanistan, the military operation against Iraq. At the moment, promotes the colonization of Libya and the killing of its leader … The routine practice of the UN Security Council was ignoring its own resolutions. The Libyan example is more typical. Putin has said about his own indignation at the actions of the "partners" of the North Atlantic Alliance, "Western coalition has no right to kill Gaddafi Libya favorite." In my opinion, it would be fair if the chairman of the Russian government protested to the same passive behavior of Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the discussion of the Libyan issue in the UN Security Council, "abstinence" in the vote that created, so to say, the legal basis for the barbaric bombing of the Jamahiriya.

Muammar Gaddafi, apparently responding to the disturbance Russian premiere of U.S. and NATO operations against Libya, formally asked the Ministry to initiate a critical convening of the meeting of the Security Council of the UN. Our homeland as an immutable member UN Security Council would have to do it even without the request of the country — victims of aggression, especially in a situation where Prime Minister expresses his indignation at the actions of the aggressor. Albeit belatedly, but for Russian foreign policy came the moment of truth …

I understand the difficult situation the mother to me (at the time of Primakov) Ministry of Foreign Affairs. On the one hand, the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the country's foreign policy determined by the President. On the other — the State Duma and Council Federation also have the opportunity to direct the legislative, to influence the decision of foreign policy problems, then parliamentarians and promote themselves to the full, especially on the eve of the election. On the third hand, all the troubles and those and others, plus the media and the public blamed only a diplomatic office. I do not envy Russian diplomats working at the Libyan direction. But one way or another to respond to a formal appeal of the Libyan side will have — at least in order to prevent the end of "losing face" in the eyes and the international society and their own people.

I have no doubt that the decision of this very complex issue particularly closely watched by millions of Russian Muslims. And on the nature of solutions in almost everything depends on the development of the political situation in Russia — especially in the North Caucasus.

In short, Muammar Gaddafi "loaded" Russian establishment severe neuvvyazkami. He also drove in a stalemate and the West, particularly Sarkozy and Berlusconi. A few days back from Libya returned the delegation of our Academy of Geopolitical problems, headed by Vice-President of the Academy. The results of the report were for me a few sudden. In 1-x, the military actions between the Libyans themselves are conducted only on the screens of Western and Russian TV channels. Otherwise, in the intervals between NATO bombings in Libya generally relaxed. Gaddafi rebuked shelling the town and general communities, so do not torture people and there was no damage. So when the amateurs from the media lectured on the use of cluster munitions, hunt laugh, because all aircraft Libyan government troops is "laid up", and the artillery cluster munitions in general does not.

In-2, Gaddafi did not permit to shoot down NATO planes to prevent the escalation of hostilities and the discharge of political psychosis in the West. Gaddafi invented a sudden and effective responses: after each NATO bombing it "encourages" land of groups of African refugees to Berlusconi and Sarkozy. B-3, as the representatives of the Libyan administration to members of our delegation Gaddafi ready tomorrow to go to a general election under the strictest international control and confident in his own victory. As the "opposition" — a rabble of structural members of extremist organizations, individuals debarred people's committees for corruption and theft, just foreign mercenaries plus NATO instructors and staff of their own security forces.

And if you are serious, what could make our homeland?

First. In agreement with China, Germany, India, Brazil to claim a critical convening the UN Security Council, proposing the agenda the question of the day or breach of international peace, with a number of countries — members of the United Nations and the armed aggression by NATO. Specifically, anger, since nobody Alliance mandate to air blockade, and even more on the destruction of Libyan favorite and did not give his palaces.

2nd. It has long been overdue question about reformatting a number of UN agencies, first of its Security Council. How so? Move to the UN Gene
ral Assembly a proposal for acquisition of Security on new principles — on the basis of civilization. Unchanged UN Security Council members should be representatives of global civilizations — China, India, the Islamic world, the African Union, Latin America, North America, Europe, Russia, CIS. You can separately select group of Border civilizational identity and local civilizations.

That of the Security Council will be even more effective and will return to its multi-functional obligations. Now, when three of the five permanent members are members of NATO at once, it's nonsense. I can, of course, make an objection: what if Russia CIS countries is not extended to the UN Security Council? Fully likely option unchanged Consulate of the CIS on a rotational basis. I think Kazakhstan or Belarus, becoming a permanent member of the UN Security Council will do functions in the maintenance of international peace and security, too, certainly not worse than execute them on the Russian Federation today.

Like this post? Please share to your friends: