military experts
EnglishРусский中文(简体)FrançaisEspañol
Set as default language
 Edit Translation

The world at a crossroads, and the future of the system of international relations

The world at a crossroads, and the future of the system of international relations

Keynote article by Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov with assessments of the current situation in the world and the system of international relations.

So to speak, an official view of the ongoing processes of dismantling the late Washington world order in the world.

"The World at a Crossroads and the System of International Relations of the Future"

These days, another, 74-I session of the United Nations General Assembly, and with her, traditionally, - international "political season".
The session begins against the backdrop of a deeply symbolic historical moment. Next year we will celebrate major and interconnected anniversaries - the 75th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War., World War II and the creation of the UN. Comprehending the spiritual and moral meaning of these dates, it is necessary to remember about the epochal political meaning of Victory in the most brutal war in the history of mankind.

The defeat of fascism in 1945 g. was of fundamental importance for the further course of world history. Conditions were created for the formation of a post-war world order, the supporting structure of which became the UN Charter - to this day the key source of international law. The unocentric system remains stable today, has a large margin of safety. She is a kind of "safety net", guaranteeing the peaceful development of mankind in the conditions - in many respects natural - of the divergence of interests and rivalry of the leading powers. The experience gained during the war years of de-ideologized cooperation between states with different social- economic and political systems.

regrettably, that these obvious truths are deliberately suppressed, ignored by some influential forces in the West. Furthermore, those, who would like to “appropriate” the Victory, erase from memory the role of the USSR in the defeat of fascism, consign to oblivion the sacrificial feat of liberation of the Red Army, not to remember the many millions of peaceful Soviet citizens, killed during the war, to whitewash the consequences of the pernicious policy of appeasing the aggressor from history. From this point of view, the essence of the concept of "equality of totalitarianisms". Its goal is not just to belittle the contribution of the USSR to the Victory, but also retrospectively deprive our country of its historical role as an architect and guarantor of the post-war world order, and then label it as a "revisionist power", threatening the well-being of the so-called "free world".

NB! It should be noted here, what's the inner, purely Russian anti-Sovietism, which is cultivated also by state bodies, perfectly plays along with the concept condemned by Lavrov “equality of totalitarianism”.

Such an interpretation of the events of the past means that, that, in the understanding of some partners, the main achievement of the post-war system of international relations should be considered the formation of the transatlantic link and the perpetuation of the US military presence in Europe. of course, this is not the scenario at all, which the allies were guided by, establishing the United Nations.
The collapse of the USSR, fall of the Berlin wall, conditionally dividing two "camps", retreat into the past of irreconcilable ideological confrontation, determining the contours of world politics in virtually all spheres and regions - these tectonic changes, Unfortunately, did not lead to the triumph of the unification agenda. Instead, triumphant reports sounded about, that the "end of history" has come, and the center for making world decisions will henceforth be only one.

It's obvious today, that attempts to establish a unipolar model have failed. The transformation process of the world order has become irreversible. New major players, with a stable economic base, strive to more actively influence regional and global processes, with good reason claim to be more meaningful in key decision-making. Demand for a fairer and more inclusive system is growing. Relapses of arrogant neo-colonial approaches, giving some countries the right to dictate their will to others, rejected by the absolute majority of members of the world community.

NB! And this is good. The old global order is crumbling, but the key question is – what will replace him.

All this causes tangible discomfort for those, who have been accustomed to setting patterns of world development, with monopoly advantages. Demand from most states for a fairer system of international relations, for real, а не декларативное уважение принципов Устава ООН наталкивается на стремление сохранить порядок, within which the fruits of globalization could be enjoyed by a narrow group of countries and transnational corporations. The reaction of the West to what is happening allows us to judge its true worldview. Rhetoric on the themes of "liberalism", "Democracy" and "human rights" is accompanied by the advancement of approaches, based on inequality, injustice and selfishness, conviction of one's own exclusivity.

By the way, "liberalism", защитником которого себя позиционирует Запад, ставит в центр личность, ее права и свободы. The question arises: как с этим соотносится политика санкций, экономического удушения и неприкрытых военных угроз в отношении целого ряда независимых стран – Cuba, Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, Syria? Санкции напрямую бьют по простым людям, по их благосостоянию, нарушают их социально- economic rights. How bombardments of sovereign countries fit in with the human rights imperative, a conscious course towards the collapse of their statehood, leading to the death of hundreds of thousands of people, doomed millions of Iraqis, Libyans, Syrians and representatives of other nations to incalculable suffering? Adventures of the "Arab Spring" destroyed the unique ethno-confessional mosaic in the Middle East and North Africa.

NB! seems, such a toolkit stems from the fact, that the old tools of control and domination of the era of unbridled domination no longer work, that's why rough methods are used, которые обнажают ничтожность претензий Запада на глобальное и что главное, моральное лидерство.

Если говорить о Европе, then the guardians of the liberal idea get along well with massive violations of the rights of the Russian-speaking population in a number of EU countries and their neighbors, where laws are passed, flagrantly violating the linguistic and educational rights of national minorities enshrined in multilateral conventions. And what is "liberal" in visa and other sanctions of the West against the inhabitants of the Russian Crimea? They are punished for the democratic expression of will in favor of reunification with their historical homeland.: does this not contradict the basic right of peoples to free self-determination, not to mention the right of citizens to free movement enshrined in international conventions.

Liberalism is in its healthy, undistorted understanding - has traditionally been an important component of the world, including Russian, political thought. However, the multiplicity of development models does not allow us to say that, that the Western "basket" of liberal values ​​has no alternative. And already, of course, these values ​​cannot be carried "on bayonets" - without taking into account the history of states, their cultural and political "code". What this leads to - the statistics of grief and destruction as a result of "liberal" bombing shows.

From the West's unwillingness to accept today's realities, when, after centuries of economic, political and military domination is losing the prerogative of the sole formation of the global agenda, the concept of "order, rule-based ". These "rules" are invented and selectively combined depending on the current needs of the authors of the specified term., which the West is persistently introducing into everyday life. The concept is by no means speculative and is being actively implemented. Its goal is to replace universally agreed international legal instruments and mechanisms with narrow formats, where alternative, non-consensual methods of resolving certain international problems bypassing the legitimate multilateral framework. In other words, calculation of the, to usurp the decision-making process on key issues.

NB! Only desires more and more often do not coincide with opportunities. – Washington's rules are increasingly ignored – see stories with Guaidó or Iranian tankers.

The intentions of the initiators of the concept of "order, rule-based ", affect the exclusive powers of the UN Security Council. One recent example: when the United States and its allies failed to convince the Security Council to approve politicized decisions, unprovenly accusing the Syrian leadership of using banned toxic substances, they began to promote the "rules" they needed through the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OZXO). Manipulating existing procedures in gross violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, they have achieved (minority votes of the countries party to this Convention) empowering the OPCW Technical Secretariat with functions to identify those responsible for the use of chemical weapons, which became a direct invasion of the prerogatives of the UN Security Council. Attempts to "privatize" the secretariats of international organizations to promote their interests outside the framework of universal interstate mechanisms are also observed in such areas, as biological nonproliferation, peacekeeping, the fight against doping in sports and others.

In the same line - initiatives to regulate journalism, aimed at voluntarily clamping down on media freedom, the "responsibility to protect" interventionist ideology, justifying external forceful "humanitarian intervention" without the sanction of the UN Security Council under the pretext of a threat to the security of civilians.

Deserves special attention controversial concept of "countering violent extremism", возлагающая вину за распространение радикальных идеологий и расширение социальной базы терроризма на политические режимы, объявленные Западом недемократическими, illiberal or authoritarian. Заточенность этой концепции на работу напрямую с гражданским обществом «через голову» законных правительств не оставляет сомнений относительно истинной цели – вывести усилия на треке антитеррора из-под «зонтика» ООН и получить инструмент вмешательства во внутренние дела государств.

The introduction of such innovations into practice is a dangerous phenomenon of revisionism., rejecting the principles of international law embodied in the UN Charter and paving the way for a return to times of confrontation and bloc confrontation. It is not for nothing that the West is openly discussing a new divide between the "liberal order, rule-based ", and "authoritarian powers".

Revisionism manifests itself clearly in the area of ​​strategic stability. Torpedoing by Washington first of the ABM Treaty, and now - with the unanimous support of NATO members - and the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles pose risks of dismantling the entire treaty architecture in the field of nuclear missile control. The prospects for the Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms are also unclear. (DSNV-3) - due to the lack of a clear response from the American side to our proposal to agree on the extension of the contract after its expiration in February 2021 of the year. We are now seeing alarming signs of the launch of a media campaign in the United States to set the stage for the final withdrawal from the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. (was never ratified by the US), which calls into question the future of this most important document for international peace and security. Washington launched plans to deploy weapons in space, rejecting proposals to agree on a universal moratorium on such activities.

NB! При текущих тенденциях СНВ-3 выглядит практически обреченным.

Еще один пример внедрения ревизионистских «правил»: выход США из Совместного всеобъемлющего плана действий по иранской ядерной программе – одобренного СБ ООН коллективного «контракта», key to nuclear non-proliferation. In the same row - Washington's demonstrative refusal to fulfill the unanimous decisions of the UN Security Council on Palestinian-Israeli settlement.

In the economic field, protectionist barriers have become the "rule", sanctions leverage, abuse of the dollar's status as the primary means of payment, обеспечение конкурентных преимуществ нерыночными способами, экстерриториальное применение национального законодательства США, в том числе в отношении ближайших союзников.

At the same time, our American colleagues are persistently striving to mobilize essentially all of their external partners to contain Russia and China.. At the same time, they do not hide their desire to embroil Moscow and Beijing, upset and undermine multilateral associations and regional integration structures developing outside American control in Eurasia and the Asia-Pacific region. Putting pressure on countries, who do not play by the "rules" imposed on them and dare to make the "wrong" choice in favor of cooperation with America's "opponents".

What do we have as a result? In politics - loosening of the international legal foundation, increasing instability and instability, chaotic fragmentation of global space, deepening mistrust between participants in international life. In the field of security - blurring the line between non-force and force methods of achieving foreign policy goals, militarization of international relations, increasing the role of nuclear weapons in US doctrinal documents, lowering the threshold of its possible use, the emergence of new hotbeds of armed conflict, persistence of the global terrorist threat, militarization of cyberspace. Increased volatility in the global economy, tougher competition for markets, energy resources and routes of their transportation, trade wars, loosening of the multilateral trading system. Let's add a splash of migration processes here, deepening interethnic and sectarian strife. Is such a “world order, rule-based ", we need?

NB! They need him first of all, therefore the opinion of those, who disagrees with him, they ignore. Therefore, it is no longer a matter of agreement / disagreement., but the question of fighting for your vision.

Against this background, attempts by Western liberal ideologues to present Russia as a "revisionist force" are simply absurd.. We were among the first, who drew attention to the transformation of the world political and economic systems, which, due to the objective course of history, cannot be static. It is worth recalling, that the concept of multipolarity in international relations, adequately reflecting the emerging economic and geopolitical realities, two decades ago was formulated by the outstanding Russian statesman E.M. Primakov, whose intellectual heritage remains relevant today, when we celebrate the 90th anniversary of his birth.

The experience of recent years shows, that the use of unilateral methods of solving global problems is doomed to failure. The "order" promoted by the West does not meet the needs of the harmonious development of mankind. He is non-inclusive, aims to revise key international legal mechanisms, denies the collegial beginning of interstate interaction and, by definition, is not able to generate such solutions to global problems, that will be viable and sustainable in the long term, and are not designed for a propaganda effect within the electoral cycle of a particular country.

What Russia offers? First of all, you need to keep up with the times. Recognize the obvious: the process of forming a polycentric architecture of the world order is irreversible, no matter how hard they try to artificially slow it down (and even more so to reverse). Most countries do not want to be hostages of other people's geopolitical calculations, are committed to pursuing a nationally oriented domestic and foreign policy. It is in the general interest to do so, lest multipolarity rest on a bare balance of power, as it was in previous historical stages (eg, in the 19th and first half of the 20th century), and wore fair, democratic, unifying character, took into account the approaches and concerns of all, without exception, participants in international communication, helped to ensure a stable and secure future.

NB! Sounds beautiful, but in practice we see a triumph of completely different approaches. The polycentric world leads and will lead to the strengthening of block thinking and the concept of spheres of influence, where there will also be their oppressed and dissatisfied.

Often in the West they talk about, that polycentricity will inevitably lead to increased chaos and confrontation, since the "centers of power" will not be able to agree with each other and make responsible decisions. But first, why not try? Suddenly it will turn out? To do this, you just need to start negotiations., having agreed in advance to seek a balance of interests. Put aside attempts to invent your own "rules" and impose them on everyone else as the ultimate truth. From now on, strictly observe the principles enshrined in the UN Charter, starting with respect for the sovereign equality of states - regardless of their size, forms of government or development models. A paradoxical situation, when states, positioning themselves as a standard of democracy, take care of her only then, when they demand that certain countries "put things in order" at home according to Western patterns. And as soon as it comes to the need for democracy in interstate relations, they immediately avoid an honest conversation or try to interpret international legal norms at their own discretion..

certainly, life does not stand still. Carefully preserving the system of international relations formed as a result of the Second World War, the core element of which remains the UN, need to be careful, but consistently adapt it to the realities of the modern geopolitical landscape. This fully concerns the UN Security Council, where the West is unjustifiably overrepresented by modern standards. conviction: reforming the Security Council should first of all take into account the interests of Asian countries, Africa, Latin America, and any formula should be based on the principle of the broadest agreement of the UN member states. In the same vein, we should work to improve the world trade system., emphasizing the harmonization of integration projects in different regions of the world.

The potential of the G20, a promising, broad global governance structure, where the interests of all key players are represented, and decisions are made with common consent. Other associations are also playing an increasing role, отражающие дух подлинной, демократической многосторонности, в основе деятельности которых – добровольность, принцип консенсуса, ценности равноправия и здорового прагматизма, rejection of confrontation and block approaches. Among them - BRICS and SCO, in which our country is actively involved and in 2020 will chair.

obviously, that without true collegiality, without a depoliticized partnership with the central coordinating role of the UN, it is impossible to achieve a reduction in confrontation, build trust and deal with common challenges and threats. It is high time to agree on a uniform interpretation of the principles and norms of international law, and not try to act according to the well-known saying "the law is what a drawbar". More difficult to negotiate, how to issue ultimatums, but patiently negotiated compromises will be a much more reliable mechanism for the predictable conduct of world affairs. Such an approach is urgently needed today to start meaningful negotiations on the parameters of a reliable and fair system of equal and indivisible security in the Euro.- Atlantic and Eurasia. This task has been repeatedly declared at the highest level in OSCE documents. We must move from words to deeds. Commonwealth of Independent States, The Collective Security Treaty Organization has repeatedly expressed its readiness to contribute to such work.

It is important to step up assistance for the peaceful resolution of multiple conflicts, будь то на Ближнем Востоке, in Africa, Asia, Латинской Америке или на пространстве СНГ. Главное – соблюдать уже достигнутые договоренности, not try to invent pretexts for refusing to fulfill obligations already taken during negotiations.

NB! It is not difficult to notice, Washington and its satellites do not welcome this approach.

Today, counteraction to intolerance on religious and ethnic grounds is in special demand.. We call on everyone to cooperate in preparing for the holding in our country under the auspices of the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the UN in May 2022 Years of the World Conference on Interfaith and Interethnic Dialogue. OSCE, which formulated a principled position of condemnation of anti-Semitism, must equally resolutely engage in the fight against Christianophobia and Islamophobia.

Our unconditional priority remains to facilitate the natural processes of the formation of the Greater Eurasian Partnership - a broad integration contour from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean with the participation of EurAsEC members, SCO, ASEAN and all other states of the continent, including EU countries. It is shortsighted to restrain unification processes, and even more fenced off from each other. It would be a mistake to reject the obvious strategic advantages of our common Eurasian region in today's increasingly competitive world..

Consistent movement in this common creative direction will allow not only to ensure the dynamic development of the national economies of the participating countries, remove barriers to goods, capital, workforce and services, but will also create a solid foundation of security and stability in vast areas from Lisbon to Jakarta.

Whether the further formation of a multipolar world will take place through cooperation and harmonization of interests or through confrontation and rivalry depends on all of us.. As for Russia, then we will continue to promote positive, a unifying agenda, focused on erasing old and preventing the appearance of new dividing lines. Our country has launched initiatives in such areas, how to prevent an arms race in space, creation of efficient mechanisms for countering terrorism, including chemical and biological, agreeing on practical measures to prevent the use of cyberspace to undermine the security of any state or for the implementation of other criminal designs.

Our proposals to start a serious conversation on all aspects of strategic stability in the modern era remain valid. Recently, opinions have been expressed about the need to change the agenda, update terms. It is proposed to talk about "strategic rivalry", then about "multilateral containment". Terms can be discussed. But the main thing is not in them, but in essence. The most important thing now is to start a strategic dialogue on specific threats and risks and seek agreement on a generally acceptable agenda. As another outstanding statesman of our country, Andrei Andreevich Gromyko, wisely said, 110 years since the birth of which we celebrate this year: “It's better to negotiate for ten years, than one day - war ".

A source

                          
Chat in TELEGRAM:  t.me/+9Wotlf_WTEFkYmIy

Playmarket

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
0 comment
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments