With UNGA Debate Coming, Lavrov's Interview for the Documentary The UN From the 20th to the 21st Century

Mr Lavrov provided some new insights into UN history during this 35-minute interview for what appears to be a Russian produced documentary. Lavrov’s now within enemy territory to attend the UNGA’s annual debate and other events that surround it. His team are also very busy meeting many other representatives on the sidelines. There was also a meeting of the G-20 that Lavrov spoke at where the transcript isn’t yet available. Yes, lots of events making it hard to report on the important happenings. This interview’s importance comes from Lavrov’s testimony about the UN’s past and what he states in his conclusion which I’ll expand on in my postscript. One other item before the interview is to highlight the document Lavrov mentions related to Russia archives, to which other segments have been linked to before. While not as extensive as the Russian page, there’s one in English. Here’s an excerpt describing what’s to be found:

They also cover the Anglo-American-French conference in Casablanca, Morocco, in January 1943, and the Anglo-American conferences in Quebec, Canada, held in August 1943 and September 1944. The documents also discuss the activities of the Polish government in exile, the position of British Prime Minister Winston Churchill on the "Polish question," the impressions of US President Franklin D. Roosevelt from the Tehran Conference, and attempts by Field Marshal Dwight D. Eisenhower to open a second front.Von Brauchitsch organized separate negotiations between Germany and the United States in Switzerland in June 1944, as well as other aspects of international relations during that period.

Of particular interest are intelligence reports collected by Soviet intelligence regarding the development of plans by the United States and Great Britain for the post-war structure of Europe and international relations. Specifically, the extensive notes from the meeting of the Committee on Armistice and Post-War Problems held on August 31st, 1944 under the chairmanship of British Foreign Minister Eden, which discussed plans for occupying Germany, dividing it into occupation zones, restoring German industry, and the role of Germany in the post-war economy. Other topics included sending British troops to Greece and other aspects of British European policy after the war.

And now, onto the interview:

Question: There is not much time left before the UN's 80th anniversary, when Andrei Gromyko signed the documents on the creation of the UN on behalf of the Soviet Union. We stood at the origins of this organization.

In the future, what contribution did the Soviet Union and modern Russia make to the UN? What is the peculiarity of Russia's approach to the activities of the World Organisation?

Sergey Lavrov: You are right, the USSR was one of the originators of the UN. The first mention (no other information has been found in the archives) of the need to create a universal international organization after World War II is contained in a document that was agreed upon by the foreign ministers of the Soviet Union, the United States and Britain in the autumn of 1943 at a meeting in Moscow at the Mansion of the Russian Foreign Ministry. This is considered the first mention even before the end of the war of an agreement in principle to start thinking about how to organize international security, interaction and interstate communication after the Victory.

The UN Charter is a document written by those who were directly involved in those events, including Andrei Gromyko, his associates and collaborators. One of the real contributions of the Soviet Union to the formation of today's security infrastructure was that we insisted that France be among the great powers that would be represented on a permanent basis in the main organ of the United Nations, the Security Council. After the UN Charter came into force, when the founding conference was held in San Francisco and the Organization was created, the USSR most actively sought to ensure that the principles laid down in the Charter were respected and implemented.

Less than a year after the victorious powers created the Organization on the basis of the noblest principles enshrined in its Charter, it has become obvious that the West, contrary to these principles, wants to organize a war against the Soviet Union – not only a "cold" one, but also a hot one. These plans, which were nurtured by the Anglo-Saxons at that time, have long been well known.

Recently, our archives published documents that show that Britain and France were thinking about turning against the Soviet Union even before the start of the Great Patriotic War. But it seemed to us that thanks to the creation of the UN, all this was in the past, that from now on and forever we would live on the basis of the main principles of the Charter – the sovereign equality of the state, non-interference in each other's internal affairs, respect for the right of peoples to determine their own destiny. In recent years, all this has been trampled on daily and with special zeal by our Western colleagues.

After the creation of NATO, the Soviet Union circulated a voluminous document at the UN, which showed the disastrous nature of this step, the perniciousness of building walls between East and West (primarily in Europe) and called for respect for the Charter and work in this direction. We were not heard. Then the Warsaw Pact was created. The Cold War came into force, and Winston Churchill lowered the Iron Curtain in 1946.

But we have continued to seek justice and the principle of the sovereign equality of the State. One of the clearest manifestations of our policy and the most important embodiment of this principle has been decolonization. The USSR was the main author of the 1960 Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, after the adoption of which the number of UN member states increased by 80-90 members. That Declaration embodied the principle of self-determination of peoples.

Now we are told that the main thing in today's world is to ensure the territorial integrity of Ukraine. This is a cunning interpretation of the Charter, because territorial inviolability is mentioned in the Charter, but the right of peoples to self-determination is mentioned before it. Subsequently, the UN General Assembly decided that the territorial integrity of all countries whose governments represent the entire people living in the territory concerned must be respected. Just as the colonial powers do not represent the peoples of African, Asian, Latin American countries, in the same way, those who came to power in Ukraine as a result of a coup d'état and by their very first action announced that they would ban the Russian language, they did not represent Crimea, Donbass, or Novorossiya. This is where we see the reasons that do not allow the West to force the Ukrainian leadership to agree to fair negotiations and take into account the principles of the UN Charter.

And much earlier than territorial inviolability, the Charter of the World Organization stipulates the need to respect human rights regardless of gender, race, language or religion. We are not going to talk about gender and race now, there are other speakers on this matter. The human right to language and religion has been the "banner" of the West in all international affairs. Now that the Nazi regime of Vladimir Zelensky, nurtured by the West, has banned both the language and religious rights of a large part of its own population, all these "banners" that the West has been "raising" for many decades have disappeared. It is only said that they are obliged to ensure Ukraine's victory, because it is fighting for European values. I think there is even no need to comment here on how these "values" correspond to the UN Charter.

I can list other initiatives that were approved at the UN by both the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation. Among them is the need to put an end to the arms race in outer space. A resolution that initiated the negotiation process on the creation of a reliable legal framework to ensure international information security so that cyberspace is not used for military purposes. At the same time, work has begun (it is nearing completion) on an international convention against cybercrime. Now the digital space is used by various figures who do not always have plausible goals, so this is another major contribution of the Russian Federation to the strengthening of international law.

The most important task now is to ensure the implementation of the original purposes and principles of the UN Charter in their entirety and interrelation, and not selectively – from time to time.

Question: At various levels, there is talk about the need to reform the UN, in particular the Security Council. These conversations continue to this day. At a meeting of the UN Security Council in July of this year, you spoke about the need to eliminate geographical and geopolitical imbalances in the Security Council. This is obvious to everyone. What can be the roadmap for these reforms? In the end, what can be the parameters of these reforms in the near future?

Sergey Lavrov: Reform is not a one-time event. This is a process. It has been running for as long as the United Nations has existed. There were bodies that were not provided for in the Charter but were created, including the UN Commission on Human Rights, which was then transformed into the Human Rights Council, the Peacebuilding Commission (a recent "brainchild" created 20 years ago), which deals with the transition from conflict resolution to the task of rebuilding the territories concerned. UN peacekeeping activities are seriously developed and widely represented. We are actively involved in a number of special operations. The UN is constantly creating new structures that reflect changes in real life. I mentioned cybersecurity issues. They did not exist 20 years ago. No one thought about it.

Of course, in addition to all the ongoing reforms of various UN structures, everyone wants to focus on the reform of the Security Council. This is the most understandable. In addition to being the main body and playing a decisive role in matters of war and peace, it is also a matter of prestige. If we say that my country is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, this is a national pride, raises a sense of national self-awareness, identity, and has a colossal domestic political dimension for countries interested in being in the Security Council.

This process is underway. I came to New York as the Permanent Representative of our country in 1994. Nevertheless, it is based on principles that must be preserved at all costs. The main one is that the reform of the Security Council should be based on the broad consent of States. It does not say "consensus", but it says "broad agreement of states".

Now some countries want to artificially speed up the process (and it is by definition very difficult), there is a clash of national interests, considerations of national prestige – who is more respected in this region, and who is in another. Haste is inappropriate here. Those who want to speed up the process say that the UN Charter says that a two-thirds majority is needed to change it, so we will put the issue to a vote in the UN General Assembly. A two-thirds majority is not a general agreement. This is a split. Because in other countries that are in favor of reforming the UN Security Council, there are those who insist that new permanent seats be added. They created the Group of Four (G4), which includes the initiators of this process – India, Brazil, Germany, and Japan. They are opposed by a large group of countries that consider the creation of new permanent members unacceptable and advocate only that the Security Council be replenished with non-permanent members.

When I was Russia's Permanent Representative in New York, my Mexican colleague said that there was no need for new permanent seats, that an injustice was committed when five countries received special privileges, so we will not replicate it. Based on this logic, a group called "United for Consensus" was formed, which seeks to ensure that there is no voting. This group includes different countries (small, medium-sized and larger than average). I have already mentioned Mexico, as well as a number of Latin American countries, and many European countries. They understand that they cannot count on permanent jobs. This is another reason why they do not want to force the process so that the issue is put to a vote.

Therefore, when they say "stop dragging our feet, let's vote, we will have 2/3 of the votes", this is not necessarily true. This means that they want to make a move. If it is successful, it will lead to the fact that 1/3 of the "respectable" countries that contribute to the activities of economic bodies, to the provision of humanitarian assistance to various countries and with their contingents to peacekeeping, will be marginalized in this reform. If such a decision passes, the legitimacy of the Security Council will be diminished rather than strengthened. These are dangerous games.

Together with the People's Republic of China, which fully shares our approach on the need to work out a general agreement and not impose solutions, we are doing everything in our power.

Against this background, other permanent members of the Security Council – Britain, France, the United States – take an ambivalent position. Britain and France are playing along with those who want to speed up the process.

At the same time, the French are "throwing in" the idea of the need to limit the right of veto. Moreover, they say that this will be a voluntary restriction. We asked how they imagine it? They answer that this is necessary in cases where genocide and mass violations of human rights are involved. It is said that it is necessary for the permanent members to voluntarily refrain from using the veto when considering relevant situations.

It is sad that this situation has to be viewed cynically. We asked the French in order to understand when to abandon the right of veto, be it genocide or a massive violation of human rights, how many victims should there be? 100? Starting at 100? Can a "veto" be used at 99? This is cynical. But it shows that the hypocrisy of the French is manifested even in such a situation, if only to take a step that will distinguish Paris with another external effect.

The United States in 2023 began to vehemently advocate for the immediate expansion of the UN Security Council by providing permanent seats to those who apply for them, including Germany and Japan.

Our position is simple. The Security Council does not need additional members from the "Western group" (from NATO, the European Union and their allies, such as Japan). Now out of 15 members of the Security Council, 6 represent Western-centric countries. Western participants in this process do not contribute any "added value" to the work of the Security Council. Everything is determined by the United States and the British, who always support them in everything. The accession of "additional" Western participants to the Security Council (in this case, those who are "eager" – Germany and Japan) will expand and deepen injustice. There is not a single international issue on which Berlin and Tokyo would express themselves with at least some nuances compared to their masters "from overseas". And developing countries are underrepresented in the UN Security Council.

We have always supported the interest and legitimate aspiration of India and Brazil to become a member of the Security Council. But at the same time, African aspirations must be met. There are common collective positions in Africa. We respect them. We would limit ourselves to this.

Our position envisages additional seats for Asia, Africa and Latin America. We are ready to include permanent seats among those additional seats. But for this to happen, it is necessary to reach a general agreement. This is not an easy process. I do not see the prospects for its imminent forced completion.

Question: I had the honour of interviewing six of the nine UN Secretaries-General. When you worked as Russia's Permanent Representative to the UN, you worked with B. Boutros-Ghali and Kofi Annan. Then as Foreign Minister of Russia with Ban Ki-moon, and now with Antonio Guterres.

In your opinion, which of the UN Secretaries-General (I understand that it is difficult to give comparative characteristics in your situation) made the most significant contribution to the activities of the Organization, its development, and ensuring that it occupies a truly full-fledged place in the world?

Sergey Lavrov: The predecessors of today's Secretaries-General have made a significant contribution to shaping the traditions of the Secretariat's activities and relations between the Secretariat and member states. I would like to single out Secretary-General Wu Tang. He was a representative of Burma.

Of those with whom I had a chance to work both in New York and as Foreign Minister of Russia, I often remember Kofi Annan. He was a close friend. But most importantly, he really did everything to sacredly comply with Article 100 of the UN Charter. It states that the Secretariat is an administrative body headed by the Secretary-General and is therefore obliged to take a neutral position on all issues until the member countries agree. And when this happens, the Secretariat implements their decisions and instructions.

I also had a good relationship with Ban Ki-moon. Prior to that, he was the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Korea. We knew each other well, communicated, exchanged visits.

I also knew Antonio Guterres well when he was UN High Commissioner for Refugees. He came to Russia. In the same capacity, he traveled to the North Caucasus. He has done a lot to make the international community aware of the truth about terrorist threats and how we have had to deal with them.

We supported Antonio Guterres to a certain extent for an interesting reason. There is no formal rule in the United Nations that regions or regional groups within the Organization should rotate as Secretary-General. There are five of them. These are Asian, African, Latin American and Caribbean, Western European and other countries, since they also include the United States and Australia. The fifth group is Eastern European. This tradition was formed in the era when the Soviet Union, the socialist camp, wanted to have its own representation in the UN. Quotas for elections to various bodies are determined between them: the UN Human Rights Council, the Economic and Social Council. There are many organs of limited composition. Groups were formed for the purposes of these elections.

When it came to replacing Ban Ki-moon, whose second five-year term was expiring, we recalled (although at that time Eastern Europe was almost entirely drawn into the European Union and NATO) that the representative of Eastern Europe had never been Secretary General. It wasn't fair. We sincerely advocated that Eastern European candidates should be given priority among candidates to replace Ban Ki-moon. By the way, they were then. As well as female candidates. For example, the Bulgarian woman I respect, who headed UNESCO and did it with dignity. There was another capable, talented woman K. Georgieva. She is now the head of the International Monetary Fund. We were in favor of this.

The West "stood up as a wall" against Eastern Europeans receiving such a right. The "tug-of-war" went on for a long time. Developing countries - Asian, African, Latin American - preferred not to be drawn into this "litigation". At that time, we agreed to a compromise figure, which was Antonio Guterres. But the "aftertaste" remained. And the Eastern European countries that are now under the NATO "wing" and the European Union's "protection" should understand how their "masters" treat them.

Question: I had the honour to meet with you many times, I interviewed you, so let's imagine our interview in 30 years. Maybe not in this office, but in 30 years we will meet again, and I will ask you again about the United Nations. How do you see it in 30 or 50 years?

Sergey Lavrov: The process that we are witnessing now has been developing for many years. It was started by the West in order to crush all phenomena, situations, conflicts, since any prospects in any region should be determined by the interests of the West. It was then that the term "rules-based world order" appeared. When asked how it differs from international law, no one has ever given us an answer. President of Russia Vladimir Putin has repeatedly referred to this "order" and these "rules" and emphasised that no one has ever put them on paper or "prescribed" them.

These "rules" are that when the United States wants to do something in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, the Balkans, Ukraine, the South Caucasus, Central Asia, the South China Sea, the Taiwan Strait, then it lines up everyone, comes up with some kind of justification and demands that everyone carry out these "orders" of theirs. Then the UN Charter is discarded or the "necessary" for today is pulled out of it. For example, when Kosovo's independence was declared in 2008 without any referendums, they said that "this is the right of a nation to self-determination" and forced the International Court of Justice to issue a ruling that states that the declaration of independence of any part of a state does not have to be approved by the central authorities. This is how they dealt with Kosovo in 2008.

And in 2014, when Crimea held a referendum in response to the bloody anti-constitutional coup d'état and the putschists' declaration of a "campaign" against the Russian language and against everything Russian, it was immediately said that this was not the right to self-determination, it was a violation of the territorial integrity of Ukraine. There are many such examples. As the saying goes, "the law that draws" is exactly what the notorious American "rules" mean.

I mentioned today the central principle of the UN Charter – the sovereign equality of states. Since the creation of the UN, in any situation at any time in any part of the world in which the United States has been involved in one way or another, there is not a single one where the United States would respect the principle of the sovereign equality of the state. Everywhere they tried to act like a hegemon or like a "bull in a china shop". In Afghanistan, the task of fighting terrorism has been declared. They ran away from there after 20 years. As a result, there are much more terrorists there. In Iraq, a normal, stable country was destroyed. Not to mention Libya, which was prosperous. Wherever the West penetrates as the main "fixer" (pardon me for this jargon), a crisis situation has come and it has become much worse. Hundreds of thousands of victims, devastation, socio-economic problems. During the period of my active work in the international arena, there is not a single case when Western intervention would lead to something good. And now we are seeing a similar picture with Ukraine and in the Palestinian-Israeli confrontation.

As for the future. You know, if the West, disregarding its obligations under the UN Charter, promotes its "rules" – "I do what I want" – then I do not expect anything good. The West has already destroyed all the principles on which it built its model of globalization. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, he spoke about the end of history, liberal philosophy, the triumph of liberal politics, the free market, the inviolability of private property, the presumption of innocence, and fair competition. All this was "introduced" to the whole world as something that meets the interests of everyone and everything. I remember how in the 1990s at the IMF and the World Bank, American emissaries repeated and pronounced "incantations" that there was no need to be afraid of the dollar. "The dollar is not a weapon of the United States. The dollar is a global asset, the circulatory system of the global economy," etc. Now either they are running away from the dollar, or those who have plunged too deep into it are trying to gradually reduce their dependence.

When it was necessary to punish Russia, all the principles that were "fed" to us by the West, and which, as we were assured, were sacred to it, were trampled underfoot. The same is true of the principles of the UN Charter. The West, without hesitation, tears and violates them.

It is indicative that in the Security Council, where the practice of communication has always prevailed since Soviet times, from the first years of the UN's existence, even during the Cold War, during the years of confrontation. Not through the microphone, but sat down and discussed. I remember that our Soviet representatives (later Russian representatives) and American representatives always had regular trust-based contacts and honestly explained to each other who stood on what, where there was an opportunity to take into account the interests of the partner and where they could not. Diplomacy, in fact, is what it consists of.

The West has now switched to microphone diplomacy, and its interest in the Security Council and other bodies is to make sure to Ukrainise the agenda, to glorify Vladimir Zelensky as "the bearer of democratic and global values", and to whitewash the Nazi manners of this regime and all its crimes.

Now there is an attack on the Kursk region by terrorist groups using Western modern weapons. Residential areas, social facilities, civilians moving by car to safer places are bombed there every day. I have not heard the voices of the UN representatives responsible for human rights, including the Secretary-General. Their answer to journalists' questions is that they are now studying all this information, and that they are generally for "all the good against all the bad". This was said by representatives of the Office of the UN Commissioner for Human Rights and other representatives of the human rights structures of the world organisation.

Therefore, to conclude the answer to your question, we need Victory. They don't understand any other language. This Victory will be achieved. We have no doubts. We have truly rallied in the face of the war that the West unleashed against us with the hands of Ukrainians. In order to return to the roots of the UN, to respect all the principles of its Charter, starting with human rights, the right to language and religion, trampled on by Ukraine with the support of the West, in order to return to respect for international law and the principle of sovereign equality of states, the West must understand that its war, unleashed both against Russia and against international law, will be lost. Nothing needs to be written anew, it is simply necessary to implement the Charter as it was approved many years ago. [My Emphasis]

IMO, Lavrov describes very well the nature of our Hybrid Third World War that began with the USSR’s dissolution, although many aspects of the current war were already ongoing with many aspects having existed since the UN Charter’s inception as Lavrov described. Earlier today, I made the following comment at Moon of Alabama on this topic as it relates to yet another lie and incident of law breaking by Blinken b reported on here:

Lavrov provides some details related to attempts to reform the UNSC that are new to me which is why the process is slow and arduous. You know why I describe the US as the Outlaw Empire--it's because it has failed to obey the UN Charter since it came into force in 1945--has never treated all nations as equals as the Charter demands and blatantly interferes in their internal affairs--but is an Outlaw because its governing document--the 1787 Constitution--says specifically that all treaties signed and ratified by the Senate become part of the Constitution--thus, the UN Charter is part of the US Constitution and the USA is an Outlaw for not only violating the UN Charter but most importantly for violating its own basic law that EVERY POTUS, Congresscritter, federal government official, and military service person must swear an allegiance to uphold and defend. Yet, not one publicly notable dissenter--Ritter, Napolitano, McGovern, Larry Johnson, and many others both living and deceased--has stood up and said that truth to their audience. Not a single one over almost 80 years of continual daily violation!! A few barflies here understand that and have adopted my Outlaw US Empire description, but that's little solace when several hundred million must be made aware of their/our nation's reality and the fact that what Blinken and Congress have done is SOP--Standard Operating Procedure.

Lavrov's conclusion implies that the West led by the Outlaw US Empire are not just waging war on Russia but also on the UN Charter, which is why Russia must obtain a clear victory over the West as the future of global relations depends on the outcome. Same can be said of the Zionists--they must lose and lose all legitimacy as a state for their actions. Thus, the very high stakes in our Hybrid Third World War. Just as in the previous World War, the hegemon seeking global control so it can smash all underneath its exceptional boots must be defeated so Humanity can get on with its peaceful evolution based on the high principles of the UN Charter and its related acts protecting human rights and development.

What more could I add to the above? Few other national governments have such a clause in their constitutions that would provide similar foundational legal grounds for dissent. Furthermore, what faction within the US government during WW2 designed the policy direction taken in limited cases prior to then immediately upon the war’s conclusion. Did that nascent Deep State murder FDR as Stalin suspected. (Several months prior to FDR’s death an almost exact death was dealt to one of the Little Whitehouse’s staff members that’s a very little-known—infinitesimal—fact that one only learns when visiting the Georgia site.) Stalin did what he could to convince Eleanor Roosevelt to have an autopsy performed, but she refused. And with Henry Wallace ousted as Veep, replaced by Truman and remanded to Secretary of Commerce, there was essentially no longer any New Dealer within the executive administration. Nazis were already being spirited out of Europe to avoid prosecution for their crimes and immediately put to work within the US government, and the same was done with Japanese war criminals. It appears that the plans England and France had against the USSR prior to the war were revised and being acted upon. IMO, the world is very fortunate that the Outlaw US Empire had very few atomic bombs, which were too few to carry out the British plans to nuke Russia and finish the Nazi’s job.

Indeed, when you dig deeply into history, you’ll discover all the above and more, which leads to the conclusion that Zinoviev arrived at—that what was formed was an American Nazism that was an integral part of Westernism, both of which are epitomized by the Wolfowitz Doctrine and its further refined announcements made in Joint Vision 2010 and Joint Vision 2020 to attain Full Spectrum Domination of the planet and its people. That’s what The End of History was all about—the advent of a totalitarian global fascism and spelled out in The Grand Chessboard. And thus the Info War that’s been ongoing for over 100 years, which along with the terrorism mostly delivered by the Outlaw US Empire’s Terrorist Foreign Legion is all the tools the West has to accomplish its longstanding goal that originated within the Roman Catholic Church beginning in the mid 1400s to conquer the world. All that comprises today’s Geopolitical Big Picture and its stakes. One can say it’s an issue of Law and Order, and so it is.

*
*
*
Like what you’ve been reading at Karlof1’s Substack? Then please consider subscribing and choosing to make a monthly/yearly pledge to enable my efforts in this challenging realm. Thank You!