Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's interview with RT's Bridges to the East project, Moscow, October 9, 2025
9 October 2025 16:32
1675-09-10-2025
Question: Moscow is hosting the first Russian-Arab Summit. Why has our country come forward with this initiative right now? What are its goals? Can you now announce which countries have accepted the invitations, and if they will be represented at the highest level?
Sergey Lavrov: There's a saying: there's always a first time. That certainly applies here.
To understand the context for this first summit, it's important to note that the Russia-Arab world dialogue has a long history and has never ceased. After the respective states gained independence, the USSR, and after 1991 the Russian Federation, built close strategic relations with most of our Arab friends.
In 2013, we decided to systematise these processes and place them on a multilateral foundation. Alongside our bilateral ties with each Arab country, we proposed creating the Russian-Arab Cooperation Forum - a Russia-Arab World/Russia-Arab League partnership and dialogue platform at the level of foreign ministers.
Six such ministerial meetings have already taken place, roughly once every two years. The most recent one was held in December 2023 in Marrakech, Morocco. It was there, following President Vladimir Putin's instruction, that I put forward the initiative to organise the first summit between the Russian Federation and the League of Arab States.
The summit has been scheduled by mutual agreement for October 15. A meeting of foreign ministers will be held on October 13, a couple of days before, to finalise the summit's draft documents. All Arab League member states have been invited, including the Secretary-General, Ahmed Aboul Gheit. He is an Egyptian citizen with whom we have worked closely for a long time, including at the UN. The level of representation is expected to be quite high.
Predictably, many of our Arab colleagues are deeply concerned about the Palestinian issue now, with some currently engaged in relevant consultations to promote mediation efforts. However, we have reason to believe that the overwhelming majority of Arab League members will join us at the level of heads of state or government.
Question: The war in Gaza has been on for two full years now with tens of thousands of fatalities on top of a devastating humanitarian disaster. We hear Tel Aviv saying it is going to take full control of the enclave. Some are even talking about moving the Palestinians to third countries. The Trump plan is being widely discussed. How do you envision a potential settlement? Can Russia and China act as guarantors, as some Arab countries want them to?
Sergey Lavrov: It is a disaster, no question about it.
We hear officials from many European capitals and international organisations say words like "genocide" and "famine." Children are dying of starvation and exhaustion.
According to official data, 65,000 people died in the past two years, most of them civilians, including women, children, and the elderly; 170,000 have been wounded. Hundreds of thousands have lost their homes. To put it in perspective, 65,000 civilian deaths in two years is double the number of civilian casualties during the entire Ukraine situation that followed the coup. The number of civilian casualties in Ukraine over 12 years is smaller than the number of victims in Palestine in only two years. The situation is extremely grave.
You mentioned exotic ideas, such as Riviera of the Middle East, relocation of Gaza population, and building world-class resorts that were put forward in the early days of Trump administration when they first started looking into these issues. The Arab countries, primarily, Egypt and Jordan, close neighbours of Palestine, which our American colleagues picked as recipient countries for Gaza residents, firmly pushed back against these proposals.
It was reported afterwards that with the Arabs strongly opposed to the idea, other options, such as Somaliland and even Indonesia and South Sudan, were considered as alternatives. It appears everyone has realised by now that solutions of that kind would mean a humanitarian disaster for the Palestinians and a serious blow to the UN, which proclaimed the establishment of a Palestinian State alongside the State of Israel in 1947. Indeed, the Arabs may have acted rashly back in the day triggering the events that ultimately led to bloody clashes and the shrinking of the territories intended for the Palestinian State. Nonetheless, the UN Security Council and the General Assembly resolutions have never been rescinded. The state must be created.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who recently discussed the Palestinian settlement, among other matters, with President Putin, has repeatedly and publicly stated that creating the Palestinian State was out of the question. If you look at President Trump's plan, which we regard as a positive step given the urgent need to stop the carnage, save human lives, and rebuild Gaza, or what remains of it, you will see that he proposed a 20-point peace plan that mentions the word "statehood." However, its language is rather vague and covers only what remains of the Gaza Strip. The West Bank is not mentioned in this regard. However, we are realists. We are fully cognisant of the fact that this is the best solution we have on the table. At least, the best one in terms of being potentially acceptable to the Arab side and not being rejected by Israel, which is how I can describe Netanyahu's position. Most importantly, though, the plan must be acceptable to the Palestinians.
Hamas is part of the Palestinian people and part of the problem. We strongly condemned the terrorist attack against civilians carried out by Hamas two years ago, on October 7, 2023. Twelve hundred people were killed, and dozens were taken hostage. That was a crime. However, collective punishment of the Palestinian people for such attacks also represents gross violation of international humanitarian law.
When told that such a response was unacceptable and only the culprits, not innocent people, not women, children, or the elderly, must be punished, some Israeli officials retorted there were no civilians in Palestine and everyone there starting from the age of three was a terrorist. True, extremism is being fuelled there. But for many years, during my stint in New York and later as Foreign Minister, I have been telling my Israeli counterparts that they should abandon their intransigence and their attempts to stall the implementation of the UN resolutions.
We have repeatedly let them know that the Palestinian issue, which remains unresolved for nearly 80 years now, is the main factor fueling extremism in the Middle East. Children are born and then go to school, where they are taught that they should have had their own country, their own state, and that there is a UN resolution to that effect. Israel was created, whereas Palestine was not. Some of my Israeli colleagues (many of them even friends) have taken offence, accusing me of trying to make excuses. But things are not that simple. When generation after generation grows up in a society where their legitimate UN-approved aspirations are ignored, such sentiments can hardly be contained.
To get back to President Trump's plan, it is quite realistic provided the Palestinians find it acceptable. We wish success to the indirect talks currently underway in Egypt with the participation of Türkiye, Egypt, Qatar, the United States, and, of course, Israel. They are using intermediaries to talk with Hamas. It is absolutely essential to cease the hostilities. Hamas's particular emphasis on guarantees against renewed strikes or resumption of fighting in Gaza, especially in Gaza City, reflects the lessons they have learned from their previous experiences.
Earlier this year, proposals were made that appeared to about to go live, but upon completion of the first phase, Israel resumed hostilities citing Hamas's failure to hold up its end of the bargain. It is vital to work through the details to prevent this from ever happening again.
You may have seen on television President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu speak with the Prime Minister of Qatar from the Oval Office. Live on air, Trump tried to extract from him a guarantee that no actions like that would occur again. In that case, it was directed against Qatar under the pretext that Hamas leaders were residing in Doha. We wish them success. If we can be of assistance, we will, of course, be there to help. Speaking at a recent meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club, President Putin made it clear that we would like to help establish a Palestinian State, but we must start with something. Statehood will come later. This goal should remain part of the agenda. Our Western colleagues must also bear their share of responsibility for having played a key role in stalling the implementation of the decisions on creating an independent Palestine on the West Bank and in Gaza.
In June, President Emmanuel Macron, later joined by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, said he would go to the UN General Assembly and recognise everything there. If you decided to recognise it back in June, why not do so? Perhaps, they hoped that within two to three months there would be nothing left to recognise and nothing would remain of Palestine.
The situation on the West Bank remains worrisome. From the standpoint of future Palestinian statehood, as required by UN resolutions, almost the entire territory has been taken up by Israeli settlements. The word I'm getting (it has never been officially stated, but political scientists and experts are talking about it) is that plans are in place to allocate two to three municipalities in the West Bank to be headed by Palestinian leaders who would be governing I'm not sure what or whom.
Such things are being discussed. To reiterate, stopping the bloodshed is our number one priority. In this regard, President Trump's plan gives hope.
Question: Another topic concerns Syria. You met with your Syrian counterpart Asaad al-Shaibani in Moscow in July this year, as well as on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York. At what stage is cooperation with the current leadership of this country? What are the prospects for collaboration, including the future of Russian military bases?
Sergey Lavrov: In 2024, we marked 80 years since the establishment of diplomatic relations. Since Soviet times, we have maintained friendly ties and close cooperation. Our country has made a significant contribution to shaping the foundations of Syria's economy, the social sphere, national personnel training, and strengthening the defence capabilities of the Syrian Arab Republic.
Undoubtedly, after 2011 - when, as part of the Arab Spring, the hot phase of the conflict in Syria began, and the Western-backed opposition armed itself, relying on extremist and terrorist elements - we came to the aid of the legitimate authorities of the Syrian Arab Republic. President Vladimir Putin made that decision. We played a substantial role in normalising the situation. We had agreements with the Americans and multilateral arrangements - a resolution was adopted in New York and Geneva. Had that resolution been implemented, we likely would not be witnessing the current situation in Syria, marked by confrontation between the central authorities and a number of regions in the country.
Our friendship with the Syrian Arab Republic is not opportunistic. Immediately after the events of December 2024, we resumed contact. President Vladimir Putin spoke by phone with the head of the new authorities, Mr Ahmed al-Sharaa. An interagency delegation visited Damascus at the beginning of this year and conducted an inventory of projects - alongside Syrian colleagues - that had been launched under President Bashar al-Assad and which, in our view, could continue under the current conditions with certain adjustments.
I met with Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates of the Syrian Arab Republic Asaad al-Shaibani earlier this spring in Antalya, where we participated in the Antalya Diplomatic Forum. He then visited us in July this year, and we met again in New York. In early September this year, another interagency delegation - led by Deputy Prime Minister of Russia Alexander Novak - visited Damascus. Discussions were held with their counterparts and with interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa. We are keen to ensure that all initiatives - some dating back to Soviet times, others launched after 2011-2014 - related to supporting Syria's national economy, industry, agriculture, and energy continue. Naturally, they must be adapted to the new realities.
This also applies to our military bases. President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly stated that we will not remain in Syria against the will of its leadership. However, it appears that the Syrian government, along with a number of regional states, has an interest in maintaining our presence there. Of course, this presence is no longer about providing military support to the legitimate authorities against opposition forces. The function must be reconfigured. One clear task that could benefit the Syrians, their neighbours, and many other countries is establishing a humanitarian hub, utilising the port and airport to deliver humanitarian supplies from Russia and the Persian Gulf states to Africa. There is a shared understanding that this will be in demand, and we are prepared to coordinate the details. The matter has, in principle, been discussed, and there is mutual interest.
Another issue concerning Syria is the domestic political situation. Syria categorically demands an end to foreign interference in its internal affairs. Vast areas of the Syrian Arab Republic remain under the control of foreign troops—not always at the invitation of Damascus. A particularly volatile situation persists in the south, where Israel insists on creating a buffer zone. We understand Israel's legitimate security concerns. President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly emphasised that without addressing these, lasting peace in the Middle East will remain unattainable.
Yet, the interests of other actors must also be safeguarded. In the northeast, there are the Kurds, whom the Biden administration began courting, actively encouraging separatist sentiments. Our Turkish counterparts maintain a presence in the north, along their border with Syria. Meanwhile, Alawites and Christians continue to face persecution - recently exemplified by a barbaric attack on a church.
Syria's unity must be a priority for all nations with influence over Damascus and the various ethno-confessional and political factions across the country. A longstanding concern is the potential explosion of the Kurdish issue - if these "games" with Syrian Kurds over autonomy and separatism escalate, the Kurdish problem could destabilise the entire region. These are serious risks.
rom every perspective, we will continue assisting our Syrian partners. We are prepared to collaborate on these matters with other nations pursuing their interests in the Syrian Arab Republic. Of particular significance will be the participation of transitional government head Ahmed al-Sharaa in the First Russian-Arab Summit on October 15. I anticipate substantive discussions there.
Question: The situation in Iran holds a key to regional stability. Following the use of force by Israel and the United States this summer, how do you see the situation unfold next? Do you think full-scale talks on the Iranian nuclear programme have a chance to ever materialise?
Sergey Lavrov: Iran has a stake in it. Since January, when the West began seriously playing with the idea of re-imposing sanctions - without any legal grounds for doing so - Iran consistently advocated for talks showing flexibility and creativity in its approaches, striving not to succumb to provocations. The West kept luring Iranian negotiators into yet another "round" of talks, where some preliminary understandings were reached giving hope that this would finally settle the question of what to do next. However, the West later backed out of its own proposals, preliminary agreements, and compromises, and continued instead to act through blackmail, diktat, and threats.
The idea of re-imposing the sanctions which the West is trying to present as a legitimate legal procedure is utterly outrageous. As you may recall, the resolution approving the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on Iran's nuclear programme was not violated by Iran. The Islamic Republic had been fulfilling it since 2015 when it was first adopted. Then, in 2019, the United States said it did not like the deal and would no longer comply with it. The Europeans, who were also obliged to fulfill the "fruit of their own labour," instead of taking a principled stand in favour of preserving the deal, chose to play along with Washington, persuading the Iranians not to take offence and to make more concessions.
This is plain and simple dishonourable, not to mention that it represents a blatant violation of international law. The UN Charter requires all resolutions to be implemented. But they decided otherwise. They exploited a provision in the deal (I was involved in this process) that raised serious questions back in 2015. Then US Secretary of State John Kerry told then Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, who was negotiating on behalf of his country, that now that they've agreed on everything (it was a massive document with detailed technical, legal, and practical provisions) it would make sense to "sell it" to Congress and Washington, where many distrust Tehran. To reassure them, he proposed inserting a clause that if Iran were ever to violate or fail to fulfill its obligations, a resolution on automatic re-imposition of sanctions would be adopted. There's nothing one can do about it. This mechanism was clearly designed to benefit anyone wishing to re-impose sanctions on Iran.
I am convinced that the Iranians accepted this arrangement for only one reason: they had no intention of violating anything. That is why they signed this unprecedented instrument with a clear conscience and peace of mind - an instrument the West has now grossly abused, turning everything upside down. They punished a country that had not violated a thing and had been fulfilling its obligations until the West walked away from the deal.
Iran remains ready for dialogue. The West, however, is deliberately going to great lengths to prevent direct talks between Iran and the United States (although Tehran has always been open to them) and to block the resumption of normal cooperation between Iran and the IAEA, as if making a special effort to provoke a major conflict. Perhaps, that is exactly what some parties are looking for.
We are discussing Arab affairs here. We are preparing for the upcoming Arab summit. In recent years, including with our assistance, there have been positive shifts in relations between Iran and the Arab states. Iran has had relations with a number of countries for quite some time. A few years ago, it reached an agreement on normalising relations with Saudi Arabia, a critically important player in the Persian Gulf. We welcomed this step, as we have for many years been promoting the concept of collective security in the Gulf region encouraging all littoral states - six GCC countries and Iran - to establish a process of confidence-building and to develop mutually beneficial projects.
Yet, many out there are clearly opposed to this. They do not want to see Iran overcome the problems imposed on it (I mentioned them), or to face fewer unilateral demands to renounce not only its nuclear programme, including the peaceful one, but also to disarm unilaterally. Many actors prefer to keep the Gulf Arab states wary of Iran. This is the West's game. The British have long been known for their divide-and-conquer approach. In this particular case, though, it is not even about divide and conquer, but about pit against one another and conquer. Sadly, colonial and neocolonial instincts have continued to guide some of our Western colleagues' actions to this day.
Question: You mentioned the 2015 talks at the Palais Coburg in Vienna. I remember well the number of months it took to arrive at signing the final document and the ensuing jubilation on July 15, 2015.
Let's get to other matters. You mentioned Saudi Arabia. Next year marks the 100th anniversary of Russia's diplomatic relations with that country. What's your take on Russian-Saudi cooperation over time and today?
Sergey Lavrov: I believe our relations are excellent. The Soviet Union was the first to recognise Saudi Arabia (it had a different name then). We did that and established close and trust-based relations. Soviet diplomats that worked in Saudi Arabia during that period left good memories of themselves. Later, in the 1950s, our relations became somewhat strained for reasons that everyone is well aware of. However, the groundwork laid in 1926 helped us quickly restore them.
Today, we enjoy a trust-based dialogue and productive contacts at the level of President Vladimir Putin and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, as well as at the level of ministers, deputy prime ministers, and the officials in charge of sector-specific cooperation. Many concrete projects, primarily in the investment sphere, and joint ventures in energy, agriculture, and industry are underway.
Without a doubt, we enjoy close political interaction. We want to see the initiatives that Saudi Arabia has been promoting in the international arena for quite some time now, including on the Palestinian issue, implemented.
In 2002, at the Arab League summit in Beirut, King Fahd of Saudi Arabia put forward the Arab Peace Initiative, which provided for fully normalised relations between Arab countries and Israel, with the understanding that a Palestinian State would first be established. This was yet another reminder of the importance of implementing UN decisions.
Most notably, the principle "create a Palestinian State, and we will recognise Israel and live in peace" was supported not only by Arab nations, but by all Muslim countries. A special summit of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation in Tehran approved the Saudi initiative. I'm not saying that everything has fallen apart now. Odds that this will end up taking place are still there. However, had everyone followed the voice of reason from the Arab and Muslim world which called for fulfilling international obligations back then, the situation would probably be different today.
Over the past seven or eight years, the Americans have been trying to turn this formula upside down by promoting the Abraham Accords, suggesting that all Arab countries recognise Israel first, and then we'll see what we can do with Palestine. The main focus was on Saudi Arabia.
Quite recently, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman publicly stated that Saudi Arabia's position remains unchanged: first, the establishment of a Palestinian State and then normalisation of relations with Israel. This stance commands respect.
The first visit by then Crown Prince, later King Faisal, to the Soviet Union took place in 1932. That also helped build close and trust-based relations.
Speaking of our humanitarian ties, every year, about 25,000 Russian citizens perform the Hajj. We appreciate the attention given by the Saudi authorities to our pilgrims. There are other areas of humanitarian cooperation as well.
The talented Saudi performer Zeina Imad gave a remarkable performance at the Intervision Song Contest. The Saudi leaders said they were willing to host the next annual competition. We will use this occasion to mark the 100th anniversary diplomatic relations between our countries.
Question: One of the most promising regions in the world in terms of development potential is Africa. It is believed that countries such as Algeria or Egypt could serve as Russia's door to this continent. How is cooperation progressing in this direction?
Sergey Lavrov: Our doors have long been open - since the days of the struggle for decolonisation. The legacy left by the Soviet Union from that period, beginning with the initiation of the United Nations Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, adopted in 1960, includes practical military, military-technical, economic, financial, and educational assistance that we provided to national liberation movements. Later, after African nations gained independence, we supported them in establishing their statehood.
In the 1990s, for reasons that are well understood - our country was on the brink of collapse after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and centrifugal tendencies were at play even within the RSFSR - we found ourselves in catastrophic debt. The International Monetary Fund, the World Bank… I remember it all. We had to cut costs.
Another question is: how did we come to such a state? At that time, there simply was no money. Several embassies were closed, including a dozen in Africa. Much has changed since then. Under the leadership of President Vladimir Putin, as Russia grew stronger, regained its sense of identity, and understood the role it must continue to play in the world, we began returning to Africa. In 2024, we reopened two embassies; this year, we will reopen two more and establish a new one. Another three embassies are next in line. Within a few years, eight embassies will have been restored on the African continent.
A crucial point, one of global strategic significance, is that Africa is undergoing a second "awakening." Now, if you look at the map of Africa, you will see borders drawn with a ruler. None of the colonisers cared who was on the left or right side of those straight lines. They sliced through ethnic groups - Rwanda and Burundi, Hutus and Tutsis. You mentioned Algeria and Mali. There, the straight line means the Tuareg people live on both sides of the border and do not get along particularly well. Their discord is further exacerbated by external forces egging them on against each other. We are attempting to bring some order to these processes.
In its wisdom, the African Union once decided that borders should not be redrawn - given how things had unfolded. Otherwise, it would lead to a free-for-all, with long-lasting and tragic consequences. That is the correct stance. Yet the fact remains that Africa did not achieve full sovereignty after decolonisation.
I remember attending various G20 events, other forums, and gatherings. In major African countries, it was impossible to refuel the aircraft provided for our delegation. We had to resort to workarounds, negotiating with military bases. All other refuelling stations in most African airports are owned by Western multinational corporations, which refuse to service Russian government aircraft.
We now see Africa establishing its own institutions - not just the African Union, where they convene and discuss abstract topics. The African Export-Import Bank has been created, in which we participate with special status. Investment programmes are being developed.
Africa does not want to merely sell its raw materials; it seeks assistance in learning how to process them. This applies to Algeria as well. President Abdelmadjid Tebboune visited us in 2023. He raised precisely this issue - not just selling their resources and buying, say, fertiliser, but asking whether we could establish fertiliser production in Algeria. This matter is currently under consideration. The goal is not to remain an appendage of former colonial powers but to build domestic processing industries, where the bulk of value-added is generated.
Two Russia-Africa summits have been held - in Sochi in 2019 and in St Petersburg in 2023. At the 2023 summit, Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni cited the global coffee market - or more precisely, Africa's coffee market - as grounds for the continent's urgent need for a second "awakening." He estimated its value at 460 billion dollars, of which only 2.4 billion remained in Africa. These are raw beans, harvested and shipped to Germany and other European countries, where they are processed, roasted, ground, packaged, and so on. This exemplifies Africa's desire to harness its own wealth, first and foremost for the benefit of its people.
North Africa - Algeria, Morocco, Egypt - is home to our strategic partners, as enshrined in official documents. Algerian President Abdelmadjid Tebboune visited Russia in 2023. Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi attended the 80th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War on May 9 this year and was received by President Vladimir Putin. We have major, promising projects with Egypt, including a nuclear power plant, the establishment of a Russian industrial zone near the Suez Canal, and more.
Our trade turnover with Africa, while not yet as substantial as China's or the West's, is growing rapidly and has reached nearly $30 billion - though 70 percent of this is concentrated in seven or eight countries. Diversification is needed here.
As I mentioned, we have held two summits with Africa. At the 2023 St Petersburg summit, it was decided to establish a permanent annual ministerial-level mechanism. We convened in Sochi in autumn 2024. In just over a month, we will hold the second annual Russia-Africa Partnership Forum in Egypt. There will be much to discuss regarding the economic dimensions of Africa's second "awakening" and the political challenges that will persist by then. The key is to prevent them from escalating.
Question: Libya is another country from that region. I can't help but ask about it as well. This year marks 70 years of Russia's diplomatic relations with Libya. Since 2011, Moscow has sought to maintain dialogue with all meaningful political forces in that country. What are the prospects for establishing cooperation with Libya? Can we talk about joint oil production or the opening of a Russian military base in Libya?
Sergey Lavrov: September 4 marked the anniversary of diplomatic relations between our countries. From the very beginning, since the time Libya gained its independence, we maintained friendly relations with it and, for that matter, with the overwhelming majority of other countries in that region. In 2008, President Putin visited the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to sign documents of major importance, such as the Declaration on Strengthening Friendship and Cooperation, and a Statement of Intent Concerning the Development of Multisectoral Cooperation between our countries. Many Russian companies, including oil companies and others such as Russian Railways, signed agreements - both framework and contractual - on implementing joint projects. The railway sector was in particularly high demand.
Then the Arab Spring came. I mentioned earlier how the West criminally and deceitfully carried out an act of aggression in violation of a UN Security Council resolution followed by the events the consequences of which are being felt to this day.
All these years, Russia has been involved in international efforts to reconcile eastern and western Libya. We maintained relations with both. Our position has remained unchanged. There is the Libyan National Army, with which we never broke off relations. In Tripoli, there is the interim Government of National Unity, which was supposed to operate for one year, but has already exceeded that mandate multiple times over. Nevertheless, we support the continuation of a dialogue between western and eastern Libya and their efforts to reach an agreement on how to live together in a single country.
Our companies stand ready to fulfill all agreements with their Libyan partners. First, there were hostilities followed by a ceasefire, which is thankfully holding. Of course, there is still not enough stability to resume practical cooperation projects. The dialogue continues, and we maintain contacts. I hope that one day Libya will return to a full-fledged peaceful life.
Question: You talked about the United Nations today. Many Arab countries pin their hopes on Russia and China these days when discussing regional matters within the UN, including when it comes to the way the UN Security Council votes with calls to reform the organisation becoming increasingly frequent. What is Russia's position in this regard?
Sergey Lavrov: The UN Security Council is an instrumental body. Refraining from abusing one's mandate is another matter, especially for a permanent member of the UN Security Council. The only reason why the parties agreed to vest the P5 members with veto power consisted of preventing the UN from following the League of Nations in its footsteps when no one bore any responsibility for the way it voted.
Today, the European Union - and sorry for bringing up this structure - wants to switch to voting on its decisions. This way, it will adopt its decisions on major matters by voting. This includes matters of war and peace. They want to deny European Union members their veto power, which primarily targets countries like Hungary and Slovakia, the ones that want peace, not war. By using their veto power, since the consensus rule basically consists of vesting every country with veto power, they have been preventing the European Union from turning into a war machine instead of seeking to deliver on the promise of creating the economic and social heaven on Earth. This is what Ursula von der Leyen and other Fuhrers standing at the helm of the European Union are after.
Veto power within the UN Security Council is also designed to prevent excesses on behalf of its permanent members.
As for Palestine, by the way, we have been talking about "Arab Affairs." When Israel launched its operation following the October 7, 2023, terrorist attack, Russia submitted five draft resolutions, including co-sponsored by our Chinese friends to the UN Security Council setting forth the demand to stop the bloodshed immediately and sit down at the negotiating table, but every time the Americans used their veto power. This happened under the Joe Biden administration. In fact, every time they voted this way, they offered a carte blanche to continue a practice which is designated as collective punishment as per the international law.
Only recently, under the administration of the current President of the United States Donald Trump, ten non-permanent members of the UN Security Council submitted a draft resolution on the need to enact a ceasefire, achieving a truce and respecting humanitarian pauses. But the United States was strongly against it. Several other Western countries opposed this decision as well.
Unfortunately, the West has long since embarked on what has been quite a successful push to privatise, so to say, the UN Secretariat, which is basically a technical body. According to Article 100 of the UN Charter, the UN Secretariat must remain impartial without seeking or receiving instructions from any government. In addition, there is an agreement to abide by the principle of fair geographic representation within the Secretariat so that every country is represented in keeping with specific criteria.
For example, you can have a certain person joining the Secretariat. Suppose he or she comes from a developing country, be it in Asia, Africa or Latin America. This person signs a permanent contract with the Secretariat, which is something we opposed even back in the Soviet era in order to prevent the Secretariat from becoming too rigid in its operations. However, the West has managed to institutionalise these permanent contracts by voting.
So, once a person signs this permanent contract, we must understand that he or she has a family and children who go to school, and after that they enrol in universities, while this person keeps his money with one of the US banking institutions. As times go by, he or she gets a green card, and then goes on to become a US citizen which changes the designation in the Secretariat's ledger to "African country/US." It is quite clear whom this person will take his or her cues from in this situation.
This effort to privatise has already gone too far and transcended all reasonable boundaries. There are five or six key positions, including the UN Secretary-General and his under-secretaries in various domains who control the money flows, contributions, etc., and they all come from NATO countries. Russia has always advocated within the Security Council for taking into consideration the opinion of countries representing the region in question.
There is one Arab country on the UN Security Council at all times. Right now, this is Algeria. In December 2025, its term as a non-permanent member expires, and Bahrain will take its place. We already know this. The vote has taken place. We will always seek to ensure that their opinion counts. Here is my advice for our Arab friends for ensuring that this is the way others view them too. Ideally, the country representing the Arab world on the UN Security Council could be vested with an informal mandate by the Arab League to decide on matters of principle for the Arabs, since it would be impossible to cover all possible issues. This would be very important. This is what I had to say about the Security Council.
From a broader perspective, in terms of Russia's relations with the Arab world outside of the United Nations, here is what I wanted to mention. Arab countries have demonstrated a lot of interest towards the SCO. Right now, six countries, i.e., Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar and Bahrain, are SCO's dialogue partners. This is much more than simply coming to its meetings, attending them, listening, making a statement and leaving. They have been proactive in contributing to SCO projects.
At this stage, President Vladimir Putin has been pushing for establishing a Greater Eurasian Partnership as part of the Eurasian concept. This would lay the foundation for a Eurasian security architecture, which would create a link between the security situation in our part of the continent with security across the Eurasian space. This way, security would no longer operate as an exclusive Euro-Atlantic apanage, as during many decades. There was a time when Russia worked with the Euro-Atlantic community and the OSCE, and within the Russia-NATO Council, and thought that everything was fine. But things took a turn for the worse. We overlooked the pan-continental aspects of security.
Moreover, NATO is now saying that its objective consists of ensuring security for its member countries, while the threats it is facing are coming from the South China Sea. They were the ones to say this. They have been proactive in expanding their infrastructure in Eurasia's eastern part. This is why these are important matters. Of course, this goes beyond the United Nations, but this does matter in the context of shaping the Greater Eurasian Partnership as a tangible foundation and building a pan-continental security architecture. Our Arab colleagues have a lot of potential for working on these processes, we believe. This will be one of the topics on the agenda of the first Russia-Arab Summit.
Question: China announced the Global Governance Initiative at the SCO Summit it hosted.
Sergey Lavrov: This was the right thing to do, as we have said. To ensure greater justice within the global governance framework, Russia stands ready to work with its partners in China who put forth this initiative in order to better understand their vision.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
