Vitaly Churkin, Permanent Representative to the United Nations, in an interview with Rossiya Segodnya, December 14, 2015

Question: The UN Security Council recently convened for an emergency meeting to discuss human rights in the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea, although Russia, China, Angola and Venezuela protested against this idea. Why did they do this, what results did the meeting achieve, and what do you think about it?

Vitaly Churkin: Russia is sometimes criticised, but the one thing they cannot use against us is that we back off from our principled approach. We have our principles, which we uphold. For example, in this particular case we believe that situations with human rights should be discussed at the Human Rights Council. It is absolutely unacceptable that the Security Council should discuss a human rights situation in any one country. This is why we had a procedural vote today, which is a very rare occurrence, to decide whether this discussion should be held. China is against such meetings. China initiated the previous procedural vote and voted against. Russia voted against, too. This time, Venezuela, Angola, Russia and China voted against holding this discussion. Nigeria and Chad abstained. This means that some countries share our approach that such issues should not be discussed at the UN Security Council. Moreover, our Chinese colleagues say that such discussions would only have a negative effect on the [human rights] situation in North Korea.

There is also one more complaint to those who have organised this meeting. As you know, we meet every month to approve the Security Council’s programme, and the discussion was not on the approved agenda. But several days later, it was proposed that we meet to discuss this issue, even though no new incidents could justify this. Today is Human Rights Day [the interview was recorded on December 10 - Ed.], and so they decided to hold this meeting today. Why resort to such an underhanded move? If they wanted to hold this meeting, they should have announced their intention when we discussed the programme of our work. We would have discussed the proposal and made a decision. This sometimes happens at the Security Council. They claim that under the Provisional Rules of Procedure, a meeting of the Security Council can be called at the request of any council member. On the other hand, why do we approve its monthly programmes then?

Question: Have you met with the new Ukrainian representative yet?

Vitaly Churkin: I don’t think he has come.

Question: Do you know him?

Vitaly Churkin: No, I’ve never met him before. But I know that he is a very experienced person, which is good. This is the second time that he has been appointed Ukraine’s representative to the UN, and he has been working in international organisations all his life. It’s very good that a person with high professional competence has been appointed to this post.

Question: Does this mean that you hold an optimistic view on relations with Ukraine improving at the UN?

Vitaly Churkin: Much will depend on them (Ukrainians) in this respect. Of course, it’s unpleasant that (Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavel) Klimkin added an anti-Russian undertone when he announced the appointment. This is not proper, of course, but we’ll see how they act. As for us, we are willing to cooperate. Everyone expects a country that is elected a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council to work to resolve the issues on the council’s agenda rather than to pursue a pet subject. Hence, much will depend on the Ukrainians’ conduct. If they act properly, in accordance with the responsibility they have assumed when taking a non-permanent place on the Security Council, I believe that we’ll be able to cooperate with them.

Question: Let’s turn to Syria, if you will. The idea of holding a meeting on Syria in New York on December 18-19 is now being discussed, whereas John Kerry said Thursday evening that he expects talks on Syria under the aegis of the UN as early as January.

Vitaly Churkin: The decision to hold such talks under the aegis of the UN was made at the second Vienna meeting. On November 14 the sides agreed on a January 1 date for the start of talks between Assad’s government and the opposition, and this is the goal of all current preparations. Here Kerry talks about the possibility of Vienna-3, at which the sides could follow up on the implementation of Vienna-2. He has another ambitious idea – to hold the meeting of the UN Security Council in the latter half of the same day – December 18 – and adopt a brief resolution in support of the efforts of the Vienna Group. But only a few days are left before this date and this task is indeed highly ambitious.

And the main point that we keep making is that it is necessary not just to talk but also to fulfil the decisions of the Vienna-2 meeting. I’m referring to two major decisions — to agree on the list of terrorist organisations and participants in the future talks on the side of the opposition. The meeting of the opposition in Riyadh was completed on Thursday, so we’ll see. The Saudis are hinting that it may have produced a good document. We have a problem with some of those whom the Saudis have invited (from among opposition representatives – Ed.) We believe they are bordering on terrorist groups. Second, Jordanians should agree on the list of terrorist organisations. There is very little time left for this.

If everything is done, it is impossible to rule out Vienna-3 and the meeting of the UN Security Council on December 18. In other words, we do not have objections to this in principle, but we insist on real work, not just a switch from one conversational session to another.

Question: Is it possible to discuss all of this in the UN?

Vitaly Churkin: The Vienna Group is not part of the UN agenda. They can, of course, meet in the UN building. And, naturally, the Security Council will hold its meeting on its own premises.

Question: At the ministerial level?

Vitaly Churkin: This is what Kerry has in mind. Let me repeat that as far as I know the Minister (Sergey Lavrov – Ed.) has not rejected this but keeps saying that he spoke with Kerry over the phone more than once and had a personal meeting with him recently and the main thing is to make sure that the decisions of Vienna-2 are carried out.

Question: Is UN Secretary-General Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura helping to reach an agreement on these lists?

Vitaly Churkin: He must (do this – Ed.) At any rate, we believe that although the Saudis are hosting these meetings, de Mistura should not completely evade an answer. No offense taken but de Mistura is a very experienced man and has worked in the UN for many years. He understands it correctly and sometimes says openly that, of course, he cannot reach a settlement on his own. Key players should make certain decisions while he can help to speed up this process as a good facilitator. Here’s his opportunity to distinguish himself, so to speak, because it is necessary to pool all efforts even though Saudis are hosting this meeting. But there were also meetings with opposition members in Moscow and Cairo. A couple of meetings took place even in Astana, although they were less representative than those in Russia and Egypt. We believe that the UN and de Mistura should integrate this brainwork rather than (accept – Ed.) that the Saudis are the final instance. It is important to be convinced that all efforts are being drawn together. We believe that at this point de Mistura should play a key role in shaping this opposition delegation that will eventually meet with the Government for talks.

Question: What organisations does Russia consider terrorist and would like to be blacklisted as no-goes at the negotiating table?

Vitaly Churkin: I don’t want to name them, all the more so as they (the Saudis) invited many opposition representatives and we believe some must not take part in the talks. What matters to us is that we have long reported that we consider to be terrorist ISIS, Jabhat al-Nusra, and another two or three groups, including the group that periodically fired on our Embassy in Damascus and, of course, the group that killed our pilot. We insist on them being blacklisted as terrorist as well. It is necessary to get to the bottom of all this and this is extremely complicated because they keep changing their names and moving from one group to another. This is a complicated task and experts, intelligence services and other people are all engaged in the efforts to resolve it.

Question: If the Security Council is convinced, can a spokesman for Syria take part in the meeting?

Vitaly Churkin: Security Council regulations allow him to speak. I’m confident Bashar Jaffari will speak. He is an energetic ambassador and has long worked in this position. He conducted talks with Lakhdar Brahimi (former Joint Special Representative for Syria – Ed.) and led Syrian negotiators in Geneva. I am sure (that the Syrian Envoy will take the floor – Ed.) and he has the right to do so.

Question: Recent airstrikes by the US-led coalition killed several Syrian soldiers. Do you plan to raise this issue in the Security Council?

Answer: So far, no, we haven’t had such plans. Notwithstanding the dramatic nature of the situation, this is an isolated instance. There’s a danger here – as it turns out, members of this coalition tend to act randomly at times. Some of them do their share of bombing as part of the coalition effort, while others, such as Turkey, do so outside the coalition. We can’t help but suspect that it was not an accident and despite all assurances provided to the Syrian government to the effect that these attacks will not be aimed against the Syrian government, they will, from time to time and in some places, be effectively delivered against it. And it will cause aggravation and further complicate the events now unfolding in Syria. But we hope that this won’t happen.

Question: Western media reported that Russia plans to hold a UNSC meeting to discuss Turkey’s conduct in Syria and Iraq.

Answer: We have actually held one already. Whenever an emergency meeting of the Security Council is held, it invariably becomes the focus of attention. So far, we’ve been using a soft format with informal closed-door consultations and discussions of particular issues as part of miscellaneous. We were surprised to hear information regarding Turkish troops deployed in Iraq, because this represents a gross violation of sovereignty, and asked the UN Secretariat to report on these developments as part of discussing miscellaneous issues. Then came a representative of the Secretariat, Assistant Secretary-General Miroslav Jenca, who briefed us about the events and said the Secretary-General had expressed his concern. We, too, have expressed our concern. I suggested that the chairman of the Security Council say a few seemingly innocuous words to reporters, but the British and Americans said there was no need for that and they will sort it out through bilateral channels.

Now Baghdad is hosting a Turkish-Iraqi meeting on these issues. We hope that they will agree to the satisfaction of the Iraqi government. However, if this doesn’t happen, I expect that Iraq will convene a Security Council meeting for the SC to respond to this violation of sovereignty. I must say that holding these consultations on December 8 was good timing, as this issue has been brought to the attention of Security Council members. Such a preparatory session will help the Iraqis, if they fail to reach an agreement with the Turks.

Question: Will you raise at the Security Council the issue of the Russian bomber downed by Turkey?

Answer: As soon as President Putin made his remarks about this incident, we distributed them as the Security Council’s official document. We believe this is sufficient at the moment. As you may be aware, practical steps have already been taken. Sometimes, practical steps speak louder than any statements made at meetings.

Question: They did find the blackbox from the downed Su-24 warplane. The President said the recorder should be opened only in the presence of international experts. Have there been any contacts with the UN on this subject?

Answer: No, nothing through my channels. It's not quite a UN issue.

Question: There’s another sensitive issue for Turkey, which is the smuggling of oil by ISIS. It's a violation of Resolution 2199, which bans the financing of terrorist organisations.

Answer: Absolutely. We have serious complaints about the way this resolution was carried out. We were at the Pentagon recently, and two generals with several stars on their shoulder straps spoke with us about the activities of the (US-led – Ed.) coalition. I asked them a simple question: you’ve been flying over the region for a year now, whereas our pilots have been there for only two months and managed to present numerous photos showing oil trucks crossing the Turkish border. Didn’t you know about that? They probably knew, and if they did, they should have reported it to the Security Council. Under Resolution 2199, adopted in February upon our initiative, the countries must provide such information to the Security Council as soon as it becomes available. In other words, the Americans must provide such information. Not to mention the Turks, who must report all instances of illegal trade. They did not, though. So, in conjunction with the Americans, we are drafting a new resolution calling for tightening reporting requirements. Perhaps, we will have the Secretary-General or some counter-terrorism agencies provide regular reports. The format is still under discussion. However, we must have access to regular reports about trading in oil and other things as they apply to terrorist organisations. We plan to adopt this resolution on December 17.

Question: What about ramping up liability for violations?

Answer: Indeed, it’s an important matter. They can put the names of those who trade in oil supplied by the Islamic State on the sanctions lists. There’s one more thing in this resolution whereby ISIS will be included on a separate sanctions list. Now, it goes under the Al-Qaeda header. The resolution will be more detailed and to the point. It will be an at least 25-page document. It will include many components that we think will provide additional leverage to fighting terrorism.

Question: Are you going to talk about Turkey violating Security Council resolutions as a state?

Answer: Of course, we will. We are, in fact, talking about it already.

Question. I mean at the Security Council.

Answer: We will put together another speech. We haven’t yet begun to write it.

Question: Can sanctions be imposed on Turkey in connection with smuggling ISIS oil?

Answer: Theoretically, it is possible. But we live in the real world. You can see that NATO started protecting Turkey after it downed our warplane. Many criticise (Turkey) for this, but try not to do so publicly. Therefore, we must be realistic and pro-active.

Question: But Russia can, at least, raise this issue?

Answer: Yes, it can.

Question: On imposing sanctions on Turkey.

Answer: Don’t ascribe to me words that I didn’t say. We can do anything. If we want to. Choosing issues to raise is a political decision. We don’t want to bring up an issue that no one will support. So, we have to be nimble when it comes to choosing tactics in this matter.

Question: At what level will this Security Council meeting be held, which will adopt the resolution of the Russian-American project? The United States suggested holding it at the level of finance ministers.

Answer: Correct. It sounds a bit strange to me. My colleague Samantha Power is a creative person. It is slightly unusual (for the Security Council – Ed.) to have finance ministers participating in its meetings. It (United States) will have their Secretary of Treasury chair the meeting. There will be several more finance ministers attending this meeting. As I understand it, our finance minister does not engage in these issues. It hasn’t yet been decided who will represent Russia at this meeting. Perhaps, it will be yours truly, an expert in multiple disciplines.

Question: Apart from these reports, are there plans to introduce some mechanism to monitor ISIS oil-smuggling operations?

Vitaly Churkin: Let’s wait until the resolution is ready and then we’ll understand what it provides for and what it does not provide for. What should monitoring be taken to mean? Sending people there for this purpose? Of course, there are no such plans. And then what is there to monitor? Everything is obvious as it is. Everyone understands everything very well. It’s simply that this information should not be concealed but shared. Now, our military has provided such information. Political pressure should be exercised through the Security Council and the situation could be streamlined somehow or other. The most important thing, however, is to attack these convoys and oil-producing facilities. This is the most effective means.

Question: There was another draft resolution, which was submitted to the Security Council by Sergey Lavrov on September 30. 

Vitaly Churkin: As we propose drafts, we modify them depending on the situation. However, unfortunately, our concept of fighting the Islamic State all together is not receiving support. That is, Russia is doing its business in the Syrian airspace not as part of a coalition but on its own. The reason is that the coalition does not want to ask the Syrian government for permission. Our Western colleagues are still nervous at the mere hint that they will collaborate with the Assad government. They fear the prospect like the plague.

Question: Nevertheless, there has been a shift in the mindset. Even in the recent Vienna agreements, there is no provision regarding Assad’s immediate departure, which they previously pushed for.

Vitaly Churkin: No immediate departure, no. However, they are saying that the possibility of cooperation, for example, with Assad’s army is only acceptable in the context of the political process – that is, if they come to terms on the formation of a coalition government with the opposition, then the possibility of fighting terrorists together could be considered. Until that happens they believe it is categorically impossible to collaborate with the Assad government.

Question: Is this Western position an impediment to Russia’s participation in a broad coalition?

Vitaly Churkin: That’s right. They believe that if we cooperate with the Assad government they cannot cooperate with us, as they believe that by cooperating with us they will indirectly cooperate with Assad, which is something they categorically refuse to do.

Question: What’s the way out?

Vitaly Churkin: A lot of work is in progress. If you recall, for example, the anti-Hitler coalition, it did not have a joint command either but it did what it had to do.

This conversation with US generals at the Pentagon was interesting. They said a major, long fight lies ahead. Some of our colleagues (at the UN Security Council – Ed.) were simply stunned: How come? Listen, there are not so many of them. You’ve been dropping bombs for a year there, the whole world is up in arms and you say that it is unknown when the fight will be over!

I asked them a simple question: Do they have at least some hypothetical plan for using Assad’s armed forces if a political process begins? They did not give an answer. I understand that they do not even consider this option on a purely theoretical level. Of course, logic is on our side. Everyone is saying that victory cannot be achieved without a ground operation and none of the leading countries plan to deploy ground forces – neither we nor the Americans nor the French nor the British. And if you do not then local ground forces should be used. What are they? These divided “moderate” groups? This is not enough to defeat ISIS. So Assad’s forces should be used. But they are not ready for that yet. The Western position is that they do not want even so much as to hint at the possibility of collaborating with Assad.

Question: However, Kerry issued a statement calling for a fight against the Islamic State “on the ground” and explained that his call applied to the Syrian army, among others.

Vitaly Churkin: They do not rule this out. As a matter of fact, it started at the G8 summit in Lough Erne in 2013 where it was written in black and white that it is necessary to consolidate the efforts of the government and the opposition in fighting terrorism. Today, however, they (Americans – Ed.) say that this is possible but only with a government that is now in the process of political dialogue or “political transition”, which is vital for Syria, that is, in their opinion, it should be a reformed government. Today, as you rightly say, they add that there must be no Assad there and it is definitely not the government that is in office in Damascus now. It should be something different, they say, and it should cooperate with the opposition. This is the kind of vague wording they use.

Question: Earlier, you mentioned Samantha Power. Several months ago, your tense relations were widely covered by global media. How well are you working together now?

Vitaly Churkin: As I said at the time, that was something taken out of context. We may have had disagreements but generally our working relations are fine. We are on good terms both professionally and personally.

Question: With the growing threat of terrorism and unfolding operations against ISIS, do you think the US is cooperating in a more constructive way?

Vitaly Churkin: Absolutely. Without going into further details, I can tell you that the UNSC had an interesting conversation with Mr Obama on December 7. He started by saying that the fight against ISIS should unite the global community. Everybody understands that. However, they still have certain reservations when it comes to the government in Damascus. Back in September, President Putin spoke here [at the UN] and said that we all must join forces, and nobody argues with that. You can’t argue with that because we are facing a real and serious threat. But as I said, there are some obstacles. The reasoning is as follows: “We can’t let this leader join the coalition because he is a bad person and the Syrian people are fighting against him.”

Question: What will your principal areas of focus be next year besides the urgent issues like Syria?

Vitaly Churkin: It is hard to foresee that right now. We are in the middle of intriguing diplomatic competition. The new secretary-general will be elected next year. There are a lot of disputes around this subject. Also, a resolution was adopted to revitalise the work of the General Assembly. This happens every year. This time, the resolution thoroughly describes the secretary-general’s election procedure. Specifically, the election must be started by a joint letter from the General Assembly President and the Security Council President.

When the resolution was in the pipeline, I warned my colleagues that the joint letter would not be an easy process because of certain nuances. For example, the Eastern European group declared that this time the candidate must be from Eastern Europe. Nobody has strong objections, of course, but many expect the new secretary-general to be from another region. Therefore, the first problem was how we can formulate this condition in the joint letter that invites candidates to take part in the election. Suitable wording was found.

Yesterday, I had an interesting meeting with the General Assembly President and the UK Permanent Representative. The UK Permanent Representative undertook it to draft the letter. But we had a number of complaints about the draft. So we wrote our own draft. Yesterday’s meeting produced a new letter that, I hope, will be approved. The letter is supposed to give the go-ahead to the candidates – more precisely, the countries that they are representing – to contact the General Assembly President and the UNSC President. After that, we’ll have a clear picture of the nominees and their campaigns.

I believe the attention to this issue has been blown out of proportion. As I see it, some of my colleagues wish to demonstrate their political affiliations and take a pro-active and populist approach. For example, they want to demonstrate that everything we do is transparent. Sometimes there are anecdotal aspects in diplomacy where people get overexcited about obvious things, for example, that there must be female candidates. Of course, women can be candidates. This is self-evident. Some people will want this letter to include a clause that we encourage women nominees. What is there to encourage? There will certainly be women. Eventually, it was written that both male and female candidates are welcome. This is anecdotal. Ban Ki-moon had an idea that there must be more women in the Secretariat management. This is a good initiative and it has been taken up around the world.

The only parliament with more female than male members is in Rwanda. Ban Ki-moon recently said that there are five parliaments with no women at all. Of course, this issue remains. But it should not undermine the whole business. We must encourage it without undermining the process. All reasonable people understand that the most important thing is to find the strongest, most suitable candidate. If it is a woman, great, especially because there are some strong women who are at different points in running for secretary-general.

Question: Does Russia have a candidate it would like to support?

Vitaly Churkin: I can’t tell you. Of course, we have some ideas that we sometimes discuss with Mr Lavrov and other officials. We have some candidates. All the people I hear about are great professionals and any of them could be our entry. We know some of them better than the others. We like some of them better than the others. But the final decision will be made at the top political level. Obviously, in the end there will only be one person. We’ll see.