Dmitry Polyansky's Interview with RIA Novosti

❓ What are the prospects for resolving the visa problem facing the Russian delegates to the UN General Assembly session? Is this problem related to US actions alone? Is the UN Secretariat attempting to deal with this issue?

💬 Dmitry Polyansky: Visas for the Russian delegates to the 77th Session of the UN General Assembly are caught up in a number of interrelated problems. With respect to Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s delegation to the session’s high-level week, there are some positive changes, since a portion of the delegation, including the minister himself, have their visas. We hope that the other delegation members will also receive them. But the fact that the visas were only issued shortly before the visit is unprecedented and considerably complicates the effort to deal with organisational and logistical issues. 

However, the session is not limited to the high-level week alone. The UN will sponsor numerous other events throughout the upcoming year. Very few meetings held within the framework of the previous 76th Session of the UN General Assembly went without artificial hurdles created by US authorities. Many delegates were either denied a visa, or visas were issued with such a delay that it made no sense to attend an event. There were also outrageous occurrences, where unacceptable US actions were behind a whole delegation being left without visas. The latest case is the delegation led by Russian Interior Minister Vladimir Kolokoltsev failing to attend the Third United Nations Chiefs of Police Summit.

Moreover, from a legal point of view, the whole thing is perfectly clear. Under the agreement between the United Nations and the United States of America regarding the Headquarters of the United Nations, it is the direct duty of the United States as the host nation to the UN Headquarters to grant visas to any persons invited to visit UN events as promptly as possible. The agreement also stipulates that the United States must implement this obligation “irrespective of the relations existing between the Governments of the persons referred to in that section and the Government of the United States.” Thus, where Russian delegates are concerned, US authorities are engaging in a gross and clear violation of the agreement, a violation that is of a lasting, systematic, and demonstrative nature. These breaches affect delegates from Moscow, diplomats employed by the Russian Permanent Mission in New York, and even Russian employees at the UN Secretariat.  

We must state that Washington openly uses the visa process as a “filter” to bar not only Russians but also representatives from a group of nations, which can only be blamed for trying to conduct an independent and sovereign policy, from entering the United Nations venue.

The Committee on Relations with the Host Country, a subsidiary body of the UN General Assembly tasked with monitoring America’s compliance with its international legal obligations in this area, has repeatedly issued recommendations stating the unacceptability of these actions. For the last three years, the General Assembly, based on the Committee’s recommendations, has approved, by consensus, resolutions urging the UN Secretary-General to seriously consider the possibility of launching a UN-US arbitration procedure, if these problems are not removed within a reasonable and limited timeframe. 

We are referring to Antonio Guterres; this is no coincidence. The parties to the agreement on the Headquarters of the United Nations are the United States and the United Nations. Therefore, the Secretary-General has a special responsibility to guarantee that the host country comply with the provisions of this document.

There is a backlog of violations. Our problems with visas and unlawfully impounded diplomatic property have remained unresolved for six years now. Restrictions on travel (the notorious 25-mile zone) have been in effect for an even longer time. All the “reasonable and limited timeframes” for lifting them, as outlined by the UN General Assembly, have long expired, but the Secretary-General, regrettably, has failed to start the arbitration procedure. He has a mandate for this from the General Assembly. We will continue to insist on its implementation.

❓ The documents for this session say that Covid-related restrictions will be retained at the UN Headquarters. But they have decided to revert to the normal, pre-Covid format with regard to the High-Level Week’s key events. Did any delegations object to this decision?

💬 Dmitry Polyansky: All delegations without exception have shown understanding and support for the decision to go back to the pre-Covid format. During that time, we all became convinced that “online diplomacy” has a number of serious drawbacks. But the Covid situation is not the same in every country; the virus is still making itself felt, and many people still carry a certain risk. A safety precaution like wearing a facemask is understandable under the circumstances.  

❓ Russia is coordinating interaction between the five permanent members of the UN Security Council this month. How well do these key nuclear powers cooperate with each other within this informal group?

💬 Dmitry Polyansky: In fact, this coordinating function is performed by one of the five members for three months. We took over from the United States in August and will have this authority through late October. Although this is a matter of convention, it includes the need to carry out duties related to certain council functions.  

I am not revealing a secret to say that after the start of the special military operation (SMO) in Ukraine, the Western members of the Security Council, in a fit of hysteria, wanted to extend their efforts to isolate Russia to the Security Council. Soon, however, they realised that this was not possible.  

As for the atmosphere within the five nations, the UN and its Security Council are organised in such a way that no issue can be resolved without cooperation between Russia, the UK, China, France and the US. What I mean is that neither we, nor our colleagues can avoid contacting each other, no matter what condition our bilateral relations are in. This concerns work on resolutions and other Security Council documents. Therefore I can say that we carry on a professional dialogue inside the five nations, and that our experts work with each other on the daily basis.

❓ Question: How would you assess the policy of the UN Secretary-General and UN agencies in general in relation to the Ukraine crisis?

💬 Dmitry Polyansky: The SMO in Ukraine has clearly demonstrated the deep-rooted problem eroding the UN Secretariat and all its agencies. What I mean is the Western domination of the top levels of this international bureaucracy. We and the majority of developing states have long fought this problem, but progress is slow. The geographical distribution of positions depends on the amount of fees, and so there are no quick fixes here. Because of this, the UN Secretary-General is under immense pressure from the Western countries which, apart from promoting their unbalanced agenda through Western UN staff, have no scruples about pressuring the Secretariat, including through the Secretary-General, based on their voluntary contributions that are comparable to the mandatory fees.

The UN system acted passively at a critical time, amid a tragedy in Donbass and the exacerbation of European security problems, when international officials should have made a considerable contribution to implementing the Minsk Package of Measures that was endorsed by the UN Security Council. We compared the UN leadership’s rhetoric before and after February 24, and this comparison is not in the UN’s favour. In critical situations, double standards manifest themselves very clearly. Comments on the deplorable situation in Syria, let alone Afghanistan, are limited to calls to build up humanitarian assistance for these countries and look for mutually acceptable solutions. At the same time, the Secretary-General simply does not mention the basic causes of these crises. The fact that the United States continues to occupy a strip of Syrian territory is being overlooked. Antonio Guterres expressed a strong reaction to the SMO in Ukraine, but we never heard him denounce the US and NATO for inflicting irreparable damage on the Middle East, including indiscriminate and blanket air strikes at cities in Syria. They caused a massive loss of civilian lives and now continue finishing Syria off through a sanctions club. Neither did he condemn Washington when the US military disgracefully fled from Afghanistan and just stole the country’s financial reserves held in bank accounts abroad.

The UN Secretary-General only took action after the launch of the SMO in Ukraine. We regret that he was not half as active in assessing Kiev’s failure to implement the Minsk agreements. Russia supported his constructive mediation effort leading to the evacuation of civilians from the Azovstal Steel Plant and the signing of the Istanbul package of documents providing for the supply of Ukrainian grain and Russian food and fertilisers to the world market. 

❓ The posting of underage children’s personal data on the notorious Ukrainian Myrotvorets (Peacemaker) website made a splash in Russia. What is the UN’s response to this?

💬 Dmitry Polyansky: We must state that UN agencies are often susceptible to politicisation and pressure from their most important donors and are guided in their actions by double standards. This, in particular, explains the lack of attention from UNICEF (whose duty it is to protect the rights of all children, no matter where they are) towards Ukrainian nationalists’ using school buildings for shelter and the unlawful activities by that Ukrainian extremist website that has disclosed personal data, including home addresses, of 327 children. We continue working with UNICEF on this, and cannot hide our disappointment at its attempts to sweep this problem under the rug. We will work to obtain an intelligible assessment of this situation from those who are supposed to protect children and ensure respect for their rights.

❓ The Ukrainian delegation’s behavior, when they show up at the UN Security Council, often goes beyond the bounds of decency. They verbally attack Russian diplomats and get personal. They also allege that Russia has no right to be a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Do the Security Council’s procedures allow for these actions and can we expect a response to them from the Security Council chair?

💬 Dmitry Polyansky: You are right, the Ukrainian delegation’s behavior at the UN Security Council goes beyond reasonable bounds and puts Kiev’s Western patrons in an awkward position. But they cannot afford to criticise the regime and its representatives at the UN. And so the Ukrainian delegation turns its Security Council appearances into a kind of cheap and scandalous talk show. But in so doing, the Ukrainian permanent representative does a disservice to both his country and its sponsors. It is clear that a country representative demonstrating a lack of elementary diplomatic civility does harm to the image of the country he or she represents. Behind the scenes, an increasing number of our colleagues are outraged by this situation and say directly that the Ukrainian permanent representative’s manners are damaging to his country’s image.