Western media and analytical content have been in overdrive as Russia’s Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, gave a speech to the Security Council in New York (April 24). It should be noted that no Russian journalists were allowed visas to travel to the US to cover the speech, leaving essentially a free rein to Western opinion only.
Lavrov’s speech was roundly condemned (just google “Lavrov, United Nations Security Council Speech”) by Western media and the West’s diplomatic attendees, made up mainly of US based Ambassadors, in themselves not an entirely unpartisan audience. But away from the rather shrill headlines, what was actually said?
Perhaps tellingly, Lavrov gave his speech while sitting next to the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, with whom he had earlier held a private 90 minute meeting, at which aspects of the Ukraine conflict and especially the Black Sea Grain deal were discussed. At that meeting, Guterres gave Lavrov a letter for Russian President Putin detailing ways in which he thought the deal could be negotiated for an extension beyond the May 18th expiry. The issue has some political importance to Russia, while it has enough grain for itself (Russia is the world’s largest exporter) the issue over Ukrainian grain exports has become a hot potato as regards Moscow’s realignment and diplomatic assistance towards poorer nations. Much of Ukraine’s grain, Moscow says, is being diverted mainly to the European Union. To provide assistance in getting it out via the Black Sea, Moscow is insisting that a larger proportion is exported to countries in Africa and East Asia instead. Due to the conflict, grain prices have shot up on global markets, increasing the threat of starvation. Moscow wants the grain to go where it is needed. The West interprets that as Moscow interfering with Ukraine’s exports and doesn’t want a Moscow win on the issue for fears it will use it to garner increasing diplomatic support for its foreign policies. This is a classic example of how toxic the mistrust and double-speak has become between Russia and the West. It is also incredibly cynical.
But back to Lavrov’s speech. In fact, he pointed out Western cynicism within it, pointing out multiple cases of United States and NATO policies that he said had led to destruction and chaos: Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and now Ukraine. The ultimate goal, he suggested, is the construction of a world order based upon the West's rule of engagement and imposition of sanctions to secure that. Held in an Open Debate format, Lavrov’s message – and the ensuing debate – was how to achieve effective multilateralism through the defense of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations. As such, the contents focused on how to build a new multipolar world order based on sovereign equality, while maintaining the global balance of power and ensuring the conditions for humanity’s steady advance.
Not surprisingly, the West is entirely against this, seeing instead a vision of a world operating under the auspices of what Beijing and Moscow want, rather than Washington. The United Nations is of course, the eminent house to debate such matters. These differing opinions are why Western media attention is so shrill and mechanisms put in place to deny Russian journalistic coverage to limit any opposing views. That in itself suggests that Moscow appears at least partially correct when it suggests the West wishes to make the rules and any alternative voices must be discouraged. It also renders the Ukraine conflict as a useful sideshow in which Russia can be beaten up in public, to the general voting public under the auspices of being the creator of violence and war.
That said, looking at the position from a global perspective, it appears by no means certain that the West’s position has gained multilateral approval. Instead, as the Ukraine conflict drags on, and small, yet telling details emerge (such as the non-granting of visas to Russian journalists), that a growing awareness is emerging that Moscow and Beijing may well be right when it comes to the world being run by the collective West for their own benefit.
In a damning summary, Lavrov stated that “The UN-centric system is going through a deep crisis caused by some members’ desire to replace international law with their ‘rules-based order.” Such ‘rules’ are now invented ad hoc and applied to stop independent development. They are enforced through military force to trade embargoes, financial sanctions, confiscation of property, the ‘destruction of critical infrastructure’ (a reference to the Nord Stream pipeline bombing) – and ‘manipulation of universally agreed norms and procedures.’ The World Trade Organisation has been paralyzed, market mechanisms have collapsed, and the IMF has been turned into ‘an instrument for achieving the objectives of the US and its allies.’”
Lavrov also addressed globalisation, and what until recently had been the US-backed concept of global free trade. Certain academics suggest that the US has lost its competitive edge to China in pushing this concept and is now retrenching from it. Lavrov said that “In an attempt to assert its dominance by punishing the disobedient, the US has moved to destroy globalization, which for many years it extolled as the greatest good of all mankind. Now the US and its allies blacklist anyone who dissents from their “golden billion” and tells the rest of the world, ‘those who are not with us are against us.’ That comment was a reference to what may be seen as a turning point in the US position as regards globalization and refers to a statement initially made by US President George W Bush in 2002.
Yet the “Western minority” has no right to speak for the entire world, Lavrov said. Its “rules-based order” amounts to rejection of sovereign equality, itself a key principle of the UN Charter. Here, Lavrov is pointing out the differing views of what the UN Charter now actually stands for and is suggesting it is in danger of being diminished.
Lavrov then stated that the West has made a ‘brazen attempt to subjugate’ the UN by taking over its secretariats and other international institutions. Washington and its allies have abandoned diplomacy and demanded a battlefield showdown within the halls of the UN, created to prevent the horrors of war. Instead, Genuine multilateralism “requires the UN to adapt to objective trends” of emerging multipolarity in international relations, Lavrov suggested. The UN Security Council should therefore be reformed to increase the representation of Africa, Asia and Latin America, as the current “exorbitant overrepresentation” of the West “undermines the principle of multilateralism.”
At present, diplomatic and trade efforts by both China and Russia have largely conquered the Global South. India, often vacillating between China and Pakistan as mortal threats, has quietened down following promises of cheap energy and improved trade. New Delhi no longer pursues the American, or even British dream. ASEAN remains on the fence and has often warned about it being pressured to take sides; however its sheer geographical position means it cannot abandon the East, China, or the Global South.
The Middle East has moved closer towards Asia, not to the West. Africa, with a tortured Western historical and colonialist history, buoyed by Chinese money and Russian influence, is also looking East. As are Central and Latin America, long the preserve of the United States but now actively sitting in the Chinese and Russiancourts.
Lavrov, and Russia will have expected the UN, with its baying hounds of US based Western ambassadors in situ, to be nothing more than hostile. After all, Russia is intent on diminishing their appeal. The conundrum is that the more they condemn and criticize, the more it seems that Moscow and Beijing have a point.
Meanwhile, the Global South, and much of the emerging world is increasingly looking towards gaining more influence. Change, it appears, and as Messrs. Xi and Putin determined in Moscow a few weeks ago, is certainly coming. It is hardly surprising the West is largely against the idea, rendering yesterday’s UN debate a combination both darkly comedic and a New York hosted circus sideshow. Shouting about it in the corridors of power won’t change a thing. Lavrov is right: discussing its format can.
Chris Devonshire-Ellis is the Chairman of Dezan Shira & Associates. He may be contacted at asia@dezshira.com