Russia’s justifications for its war do not withstand scrutiny: UK statement to the OSCE
The UK challenged Russia’s shifting justifications for its war of aggression against Ukraine, calling on Russia to explain how its use of force and attempts to alter Ukraine’s borders are compatible with the principles of the Helsinki Final Act.
Thank you, Mr Chair.
Earlier this month, the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine reported that Russian attacks killed at least 328 civilians and injured more than 2,100 in September. That is 85 per cent higher than last September.
In Kyiv, civilians were killed or injured on 22 of the month’s 30 days, more often than in any month since the full-scale invasion began. Preliminary reports indicate that civilian deaths in October will match or exceed the already grim levels seen in September. This is in large part due to the near-record levels of Ballistic missiles fired into Ukrainian cities, with a reported 110 fired between 13-28 October.
In its report of 26 October, the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine concluded that the Russian authorities have committed war crimes in intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects.
Mr Chair, behind these figures lies a decision taken in Moscow. Russia has never offered this Council a single consistent explanation for that decision – perhaps because it knows its reasons hold no water. Instead, it has offered a succession of justifications. Each has been falsely presented as a matter of principle.
Russia claims a right to use force to protect people beyond its borders who speak its language or share its culture. Participating States have agreed ways to protect the rights of national minorities, including through this Organisation’s High Commissioner. Invasion is not among them.
Russia claims that Ukraine’s democratically elected government is illegitimate. If applied generally, that would allow any state to decide which of its neighbours’ governments deserve to exist, and to use force to replace those that do not. That is exactly what the principles of sovereign equality and non-intervention were written to prevent.
Russia claims that its security interests justify its war. But we agreed together that security is indivisible: that no state should strengthen its security at the expense of others, and that every state has the right to choose its own security arrangements. Would the Kremlin give up territory to address its neighbour’s security concerns?
And Russia claims that it acted pre-emptively, in self-defence. But no one planned to attack Russia. A right to strike first against threats that a state alone perceives would leave every state exposed to the fears of its neighbours, real or invented.
Mr Chair, a rule that a state claims for itself, but would never accept being applied to itself, is not a principle. It is a claim to privilege, and international law recognises no such privilege. Applied evenly, each of Russia’s justifications would leave no border in our region secure, and no government safe from the judgement of a more powerful neighbour.
We therefore invite the Russian Federation to make clear that it still subscribes to all of the principles in the Helsinki final Act and how their use of force against another state in order to alter its borders fits with those commitments. Alternatively, could they confirm which principles they have disavowed enabling them to take this action and whether they believe all participating states can also renounce these principles.