70th general assembly. Anniversary, seventieth. How decisions are made at the session of the General Assembly

www.sologubovskiy.ru/articles/2219/?clear_cache=Y
So will the US fight against terrorism or not?

The speech of the President of Russia at the UN is discussed by all world media
ISIS did not arise from scratch, it was nurtured as a weapon against objectionable regimes, the Russian President said
*********
We all should not forget the experience of the past. For example, we also remember examples from the history of the Soviet Union. The export of social experiments, attempts to spur changes in certain countries, based on their ideological attitudes, often led to tragic consequences, led not to progress, but to degradation. However, it seems that no one learns from the mistakes of others, but only repeats them, and the export of revolutions, now so-called "democratic", continues.
********
The point is not Russia's ambitions; it is impossible to endure the situation that is taking shape in the world.
*********
Together, we will make the world stable and secure.
*******
They want to put us all before the fact that the rules of the game have been rewritten in the interests of a narrow circle of people
*******
Decisions discussed at the UN platform are agreed in the form of resolutions, or they are not agreed upon. Or, as diplomats say, they pass or they don't pass. And any actions of any states bypassing this order are illegitimate and contradict the UN Charter, modern international law.
********
Aggressive external interference has led to the fact that instead of reforms state institutions, way of life were simply unceremoniously destroyed. Instead of the triumph of democracy and progress, there is violence, poverty, a social catastrophe, and human rights, including the right to life, are not put into anything.
*******
One would like to ask those who created such a situation - do you even understand now what you have done? I'm afraid this question will hang in the air, because the policy, which is based on self-confidence in its exclusivity and impunity, has not been abandoned.
******
We are all different and should be treated with respect. No one is obliged to adapt to one development model, recognized by someone once and for all as the only correct one.
Recall that before Putin, the Presidents of Brazil, the United States, Poland, China and the King of Jordan made speeches at the UN General Assembly. US leader Barack Obama said that the use of sanctions against Moscow is not evidence of the US desire to return to the Cold War. At the same time, Obama stressed that the United States is ready to protect its partners and can use force "unilaterally."
The anniversary assembly began its work on September 16. On its margins, Vladimir Putin is to meet with US President Barack Obama. It is assumed that the main topic of conversation will be the situation in Syria. The parties also planned to discuss the conflict in Ukraine.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtP5IEHhfq8
Vladimir Putin, in his speech at the UN General Assembly, called to account those who created the conflict situation in the Middle East and allowed the spread of terrorism.
"Political, social problems have been brewing in this region for a long time, people there, of course, wanted changes. But what actually happened? Aggressive external interference has led to the fact that instead of reforms, state institutions, and even the very way of life, were simply unceremoniously destroyed. Instead of the triumph of democracy and progress, there is violence, poverty, a social catastrophe, and human rights, including the right to life, are not put into anything, Putin said in a speech broadcast on the Russia 24 channel. those who created this situation: do you even understand now what you have done?"
The President of Russia drew attention to the danger of exporting "democratic" revolutions. "The export of revolutions, now so-called democratic ones, continues," Putin said. He clarified that in all countries where this happened, the situation did not progress, but degraded.
www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=2669282&cid=5
It is no longer possible to tolerate the situation that is taking shape in the world. This was stated by Russian President Vladimir Putin during his speech at the UN General Assembly. This applies both to the situation in the Middle East and the crisis in Ukraine. According to him, the coup d'état in Ukraine was provoked from outside. As for Syria, Vladimir Putin called for support for the legitimate government of Bashar al-Assad, as well as support for the governments of Libya and Iraq.
Original article: russian.rt.com/article/119710#ixzz3n3LbIisW

Over the 70 years of its existence, the UN has made a great contribution to the fight against hunger and poverty, epidemics and the consequences of disasters. However, her efforts to prevent regional armed conflicts and maintain peace were not as successful.

The 70th Anniversary Session of the UN General Assembly was the most representative and important international event of 2015. More than 140 heads of states and governments took part in the general political discussion held at the session. Were the results predictable? What will be on the agenda international community in future?

The panellists discussed a range of issues, from security issues to humanitarian cooperation. Many speakers expressed concern about the growing number of global challenges caused by human activities. Uruguayan President Tabare Vazquez has gone so far as to compare the developments in the world today to a lunatic asylum taken over by patients. Much attention has been paid to the program sustainable development until 2030, adopted shortly before the session of the General Assembly to promote the transition to sustainable production and consumption patterns.

However, most attention was paid to the problem of coordination international efforts in the fight against ISIS, which has receded into the background once the main threats - the spread of the deadly Ebola fever and the conflict in Ukraine, which became the subject of discussion at the last session. A task of truly paramount importance in today's international situation is the fight against international terrorism. Spain and Romania even took the initiative to establish a special international tribunal for members of terrorist organizations. But while world leaders were unanimous that Syria and Iraq needed to be cleared of terrorist groups, they failed to reach an understanding on how to accomplish this goal. In fact, two anti-terrorist groups have begun to take shape, one of which includes the United States, France, Turkey and Qatar, and the other includes Russia and Iran.

It turns out that the disagreements between states are rooted in the inability to determine the source of the terrorist threat, as well as ways to eliminate it and restore statehood. For example, the emir of Qatar said that the spread of terrorism in Syria is a response to the brutal suppression of popular discontent. Thus, he seemed to hint that Bashar al-Assad is responsible for the current difficult situation in the country, who, therefore, should no longer remain in power. A similar position was taken by French President Francois Hollande, who accused Assad of using barrel bombs against civilian population Syria and called into question the position of the current President of Syria on the post-war settlement. US President Barack Obama and Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu also supported the idea that a return to the pre-war status quo between the Syrian government and the opposition is no longer possible. The leaders of Russia and Iran issued opposite statements, emphasizing the need to provide assistance to the current Syrian authorities. In their opinion, rampant terrorism is the result of external armed interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign country, as was the case with the American invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. While such temporary alliances have great potential, without joining forces, it will be extremely difficult for them to defeat ISIS and establish lasting peace in Syria and Iraq.

Another topic that sparked heated debate at the session of the General Assembly was the compromise on the Iranian nuclear program. The deal was approved and supported by the overwhelming majority of countries, whose representatives called the conclusion of the relevant agreement proof of the effectiveness of diplomacy. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's eloquent and impassioned speech, which characterized the deal with Iran as a mistake that was destined to have the most dire consequences, sounded dissonant. The Israeli leader urged the international community not to work towards a gradual easing of economic and trade sanctions against Tehran, but, on the contrary, to continue to put pressure on Iran until it fully fulfills its obligations to the IAEA and start lifting sanctions no sooner than this happens. It is expected, however, that the parties will continue to implement the Iran-5+1 nuclear agreement, despite its condemnation by Israel, which in this case will act as a partisan observer.

Question economic sanctions very often raised by world leaders whose countries have had or still have to undergo restrictive measures. For example, GA participants welcomed the US decision to ease trade and economic restrictions against Cuba and restore diplomatic relations with it. However, both Washington and Havana interpreted the first step to lift the sanctions and the compromises they reached in their favor. Since the end of World War II, sanctions have become an increasingly common means of enforcing foreign policy, which is an alternative to military conflicts and hybrid wars. Today, various kinds of economic restrictions operate against countries such as Iran, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Cuba, Sudan, Russia and Belarus. Speaking at the General Assembly, representatives of these countries called them illegal and unfounded. Presidents Putin and Lukashenko tried to oppose the concept of sanctions with the idea of ​​"integration of integrations", which consists in the harmonization of regional economic projects. However, this idea failed to gain support in the General Assembly.

What do countries like Switzerland, Norway, India, Pakistan and Sierra Leone have in common? At the General Assembly, their representatives, as well as representatives of several other countries, called for a profound reform of the UN Security Council. In essence, the main topics of this session were the future of the UN and its ability to respond to the challenges of our time. There is no doubt that over the 70 years of its existence, the UN has made a great contribution to the fight against hunger and poverty, epidemics and the consequences of disasters. However, her efforts to prevent regional armed conflicts and maintain peace were not as successful. Whenever one of the permanent members of the UN Security Council was involved in a conflict in one way or another, the activity of this body was paralyzed. The Assembly was very pleased with France's proposal to limit the right of veto in the Security Council when issues such as a threat to the peace or the fact of crimes are brought up for discussion. In addition, the representative of France called for an increase in the number of permanent members. Such a reform of the UN would make its decision-making mechanism more flexible. It would also mean her complete withdrawal from the Yalta-Potsdam system international relations, the last pillars of which are precisely the right of veto and the invariance of the composition of the UN Security Council. The reform of the Security Council has already begun, and there is no doubt that by the next anniversary, the UN Security Council will look completely different.

According to the Charter of the United Nations, the UN General Assembly has the following functions and powers:

• consider general principles cooperation in maintaining international peace and security, including in matters of disarmament, and make appropriate recommendations;
• to discuss any questions relating to the maintenance of international peace and security and make recommendations on such matters, except when any dispute or situation is under the consideration of the Security Council;
• organize studies and prepare recommendations to promote international political cooperation, development and codification international law, the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms and the promotion international cooperation in the economic, social and humanitarian fields and in the field of culture, education and health;
• to recommend measures for the peaceful settlement of any situation which might disturb the friendly relations between nations;
• receive and consider reports from the Security Council and other UN bodies;
• consider and approve the budget of the United Nations and fix the amount of assessed contributions from Member States;
• elect non-permanent members of the Security Council and members of other councils and bodies of the United Nations and, on the recommendation of the Security Council, appoint the Secretary-General.

How are the sessions of the General Assembly going?

The planned session of the UN General Assembly begins with a general debate, at which the member states of the organization have the opportunity to express their views on the most important international issues.

After the completion of the general debate, the General Assembly begins consideration of the main items on its agenda. Since their number is very large (for example, the agenda of the fifty-ninth session included 163 items), the General Assembly distributes agenda items, depending on their subject matter, among its six main committees, which discuss them and then submit them to the General Assembly for consideration at one of the plenary meetings draft resolutions and decisions.

The six main committees of the General Assembly include:

• Disarmament Committee and international security(First Committee): deals with disarmament and related international security matters.
• Committee on Economic and Financial Affairs (Second Committee): deals with economic matters.
• Committee on Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Affairs (Third Committee): deals with problems of a social and humanitarian nature.
• Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee): deals with a variety of political issues outside the scope of the First Committee, as well as decolonization issues.
• Administration and Budget Committee (Fifth Committee): deals with the administration and budget of the United Nations.
• Legal Affairs Committee (Sixth Committee): deals with international legal matters.

How are decisions made at the session of the General Assembly?

Each member state has one vote at a session in the General Assembly. Solutions for individual important issues such as recommendations on peace and security and the election of members of the Security Council are adopted by a two-thirds majority of Member States; decisions on other issues are taken by a simple majority of votes.

Composition and functions of the General Committee of the General Assembly

The General Committee consists of the President, 21 Vice-Presidents of the Assembly and the Chairmen of the six Main Committees. The Committee makes recommendations to the Assembly regarding the adoption of the agenda, the allocation of agenda items and the organization of work.

According to the resolution of the General Assembly "Unity for Peace" of November 3, 1950, in the event that there is reason to perceive a threat to the peace, a violation of the peace or an act of aggression, and the Security Council is unable to act due to a vote against one of the permanent members , the General Assembly may take appropriate action. Also, the General Assembly may immediately consider this issue in order to make the necessary recommendations to the members of the Organization on collective measures to maintain or restore international peace and security.

20:08 - REGNUM V. Putin: Dear Mr. Chairman! Dear Mr. General Secretary! Dear heads of state and government! Ladies and Gentlemen!

The 70th anniversary of the United Nations is a good occasion to turn to history and talk about our common future. In 1945, the countries that defeated Nazism joined forces to lay a solid foundation for the post-war world order.

Let me remind you that key decisions on the principles of interaction between states, decisions on the creation of the UN were made in our country at the Yalta meeting of the leaders of the anti-Hitler coalition. The Yalta system was really gained through suffering, paid for with the lives of tens of millions of people, two world wars that swept the planet in the 20th century, and, let's be objective, it helped humanity go through the turbulent, sometimes dramatic events of the last seven decades, saved the world from large-scale upheavals.

The United Nations is a structure that has no equal in terms of legitimacy, representativeness and universality. Yes, the UN is heard in Lately a lot of criticism. Allegedly, it demonstrates insufficient effectiveness, and the adoption of fundamental decisions rests on insurmountable contradictions, primarily between the members of the Security Council.

However, I want to note that there have always been disagreements in the UN, throughout the entire 70 years of the existence of the organization. And the right of veto has always been used: it was used by the United States of America, and Great Britain, and France, and China, and Soviet Union and later Russia. This is quite natural for such a diverse and representative organization. When the UN was founded, it was not supposed that unanimity would reign here. The essence of the organization, in fact, lies in the search and development of compromises, and its strength lies in accounting different opinions and points of view.

The decisions discussed at the UN platform are agreed in the form of resolutions or are not agreed upon, as diplomats say: they pass or they do not pass. And any actions of any states in circumvention of this order are illegitimate and contradict the Charter of the United Nations, modern international law.

We all know that after graduation cold war”- everyone knows this - a single center of domination has arisen in the world. And then those who were at the top of this pyramid were tempted to think that if they are so strong and exceptional, then they know best what to do. And consequently, there is no need to reckon with the UN, which often, instead of automatically sanctioning, legitimizing the necessary decision, only interferes, as we say, “gets underfoot”. There was talk that the Organization, in the form in which it was created, was outdated and had fulfilled its historic mission.

Of course, the world is changing, and the UN has to match this natural transformation. Russia, on the basis of a broad consensus, is ready for this work on further development The UN with all partners, but we consider attempts to undermine the authority and legitimacy of the UN to be extremely dangerous. This could lead to the collapse of the entire architecture of international relations. Then we really will not have any rules, except for the right of the strong.

It will be a world in which selfishness will prevail instead of collective work, a world in which there will be more dictate and less equality, less real democracy and freedom, a world in which, instead of truly independent states the number of actual protectorates administered from outside the territories will multiply. After all, what is state sovereignty, which colleagues have already spoken about here? This is, first of all, a question of freedom, free choice of one's own destiny for every person, for the people, for the state.

By the way, dear colleagues, the question of the so-called legitimacy of state power is in the same line. You can not play and manipulate words. In international law, in international affairs, each term must be clear, transparent, must have a uniform understanding and uniformly understood criteria. We are all different and should be treated with respect. No one is obliged to adapt to one model of development, recognized by someone once and for all as the only correct one.

We all should not forget the experience of the past. For example, we also remember examples from the history of the Soviet Union. The export of social experiments, attempts to spur changes in certain countries, based on their ideological attitudes, often led to tragic consequences, led not to progress, but to degradation. However, it seems that no one learns from the mistakes of others, but only repeats them. And the export of the now so-called "democratic" revolutions continues.

It is enough to look at the situation in the Middle East and in North Africa what the previous speaker was talking about. Of course, political and social problems in this region have been brewing for a long time, and people there, of course, wanted changes. But what actually happened? Aggressive external interference has led to the fact that instead of reforms, state institutions, and even the very way of life, were simply unceremoniously destroyed. Instead of the triumph of democracy and progress, there is violence, poverty, a social catastrophe, and human rights, including the right to life, are not put into anything.

I just want to ask those who created this situation: “Do you even understand now what you have done?” But I'm afraid this question will hang in the air, because the policy, which is based on self-confidence, conviction in one's exclusivity and impunity, has not been abandoned.

It is already obvious that the vacuum of power that arose in a number of countries in the Middle East and North Africa led to the formation of zones of anarchy, which immediately began to be filled with extremists and terrorists. Tens of thousands of militants are already fighting under the banner of the so-called Islamic State. Among them are former Iraqi soldiers who were thrown into the streets as a result of the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Libya is also a supplier of recruits, whose statehood was destroyed as a result of a gross violation of Resolution No. 1973 of the UN Security Council. And now members of the so-called moderate Syrian opposition supported by the West are also joining the ranks of the radicals.

They are first armed, trained, and then they go over to the side of the so-called Islamic State. And the "Islamic State" itself did not arise from scratch: it was also initially nurtured as a weapon against objectionable secular regimes. Having created a foothold in Syria and Iraq, the Islamic State is actively expanding its expansion to other regions, aiming at dominance in the Islamic world and not only there. Only these plans are clearly not limited. The situation is more than dangerous.

In such a situation, it is hypocritical and irresponsible to make loud declarations about the threat of international terrorism and at the same time turn a blind eye to the channels of financing and support of terrorists, including through the drug business, illegal trade in oil, weapons, or try to manipulate extremist groups, put them on your own. service to achieve their own political goals in the hope of somehow dealing with them later, or, simply speaking, liquidating them.

To those who really act like this and think like that, I would like to say: dear sirs, you are, of course, dealing with very cruel people, but not at all with the stupid and not with the primitive, they are not more stupid than you, and it is still unknown who uses whom for their own purposes. And the latest data on the transfer of weapons of this most moderate opposition to terrorists - the best of that confirmation.

We consider any attempts to flirt with terrorists, and even more so to arm them, not just short-sighted, but flammable. As a result, the global terrorist threat may critically increase and cover new regions of the planet. Moreover, in the camps of the "Islamic State" militants from many countries, including European ones, are "running in".

Unfortunately, I must say this frankly, dear colleagues, and Russia is no exception here. These thugs, who have already smelled blood, cannot be allowed to return to their home and continue their dirty work there. We don't want this. After all, nobody wants that, right? Russia has always firmly and consistently opposed terrorism in all its forms.

Today we are providing military-technical assistance to both Iraq and Syria, other countries in the region that are fighting terrorist groups. We consider it a huge mistake to refuse to cooperate with the Syrian authorities, the government army, with those who courageously fight terror face to face. We must finally admit that apart from the government forces of President Assad, as well as the Kurdish militia in Syria, no one is really fighting the Islamic State and other terrorist organizations. We know all the problems of the region, all the contradictions, but we still need to proceed from the realities.

Dear Colleagues! I have to say that lately our honest and direct approach has been used as a pretext to accuse Russia of growing ambitions. As if those who talk about it have no ambition at all. But the point is not in Russia's ambitions, dear colleagues, but in the fact that it is no longer possible to tolerate the situation that is taking shape in the world.

In reality, we propose to be guided not by ambition, but by common values ​​and common interests on the basis of international law, to unite efforts to solve the new problems facing us and create a truly broad international anti-terrorist coalition. Like anti-Hitler coalition, it could rally in its ranks the most different forces, ready to resolutely oppose those who, like the Nazis, sow evil and misanthropy.

And, of course, Muslim countries should become key participants in such a coalition. After all, the Islamic State not only poses a direct threat to them, but with its bloody crimes desecrates the greatest world religion- Islam. The militants' ideologues mock Islam and distort its true humanistic values.

I would like to address the Muslim spiritual leaders: both your authority and your mentoring word are very important now. It is necessary to protect the people whom the militants are trying to recruit from rash steps, and those who were deceived and, due to various circumstances, ended up in the ranks of terrorists, need to be helped to find their way to normal life lay down their arms, end the fratricidal war.

In the coming days, Russia, as chairman of the Security Council, is convening a ministerial meeting for a comprehensive analysis of threats in the Middle East. First of all, we propose to discuss the possibility of agreeing on a resolution on coordinating the actions of all forces that oppose the Islamic State and other terrorist groups. I repeat, such coordination should be based on the principles of the UN Charter.

We hope that the international community will be able to work out a comprehensive strategy for the political stabilization and socio-economic recovery of the Middle East. Then, dear friends, there will be no need to build refugee camps either. The flow of people forced to leave native land, literally overwhelmed at first neighboring countries and then Europe. Here the bill goes to hundreds of thousands, and can go to millions of people. This is, in fact, a new great bitter migration of peoples and a hard lesson for all of us, including Europe.

I would like to emphasize that refugees certainly need compassion and support. However, this problem can be fundamentally solved only by restoring statehood where it was destroyed, by strengthening the institutions of power where they are still preserved or being recreated, by providing comprehensive assistance - military, economic, material - to countries in a difficult situation and, of course, those people who, despite all the trials, do not leave their native places.

Of course any help sovereign states can and should not be imposed, but offered and exclusively in accordance with the UN Charter. Everything that is being done and will be done in this area in accordance with the norms of international law must be supported by our Organization, and everything that is contrary to the UN Charter must be rejected.

First of all, I consider it extremely important to help restore state structures in Libya, support the new government of Iraq, and provide comprehensive assistance to the legitimate government of Syria.

Dear Colleagues, key task the international community led by the UN remains to ensure peace, regional and global stability. In our opinion, we should talk about creating a space of equal and indivisible security, security not for the elite, but for everyone. Yes, it is difficult, difficult, long work, but there is no alternative to it.

However, the bloc thinking of the Cold War era and the desire to develop new geopolitical spaces still, unfortunately, dominate among some of our colleagues. First, the line on NATO expansion was continued. The question is: why, if the Warsaw bloc ceased to exist, did the Soviet Union collapse? And yet, NATO not only remains, it is also expanding, just like its military infrastructure.

Then they put the post-Soviet countries before a false choice - to be with the West or with the East? Sooner or later, this confrontational logic was bound to turn into a serious geopolitical crisis. This is what happened in Ukraine, where they used the dissatisfaction of a significant part of the population with the current government and provoked an armed coup from the outside. As a result, a civil war broke out.

We are convinced that stopping the bloodshed and finding a way out of the impasse is possible only with the full conscientious implementation of the Minsk agreements of February 12 this year. Threats and force of arms cannot ensure the integrity of Ukraine. And you need to do it. We need a real consideration of the interests and rights of people in the Donbass, respect for their choice, coordination with them, as provided for by the Minsk agreements, the key elements of the political structure of the state. This is the guarantee that Ukraine will develop as a civilized state, as the most important link in the construction of a common security space and economic cooperation both in Europe and Eurasia.

Ladies and gentlemen, it was not by chance that I just spoke about the common space for economic cooperation. Until recently, it seemed that in an economy where objective market laws operate, we will learn to do without dividing lines, we will act on the basis of transparent, jointly developed rules, including the principles of the WTO, which imply freedom of trade, investment, and open competition. Today, however, unilateral sanctions in circumvention of the UN Charter have become almost the norm. They not only serve political purposes, but also serve as a way to eliminate competitors in the market.

I will note one more symptom of growing economic selfishness. A number of countries have taken the path of closed exclusive economic associations, and negotiations on their creation are behind the scenes, in secret and from their own citizens, from their own business circles, the public, and from other countries. Other states whose interests may be affected are also not informed about anything. Probably, they want to put all of us before the fact that the rules of the game have been rewritten, and rewritten again for the sake of a narrow circle of the elite, and without the participation of the WTO. This is fraught with a complete imbalance of the trading system, fragmentation of the global economic space.

The identified problems affect the interests of all states, affect the prospects for the entire world economy, so we propose to discuss them in the format of the UN, the WTO and the G20. In contrast to the policy of exclusivity, Russia proposes the harmonization of regional economic projects, the so-called integration of integrations, based on the universal transparent principles of international trade. As an example, I will cite our plans for conjugation of the Eurasian economic union with China's Economic Belt Initiative silk road. And still great prospects we see it in the harmonization of integration processes within the framework of the Eurasian Economic Union and the European Union.

Ladies and gentlemen, among the problems that affect the future of all mankind is the challenge of global climate change. We are interested in the results of the UN climate conference to be held in December in Paris.

As part of our national contribution, by 2030 we plan to limit greenhouse gas emissions to 70-75 percent of the 1990 level.

However, I propose to look at this problem more broadly. Yes, by setting quotas for harmful emissions and using tactical measures of a different nature, we may, for some time, alleviate the severity of the problem, but, of course, we will not fundamentally solve it. We need qualitatively different approaches. We should talk about the introduction of fundamentally new nature-like technologies that do not cause damage to the surrounding world, but exist in harmony with it and will allow restoring the balance between the biosphere and the technosphere that has been disturbed by man. This is truly a global challenge. I am convinced that humanity has the intellectual potential to answer it.

We propose to convene a special forum under the auspices of the UN to take a comprehensive look at the problems associated with the exhaustion of natural resources, habitat destruction, climate change.

We need to unite the efforts and, above all, those states that have a powerful research base, the backlog of fundamental science. We propose to convene a special forum under the auspices of the UN to take a comprehensive look at the problems associated with the depletion of natural resources, habitat destruction, and climate change. Russia is ready to act as one of the organizers of such a forum.

Ladies and gentlemen, colleagues, On January 10, 1946, the first session of the UN General Assembly began its work in London. Opening it, the chairman of the preparatory commission for the session, Colombian diplomat Zuleta Angel, in my opinion, very succinctly formulated the principles on which the UN should build its activities. This is good will, contempt for intrigue and cunning, a spirit of cooperation.

Today these words sound like parting words to all of us. Russia believes in the enormous potential of the UN, which should help to avoid a new global confrontation and move towards a strategy of cooperation. Together with other countries, we will consistently work to strengthen the UN's central coordinating role.

I am convinced that, acting together, we will make the world stable and secure and provide conditions for the development of all states and peoples.

Thank you for your attention.

The 70th session of the UN General Assembly is taking place in New York. On Monday, within the framework of the session of the General Assembly, a general political discussion will start. More than 150 heads of state and government, as well as foreign ministers and heads of delegations will address its participants.

Russian President Vladimir Putin decided to take part in the meeting of the General Assembly. Before that, Putin spoke at three sessions of the General Assembly - in 2000, after he became president, in 2003 and 2005. In 2009, President Dmitry Medvedev spoke at the session.

Moscow and Washington agreed to hold a meeting between Putin and US President Barack Obama on the sidelines of the General Assembly session on September 28.

New ones first

New ones first

From old to new

Hollande suggested that members of the Security Council not use the right of veto in the event of a mass death of people. A veto is not the right to block, but the right to act, the French President believes.

Hollande proposed a coalition that would allow the formation of a new government that would lead Syria into a future without a dictatorship.

Turning to the topic of the Middle East, Hollande said that the situation in Syria "requires intervention." He agreed with the need to find a joint solution, but recalled that the tragedy began with a revolution that wanted to overthrow a dictatorship that was killing its own people. “Three years ago there was no talk of terrorists,” Hollande said. According to him, many Syrians fled the country not from the war and terrorists, but from the "Assad regime." The French president stressed that the tragedy arose "because of the alliance of terrorists and the dictatorship."

Hollande believes that in order to move to a new energy policy developed countries$100 billion needs to be allocated.

French President Francois Hollande began his speech with the fear that the planet will face problems if no agreement is reached on climate change.

Russian President Vladimir Putin met on the sidelines of the UN with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. In a conversation with him, the head of state expressed hope for reaching agreements on combating terrorism. At the same time, Putin stressed that without strengthening state structures in the states of the region, including in Syria, the task of combating terrorism cannot be solved.

Terrorism arises in the shadow of tyranny, fueled by hatred after being tortured in prisons. We reaffirm our readiness to fight terrorism, but we need to understand its causes, the leader of Qatar believes.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, after speaking at a session of the UN General Assembly, briefly talked “on his feet” with Tajik President Emomali Rahmon, TASS reports. After the speech, Putin left the meeting room, where several dozen people were waiting for him for a traditional greeting. Leaving the hall, the President of Russia saw Rahmon among those who met him and approached him, after which the two presidents exchanged a few phrases.

Iraq, Syria, Yemen are examples of crises fueled by extremism and international indifference, Rouhani said. The roots of today's wars are military interventions and invasions.
“It is necessary that the actions of the United States take into account the realities of the region,” the Iranian president concluded.

“If not for the US military intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq” and their support for the Zionist regime, the terrorists would not be able to justify their crimes, Rouhani added.

The President of Iran noted the dangers posed by terrorist organizations in the Middle East and North Africa. According to him, these organizations "may turn into terrorist states."

“We believe that in order to fight terrorists, it is necessary to adopt a legally binding international document so that no country can use terrorism as a pretext to interfere in the affairs of other states,” the Iranian leader said, adding that Tehran supports the establishment of democracy in Syria and Yemen.

“We support the establishment of power through elections, not through weapons,” Rouhani said. He called for a united front to fight extremism and violence.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani (Photo: webtv.un.org)

Putin proposed returning to the basic principles of the UN, announced at the first session of the General Assembly in January 1946 in London: good will, contempt for intrigues and a spirit of cooperation.

Unilateral sanctions "bypassing the UN" pursue political goals and, in addition, allow to eliminate economic competitors, believes Russian leader. In return, he proposes to speed up integration processes, citing Russia's cooperation with China as an example.

In addition, he noted, a number of countries have taken the path of closed exclusive economic associations, and negotiations on their creation are being conducted behind the scenes. “Probably, they want to put all of us before the fact that the rules of the game can be replayed, and without the participation of the WTO. This affects the interests of all states,” warns the President of Russia, offering to discuss this issue with the participation of the UN and the WTO.

Meanwhile, Ukraine's Permanent Representative to the UN Yuriy Sergeev