We have taken note of comments that came
from the US State Department's press service
on bilateral relations and responses to what were,
let's face it,
hostile actions by the US with regard
to diplomatic property and Russian diplomats.
I would like to quote from this statement.
During the course of a briefing the US State Department
explained the reason for the mayhem taking place
on the territory of Russian properties,
including San Francisco and other cities.
"The whole reason why it happened
is that the Russian Government has demanded parity.
They asked many of our staff to vacate our facilities
in Russia,
and we are trying to achieve parity here."
I have a simple question to the US State Department:
from what moment do you count
the response measures as having begun?
We have also taken note that the press service
of the US State Department has repeatedly said
that the only aim the US really seeks
is to establish normal relations with Russia and,
of course normalisation of the whole range
of bilateral ties and contacts.
How does everything that is happening on the territory
of the Russian Federation building,
which used to house the Russian General Consulate
in San Francisco,
contribute to normalising the situation?
Why are people whom we do not know
and whom no one has invited there engaged
in who knows what?
Do they also "contribute to the normalisation
of bilateral relations"?
Who sent them there?
For what purpose?
What are they doing there?
Why do they feel like they can make themselves
at home there?
It is the property of the Russian Federation.
What are US citizens doing there?
This week a good deal has been said about
the searches which,
we understand,
were instigated by the FBI.
Incidentally,
perhaps this is the core of the problem.
Perhaps the US State Department really seeks
normalisation of relations with the Russian Federation
and what we hear at the US State Department briefings
are quite sincere statements.
Perhaps it is the case that the Unite States
simply does not have a single
and comprehensive agenda with regard
to the Russian Federation.
Because from our information and,
as we understand it,
everything that is taking place with regard
to Russian diplomats,
perhaps behind it all are, among others,
members of the American special services
and specifically the FBI.
In effect,
the property
of our diplomatic agency has been raided and seized.
I would like to touch upon the legal
and moral aspect of the issue.
Diplomatic immunity and inviolability
of diplomatic premises are,
of course, the rules of the game,
enshrined in international law,
which enable states,
even at a time of very acute crises,
to be able to interact in a civilised manner.
The key phrase is,
even at the time of the most acute crises,
wars and ruptures in diplomatic relations.
This was the whole point of creating and introducing
the concept of "diplomatic immunity."
But how does one conduct a dialogue
and build relations if the partner violates
the agreements it has recognised as a subject
of international law?
This phrase should also be pondered,
not passed over but looked into more deeply.
The United States felt it could afford
to ignore the Vienna Convention
on Diplomatic Relations of 1961
and the Vienna Convention
on Consular Relations of 1963
two fundamental documents
of diplomatic law.
The United States as the host state is obliged to respect
and protect the consular premises and consular archive
and not try to use these documents
for its own purposes.
Even to just enter the territory
of the General Consulate the US authorities had
to get the consent of the head of the Mission.
The FBI did not bother to do this,
and what's more,
the agents said in so many words that they would force
their way through the entrance door.
What was their aim?
Was it not an attempt of the American special services
to stage an anti-Russian provocation
and perhaps plant compromising materials
in the building and then find them?
Because we haven't the faintest idea
of what they are doing now.
Special equipment and technology have been brought in
some kind of work is going on and, of course,
nobody informs anybody about it.
In September 2012,
Islamist extremists attacked the US Consulate in Libya.
They broke into the building and set it on fire.
This caused the death of four US citizens,
including Ambassador Chris Stevens.
Ten Libyan policemen also died.
At that time, in 2012,
US President Obama described the illegal intrusion
into the territory of the country's Consulate
as a violation of the very ideals
on which the UN was founded in its time.
Why is it that today
it is not representatives
of rebels, revolutionaries
or some mercenaries,
but the representatives
of the US law-enforcement bodies that are violating
the same international legal norms
as were violated by the Libyan militants?
When did the US establishment cross that
"red line" not only from the legal,
but also moral point of view?
Perhaps when it first blocked the condemnation
by the UN Security Council
of another in a series of mortar attacks
on the Russian diplomatic mission
in Damascus or perhaps when
out Embassy in Kiev was attacked?
Perhaps these are links in the same chain?
When no measures of political protection through
the reaction of states and international organisations
were taken with regard to Russian diplomatic property
and the facilities covered by diplomatic immunity?
At the time all this was blocked.
Earlier we said that the blocking was done
by Western colleagues,
today we say openly that the US was behind it.
Some Western media say that Russia and the US
are exchanging tough diplomatic measures
on a tit-for-tat basis.
It is important to remember who kicked off this string
of events.
It was not Russia but the United States.
Commenting on the forcible closure
of Russian diplomatic institutions,
the press service of the US State Department
declared that these are "symmetrical actions
in response to the cut of the American mission
in the Russian Federation."
True, the US State Department press service chose
to ignore the fact that it was the US that initially expelled
35 Russian diplomats from the country
and deprived our country of two facilities
that were under diplomatic immunity.
Still earlier, in 2016,
the US State Department cancelled the accreditation
of five of our honorary consuls in various states.
You forgot?
It never happened?
Yes, it did happen.
I am a hundred per cent sure that those who work today
at the US State Department have
no idea what happened a year ago.
I am sure no one knows about the honorary consuls.
But I would like to remind you that their accreditation
was cancelled by the US.
And yet at the time Russia refrained
from retaliatory measures – talking about parity
which the US State Department press service
is playing up.
It was only a new round of sanctions
and Washington's decision to refer Russia
to the world "axis of evil" that prompted
the Russian side to revise the size
of the American diplomatic mission in the country.
And again, speaking about parity,
I would like to remind you that the Permanent Mission
of the Russian Federation to the UN is functioning
on the US territory.
How about parity?
They didn't count it either?
A new tonality of relations is being imposed on us,
this is being done now, practically every day –
going backwards, rejecting cooperation,
including at the level of contacts between our peoples.
The search incident is not the first instance
when the US crudely violated international law.
Such behaviour does not behoove
a subject of international law,
a permanent member of the UN Security Council,
which was among the founders of the modern system
of international relations.
Unfortunately,
it threatens to become not just a precedent,
but a new American tradition.
We believe that in this way the United States
is not only destabilising the Russian-American relations,
but the whole of global international order.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét