Return to Transcripts main page

Legal View with Ashleigh Banfield

Putin Addresses United Nations. Aired 12-12:30p ET

Aired September 28, 2015 - 12:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[12:00:00] CHAD MYERS, AMS METEOROLOGIST: Of darker land across the martian atmosphere and the martian land for a long, long time. Now they believe that there is fresh water under the surface or maybe in the atmosphere that is getting in with salt, not a flowing stream, unfortunately, but getting in with salts and dampening those salts and making them darker. We'll know more in a couple hours.

Guys, back to you.

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: Exactly right, changing the world and universe as we know it. Chad, thank you.

And thanks to all of you for joining us "AT THIS HOUR."

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: LEGAL VIEW with Ashleigh Banfield starts now.

ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone. I'm Ashleigh Banfield. Welcome to the program.

The presidents of Russia and Iran and the United States don't have an awful lot in common, and rarely do they turn up in the same place on the same day, but this is that day, and the United Nations is that place. Most of the leaders of the U.N.'s 193 member states are in Manhattan for the 70th session of the U.N. General Assembly. And much of their attention centers on a leader who is not there, Bashar al Assad of Syria.

President Obama addressed the assembly this morning and laid bare the challenge for a world body devoted to democracy, and that is taking care of terror, whatever it takes. Russian President Vladimir Putin is due to speak shortly and soon thereafter, Iran President Hassan Rouhani. And while we wait, I want to bring in my colleagues, senior U.N. correspondent Richard Roth, global affairs correspondent Elise Labott and chief national correspondent - national security correspondent Jim Sciutto.

Before I talk to the three of you, let's tune in to the live mics where Russian President Vladimir Putin is addressing the assembly.

VLADIMIR PUTIN, RUSSIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): Distinguished heads of state and government, ladies and gentlemen, the 70th anniversary of the United Nations is a good occasion to both take stock of history and talk about our common future. In 1945, the countries that defeated Nazism joined their efforts to lay solid foundation the post-world order. Let me remind you that the key decisions on the principles guiding the cooperation among states, as well as on the establishment of the United Nations, were made in our country in Yalta at the meeting of the anti-Hitler coalition leaders. The Yalta system was actually borne in Traviel (ph). It was born at the cost of tens of millions of lives and two world wars. This swept through the planet in the 20th century. Let us be fair, it helped the humanity through turbulent, at times dramatic events of the last seven decade. It saved the world from large scale upheavals.

The United Nations is unique in its legitimacy, representation, and universality. It is true that lately the U.N. has been widely criticized for supposedly not being efficient enough and for the fact that the decision-making on fundamental issues (INAUDIBLE) due to insurmountable differences first of all among the members of the Security Council. However, I would like to point out that there have always been differences in the U.N. throughout all these 70 years of resistance. The veto (ph) right has always been exercised by the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China, the Soviet Union, and Russia later alike. It is absolutely natural for (ph) so diverse and representative at (ph) organization.

When the U.N. was established, its founders did not in the least think that there would always be unanimity. The mission of the organization is to seek and reach compromises and its strength comes from taking different views and opinions into consideration. That decisions debated within the U.N. are either taken as resolutions are not. As diplomats (ph) say they either pass (ph) or to not pass (ph). Whatever actions any state might take by passing this procedure are illegitimate. They run counter to the U.N. charter and defy international law. We all know that after the end of the cold war, everyone is aware of that, a single center of domination emerged in the world and then those who found themselves at the top of the pyramid were tempted to think that if they were so strong and exceptional they knew better and they did not have to recon with the U.N. Which instead of automatal (ph), authorize and legitimatize the necessary decisions, often creates obstacles or, in other worlds, stands in the way.

[12:05:28] It has now become common place to say that it - it is in its original form has become obsolete and completed its historical mission. Of course, the world is changing and the U.N. must be consistent with this natural transformation.

Russia stands ready to work together with its partners on the basis of full consensus. But we consider the attempts to undermine the legitimacy of the United Nations as extremely dangerous. They could lead to the collapse of the entire architecture of international relations and then ended there would be no other rules left, but the rule of force. We would get a world dominated by selfishness rather than collective work, a world increasingly characterized by dictate rather than equality. There would be less of chain and democracy and freedom, and there would be a world where true independent states would be replaced by an ever growing number of defacto protectories (ph) and externally controlled territories. What does this state (ph) sovereign after all that has been mentioned by our colleagues here? It is basically about freedom and the right to choose freely one's own future for every person, nation or state. By the way, dear colleagues, the same holds true of the question of

the so-called legitimacy of state authority. One should not play with or manipulate words. Every term in international law, and international affairs should be clear, transparent and have uniformly understood criteria. We are all different, and we should respect that. No one has to conform to a single development mortal that someone has once and for all recognized as the only right one. We should all remember what our past has taught us. We all should remember to be observers (ph) from the history of the Soviet Union. Social experiments of export, attempts to push for changes within other countries based on ideological preferences often led to tragic consequence and to degradation rather than progress.

It's sense, however, that far from learning from other's mistakes, everyone just keeps repeating them. And so the export of revolutions (ph), this time of so-called democratic ones, continues. It was suffice to look at the situation in the Middle East and North Africa, as has been mentioned by my previous speaker, certainly political, and social problems in this region have been piling up for a long time and people there wished for changes naturally. But how did it actually turn out? Rather than bringing about reforms an aggressive foreign (ph) interference has resulted in a brazen destruction of national institutions and the lifestyle itself. Instead of the triumph of democracy and progress, we got violence, poverty and social disaster. Nobody cares a bit about human rights, including the right to life.

I cannot help asking those who have caused this situation, do you realize now what you have done? But I am afraid no one is going to answer that. Indeed, policies based on self-conceit and belief in one's exceptionality and impunity have never been abandoned. It is now obvious that the power vacuum created in some countries of the Middle East and North Africa look to the emergence of anarchy areas which the middle is started to be filled with extremists and terrorists.

Tens of thousands of militants are fighting under the banners of the so-called Islamic State. It's ranks include former Iraqi servicemen who were thrown out into the streets after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Many recruits also come from Libya, a country whose statehood was destroyed as a result of a cross violation of the U.N. Security Council Resolution, 1973, and now the ranks of radicals have been joined by the members of the so-called moderum (ph) Syria (ph) opposition supported by the western countries. First, they are armed and trained and then they defect to the so-called Islamic State.

[12:10:16] Besides the Islamic State itself did not just come from nowhere. It was also initially forged as a tool against undesirable, secular regions. Having established a foothold in Iraq and Syria, the Islamic State has become actively expanding to other regions. It is seeing dominance in the Islamic world. And not only there, and it's plans go further than that. The situation is more than dangerous. In these circumstances, it is hypercritical and irresponsible to make loud (ph) declarations about the threat of international terrorism, while turning a blind eye to the channels of financing and supporting terrorists, including the process of truck trafficking and illicit trades in oil and arms. It would be equally irresponsible to try to manipulate extremist groups and place them at one's service in order to achieve one's own political goals in the hope of later dealing with them or, in other words, liquidating them.

To those who do so, I would like to say, dear sirs, no doubt, you are dealing with rough and cruel people, but they are no way primitive or silly. They are just as clever as you are and you never know who is manipulating whom. The recent data of arms transferred to this most moderate opposition is the best proof of it.

We believe that any attempts to play games with terrorists, let alone to arm them, are not just shortsighted but fire hazards (ph). This may result in the global terrorist threat increasing dramatically and engulfing new regions, especially given that Islamic State camps train militants from many countries, including the European countries. Unfortunately, dear colleagues, I have to put it frankly, Russia is not an exception. We cannot allow these criminals who already tasted blood to return back home and continue their evil doings. No one wants this to happen, does he?

Russia has always been consistently fighting these terrorism in all its forms. To date we provide military and technical assistance, both to Iraq and Syria and many other countries of the region are fighting terrorist group. We think it is an enormous mistake to refuse to cooperate with the Syrian government and its armed forces who are valiantly fighting terrorism face-to-face. We should finally acknowledge that no one but President Assad's armed forces, and Kurds (ph) militia, are truly fighting the Islamic State and other terrorist organizations in Syria. We know about all the turbulence and contradictions in the region but which were based on the reality.

Dear colleagues, I must note that such an honest and frank approach of Russia has been recently used as a pretext to accuse it of its growing ambitions, as if those who are saved (ph) have no ambitions at all. However, it's not about Russia's ambitions, dear colleagues, but about the recognition of the fact that we can no longer tolerate the current state of affairs in the world. What we actually propose is to be guided by common values and common interests rather than ambitions. On the basis of international law, we must join efforts to address the problems that all of us are facing and create a generally broad international coalition against terrorism. Similar to the anti-Hitler coalition, it could unite a broad range of forces that resolutely resist in those who just like the Nazis so evil and hatred of human kind. And naturally the Muslim countries ought to play a key role in the coalition. Even more so because the Islamic State does not only pose a direct threat to them, but also desecrates one of the greatest world religions by its bloody crimes. The ideologists of militants make a mockery of Islament (ph), pervert its true humanistic values.

I would like address Muslims, the ritual leaders as well. Your authority and your guidance are of great importance right now. It is essential to prevent people recruited by militants from making hasty decisions and those who have already been deceived and who, due to various circumstances, found themselves among terrorists who need help in finding a way back to normal life, laying down arms and putting an end to fratricide.

[12:15:16] Russia will shortly convene, as the current president of the Security Council, a ministerial meeting to carry out a comprehensive analysis of threats in the Middle East. First of all, we propose discussing whether it is possible to agree on a resolution aimed at coordinating the actions of all the forces that confront the Islamic State and other terrorist organizations. Once again, this coordination should be based on the principles of the U.N. charter.

We hope that the international community will be able to develop a comprehensive strategy of political civilization, as well as social and economic recovery of the Middle East. Then, dear friends, there would be no need for new refugee camps. Today, the flow of people who were forced to leave their homeland has literally engulfed first neighboring countries and then Europe itself. There were hundreds of thousands of them now and there might be millions before long. In fact, it is a new, great and tragic migration of peoples and it is a harsh lesion for all of us, including Europe.

I would like to stress, refugees undoubtedly need our compassion and support. However, the only way to solve this problem at a fundamental level is to restore the statehood where it has been destroyed, to strengthen the government institutions where they still exist or are being reestablished, to provide comprehensive assistance of military, economic and material nature to countries in a difficult situation and certainly to those people who, despite all the ordeals, will not abandon their homes. Literally, any assistance to sovereign states can and must be offered rather than imposed exclusively and solely in accordance with the U.N. charter. In other words, everything in this deal that is being done or will be done pursuant to the norms of international law must be supported by our organization. Everything that (INAUDIBLE) the U.N. charter must be rejected. Above all, I believe it is of the utmost importance to help restore government institutions in Libya, support the new government of Iraq, and provide comprehensive assistance to the legitimate government of Syria.

Dear colleagues, insuring peace and regional and global stability remains the key objective of the international community with the U.N. at its helm. We believe this means creating a space of equal and indivisible security, which is not for the select few but for everyone, yet it is a challenging, complicated and time consuming tax that there is simply no other alternative. However, they block thinking of the times of the cold war and the desire to (INAUDIBLE) geopolitical areas is still present among some of our colleagues.

First they continued their policy of expanding NATO. What for if the Warsaw (ph) (INAUDIBLE) topped its existence and the Soviet war - Soviet Union had collapsed and nevertheless the NATO continues expand, as well as its military infrastructure, and the offered the poor Soviet countries a false choice, either to be with the west or with the east. Sooner or later this logic of confrontation was bound to spark of a cry - geopolitical crisis. This is - this is exactly what happened in Ukraine where the discontent of population with the current authorities was used and the military coup was orchestrated from outside. They triggered a civil war as a result. They're confident that only through fool (ph) and faithful implementation of the Minsk Agreement of February 12th, 2015, can we put an end to the bloodshed and find a way of out of the deadlock.

Ukraine's territorial integrity cannot be (INAUDIBLE) by threat of force and - force of arms. What is needed to the genuine consideration for the interest and rights of the people of the (INAUDIBLE) region and respect for their choice. The reason need (ph) to coordinate with them as provided for by the Minsk Agreements, the key elements of the country's political structure. These steps will guarantee that Ukraine will develop as a civilized state, as an essential link in building a common space of security and economic cooperation both in Europe and in Eurasia (ph).

Ladies and gentlemen, I have mentioned these common space of economic cooperation on purpose. Not long ago it seemed that in the economic sphere with its objective market laws, we were (INAUDIBLE) without dividing line. We would build on transparent and jointly formulated rules, including the W.T.O. principles stipulating the freedom of trade and investment and open competition. Nevertheless, today, unilateral sanctions circumvent in the U.N. charter have become almost commonplace in addition to pursuing political objects. These sanctions serve as a means of eliminating competitors.

[12:20:18] I would like to point out another sign of a growing economic selfishness. Some countries have chosen to create close and exclusive economic associations with an establishment being negotiated behind the scenes in secret from those countries' own citizens, the general public, business community and from other countries. Other states whose interests may be effected are not informed of anything either. It seems that we are about to be faced with an accomplished fact that the rules of the game have been changed in favor of a narrow group of the privileged with the W.T.O. having no say. This could unbalance the trade system completely and disintegrate the global economic pace. These issues affect the interest of all states and influence the future of the world economy as a whole. That is why we propose discussing them within the U.N. W.T.O. NG20 (ph).

Contrary to the policy of exclusiveness, Russia proposes (INAUDIBLE) and regional economic projects. I refer to the so-called integration of integrations based on universal and transparent rules of international trade. As an example, I would like to sight our plans to interconnect the Eurasian Economic Union and China's initiative of the Silk (ph) road economic belt. We still believe that harmonizing the integration processes within the Eurasian Economic Union and the European Union is highly promising.

Ladies and gentlemen, the issues that affect the future of all people include the challenge of global climate change. It is in our interest to make the U.N. Climate Change Conference to be held in December in Paris a success. As part of our national contribution, we plan to reduce by 2030 the greenhouse gas emissions to 70, 75 percent of the 1990 level. I suggest, however, we should take a wider view on this issue.

Yes, we might defuse the problem for a while by setting quotas on harmful emissions or by taking other measures that are nothing but technical, but we will not solve it that way. We need a completely different approach. We have to focus on introducing fundamental and new technologies inspired by nature, which would not damage the environment but would be in harmony with it. Also that would allow us to restore the balance between the biosphere and (INAUDIBLE) upset by human activities. It is indeed a challenge of planetaries (INAUDIBLE) but I'm confident that humankind has intellectual potential to address it.

We need to join our efforts. I refer first of all to the states that have a solid research basis and that have made significant advances in fundamental science. We've proposed convening a special forum under the U.N. auspices for a comprehensive consideration of the issues related to the depletion of national resources, destruction of habitat and climate change. Russia would be ready to call (INAUDIBLE) such a forum.

Ladies and gentlemen, colleagues, it was on the 10th of January, 1946, in London, that the U.N. General Assembly gathered for its first session. Mr. (INAUDIBLE), a Columbian diplomat and the chairman of the preparatory commission opened the session by giving, I believe, a concized (ph) definition of the basic principles that the U.N. should follow in its activities, which are free will, defiance of (INAUDIBLE) and trickery and spirit of cooperation. Today, his words sound as a guidance for all of us. Russia believes in the huge potential of the United Nations, which should help us avoid a new, global confrontation and engage in strategic cooperation. Together with other countries we will consistently work towards strengthening the central coordinating role of the U.N.

I am confident that by working together, we will make the world stable and safe, as well as provide conditions of the development of all states and nations.

Thank you.

BANFIELD: Russian President Boris Yeltsin wrapping up his remarks. Or, excuse me - boy, I'm hearkening back 20 years. Russian President Putin wrapping up his remarks to the United Nations with the last final comment towards strengthening the central coordination and that role that the U.N. holds.

We're going to take a quick break and come right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:28:38] BANFIELD: A busy week in New York as the United Nations gathers and global leaders take the podium. Just wrapping up, Russian President Vladimir Putin's remarks.

I want to go back out to my colleagues live at the U.N. Senior U.N. correspondent Richard Roth, global affairs correspondent Elise Labott, and chief national security correspondent Jim Sciutto.

Jim, I want to begin with you, if I can. Perhaps not the most riveting address, but make no mistake, there are riveting issues in play. The front page of "The new York Times" talking about this rival coalition that - that Putin has actually put together with Iraq, Iran and Syria in an effort to combat terrorism. Your takeaway from his speech with regard to this news that took the Americans by surprise.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, I'll tell you, Ashleigh, they make pretty unlikely partners in peace, don't they, President Putin and President Obama. Their speeches running nearly back to back here at the U.N. You hear Putin there describing Bashar al Assad as the legitimate government of Syria. He used the word that he is valiantly fighting terrorism. You had Obama, just about an hour before, saying that Assad has slaughtered tens of thousands of his people, dropping barrel bombs on them, using chemical weapons. And yet, Obama later in his speech, said that he is willing to work with anyone, including, and he sighted Iran and Russia, to find a way forward there, and granting that they might accept - that the U.S. might accept a managed transition, in his words, away from Bashar al Assad, as opposed to his immediate removal.

[12:30:08] You have these - you know, diametrically opposed views not only of the situation in Syria but really of the world, whether it's Ukraine situation, or elsewhere, between Putin and Obama.