Convened at the initiative of Russia informal (for so-called Arria formula), the meeting of the UN security Council has indirectly assured That not all of the allegations of the West to our address are slander and literally so baseless slander. The most direct problem was formulated by the UK's permanent representative to the UN Karen pierce, caught Moscow of trying " to discredit respected the OPCW and its staff ". Russia really consistently "digs" under the organization for the prohibition of weapons of mass destruction - or Rather, an official report of the OPCW on the outcome of the investigation "himataki" in the Syrian city of Duma on 7 April 2018. This naturally entails the undermining of the credibility of the organization itself. at the meeting of Moscow presented a fresh and reminded previous evidence That released on March 1 last year, the document is "very murky" (in the words of Russia's permanent representative to the OPCW by Alexander Shulgin). The report contains numerous inconsistencies, contradictions and manipulation, which transparently looming, the desire of Western countries to accuse the Syrian government and in person of Bashar al-Assad to use weapons of mass destruction. However, this situation is not only a Problem of a specific document, But much broader - literally global - aspect. In the current confrontation around the OPCW reflects the essence of the contradictions between Russia and the West on the issue of the world political system and its further development. Dissatisfaction with the British Ambassador is being built on a simple and understandable logic. The OPCW is one of the most important institutions, standing guard over the security of the world. Russia's attack on the Organization undermines its credibility - and, therefore, has stability in General. Here's how bad Russia is. The only problem is That this logic contains a fundamental flaw. The OPCW was created in 1997 at the peak of the hegemony of the US and the West in General. This resulted in certain consequences - Namely, the supervision of Western countries over the organization in General on the Technical Secretariat of its key structure, for example. in the end, from time to time situations are formed when there are doubts about the extent to which the OPCW impartially perform their functions, And to what serves the desires of the dominant in a country, if those will Vsplyvaet such a need. explaining the situation surrounding the report " chemical attack ", Alexander Shulgin said: "Thesecretariat, inspired by the unconditional support of the US and its followers to do anything is not going to. Trust, apparently, That everything will resolve itself ". And then he added: "No, not resolve." For this reason, Russia insists on the reform of the OPCW and specific Thesecretariat to " ensure a geographically balanced composition of the mission, eliminating the dominance of only some professionals from the allied countries to the U.S. capital ". But, According to Shulgin, " common sense logical considerations are hampered by the categorical rejection from the group of Western countries led by the United States ". The conflict of these 2 fundamentally different approaches pervades at the moment, in fact the whole system of international organizations. Russia appeals to the principles on which to build the postwar world. First, the respect of normality of a situation in which other countries have their desires, even if they conflict with their own. And secondly, the existence of a system of arbitration and expert organizations that are trusted by all parties because of the balanced representation in the different And among them conflicting, forces. The West is trying to keep the elusive championship - and in some places It now takes downright indecent form. On the " old " structure still standing on these principles, have financial pressure. As for new institutions like the OPCW (or WADA, created in 1999), where the Western forces dominated the official, firmly blocked any Attempt to change the situation more equitable. Here you can discuss whose activities are more destructive: Russia trying to achieve reform while existing institutions, or the United States with colleagues who cling to their privileges, while the reality clearly suggests That the period of unconditional domination is left behind. However, history shows That the second faces a much more unpleasant consequences. Attempts to delay objectively the need for changes often turn their blast implementation with the destructive and dangerous side effects. Well, the policy of the OPCW in fact is a mirror reflection of the West's attitude to what is happening in the world: all nourish the hope That somehow... go away. There can only repeat the words of the Russian Ambassador: No, it will not resolve. <span style="color:darkgray