A UK/Sierra Leone-led draft resolution calling for a ceasefire in Sudan at the UN Security Council meeting chaired by British Foreign Secretary David Lammy was vetoed by Russia on Monday November 19th.
Sudan’s representative at the UN said that clauses that it wanted in the text were not included.
The following is the explanation of the vote of veto by the Russian First Deputy Permanent Representative Dmitry Polyanskiy.
‘Mr President,
First of all, I would like to thank you for such excellent demonstration of British neocolonialism and snobbery that clearly manifested in your statement today.
Everybody who has listened to your speech – pathetic but full of complexes – can understand now why your country is rapidly losing influence and respect in the world.
Distinguished colleagues,
The Russian Federation voted against the draft resolution on Sudan submitted by the British and Sierra Leonean delegations.
We agree with all our Security Council colleagues that the conflict in Sudan urgently requires a swift resolution. It is also clear that the only way to achieve that is for the warring parties to reach a ceasefire agreement.
We believe that the Security Council’s role here is to assist them in that endeavour.
However, this should be done in a consistent and open manner, rather than by imposing upon the Sudanese, through Council decisions, the views of certain members, spiced up with their post-colonial ideas regarding the future of the country.
Nor should the Council play into the hands of the former colonial power willing to “score points” with the Sudanese diaspora settled in the United Kingdom.
Distinguished Colleagues,
The main problem with the British draft is that it is based on a false understanding regarding who bears responsibility for protecting civilians in Sudan and for ensuring control and security of the country’s borders.
There is also a misperception regarding who can make decisions about inviting foreign forces to Sudan and ultimately regarding who UN officials should interact with in order to address existing problems and arrange assistance.
We have no doubt that it is solely the Government of Sudan that should play this role; however, the British penholders are clearly trying to deny Sudan that right.
Throughout the whole drafting process, they spared no effort to delete any mention of the legitimate authorities of Sudan from the key provisions of the draft.
Their position is absurd and unacceptable, in particular in the light of the fact that the Government of Sudan represents its country in international organisations, harmonises the main processes in the State and is engaged in distributing humanitarian assistance; and it is in Government-controlled regions where the Sudanese themselves are seeking refuge and protection.
We have to qualify such a position of our colleagues as nothing but an attempt to give themselves an opportunity to meddle in the affairs of Sudan and facilitate their further engagement in political and social engineering in the country.
Precisely that was the case in the spring of 2023, when the attempts to impose decisions that did not enjoy the support of the country’s population laid the groundwork for the tragedy that unfolded in Sudan.
The real motives behind the draft resolution become evident also due to the fact that the earlier calls by the Security Council for the Rapid Reaction Force to end the siege of Al-Fasher and other towns have been replaced in the draft text with new distorted language that suggests that the fighters should halt their attacks only against civilians.
Thus, the resolution essentially invites us to encourage the continuation of hostilities.
I would like to assure you that my country will not hesitate to continue to use the veto to prevent such scenarios that could have disastrous repercussions for our African brothers.
Furthermore, we categorically reject the draft’s proposal to employ external mechanisms to ensure accountability for acts of violence.
Such bodies as the International Criminal Court have already proven to be totally inept regarding Sudan and other situations. We are convinced that the administration of justice should remain the exclusive and indivisible prerogative of the Sudanese Government.
Colleagues,
Last time, the Security Council requested a report from the UN Secretary General with recommendations on the protection of civilians in Sudan.
The report clearly states that conditions are still unripe for the deployment of international forces in the country. For our part, we would like to add that it is the case indeed: there is no ceasefire agreement, nor understanding as to where exactly in the country such forces would be deployed and what purposes they might have.
Moreover, the request for such a presence should stem solely from the current Sudanese leadership.
In the long run, we do not rule anything out, but we are convinced that if we start this work now – ignoring the opinion of the authorities in Sudan – it won’t lead to anything good.
Ill-conceived peacekeeping endeavours during the active stage of the internal conflict, which is quite large in terms of geography, could spell total disaster.
If materialised, such a scenario could once and for all undermine Sudan’s trust in the UN, whose reputation has already been seriously marred by the inconsistent activities of the UN Integrated Transition Assistance Mission in the Sudan (UNITAMS), which is already phased out.
We also completely disagree with the narrative promoted by the penholders about the dire humanitarian situation and their deliberate disregard for the opinions and data from the respective Sudanese agencies.
United Nations humanitarian agencies and their Western partners need to refresh their memories as to the UN guiding humanitarian principles, including the depoliticised nature of any assistance.
It is inappropriate to demand that Sudan open all its borders to humanitarian access while not using the numerous border crossings provided by state authorities to deliver aid.
It is not without reason that Port Sudan is imposing restrictions; thus, it has been flagging the threat of arms being sent across the border to feed the rebels.
Perhaps, it would be better to address the root causes of concerns of the Sudanese people, rather than demanding transparent borders.
We believe that it is fundamentally important that any steps in the humanitarian area be agreed exclusively with the central Sudanese authorities.
In fact, Washington and London are continuing to exploit the matter for their own purposes, and through unlawful unilateral sanctions they are simply hindering the efforts of the country’s leadership to provide assistance to the people.
Colleagues,
We urge you to take a sober look at how the Sudanese question is being addressed by the Security Council. Without constructive and involved interaction between each and every member of the UNSC and the Sudanese Government and without a sincere desire to help the Sudanese to overcome difficulties, any decisions of the Council are doomed to failure.
We urge you to avoid the tactic of exerting increased pressure. The Personal Envoy of Secretary-General, Mr Lamamra, is continuing his efforts – we must give him time and the political opportunity to speak to all those who may have some influence on the settlement – be they internal or external players.
Finally, it is important to throw out double standards, which seem to be particularly egregious in the case of Sudan.
When it comes to Sudan, certain countries are vociferously crying for a ceasefire, demanding that both sides stop violence and protect civilians, while in the case of Gaza those very countries give “carte blanche” to Israel so that it continues the escalation, overlooking the blatant violations of IHL (international humanitarian law) by the Israeli army.
Likewise, they prioritise Israel’s right to self-defence and protection of its citizens, but when it comes to Sudan, they somehow deny the same right to its government and accuse the Sudanese army of all ills.
Colleagues,
We would urge all of you to finally abandon neo-colonial thinking and give up all your attempts to artificially create chaos in countries pursuing independent policies in order to “fish in their troubled waters” then.
Thank you for your attention.’
