Briefing: Russia vetoes UK-drafted UN Security Council resolution on Sudan
18 November 2024
Russia vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution authored by the UK and Sierra Leone calling for a ceasefire in Sudan. The briefing includes:
· UK and US reactions to the veto.
· Russia’s explanation for the veto.
· A translated transcript of Sudan’s speech after the vote.
UK AND US REACTIONS
The UK and US fiercely criticised Russia’s veto. UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy said the Russian veto was “mean, nasty and cynical”. The US’ representative to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield said “it is shocking that Russia has vetoed an effort to save lives. They claim it is because of Sudanese sovereignty. But Sudan supports the resolution”.
RUSSIA’S VETO
In a speech following the vote explaining Russia’s veto, Russia’s deputy UN ambassador Dmitry Polyanksi:
· Emphasised Sudan’s sovereignty, and rejected foreign intervention in Sudan.
· Raised concerns that the wording of the resolution will encourage hostilities.
· Accused western states of “double standards”.
· Accused the UK of having “neocolonial” ambitions in Sudan.
Sudan’s sovereignty
Polyanksi suggested that Russia vetoed the UK draft resolution for the sake of Sudan’s sovereignty.
The UK draft resolution has “no understanding of who bears responsibility for the protection of civilians and borders in Sudan and who should make a decision on inviting foreign troops” Polyanski said, adding that the resolution “attempts to refuse Sudan of that right”.
Polyanski stressed that any request for foreign troops in Sudan “should solely come from the Sudanese leadership”.
Russia also said it rejects external accountability mechanism such as International Criminal Court, saying that any referral to a judicial system should be the sole right of Sudanese authorities.
Concerns about wording
Russia also accused the UK authors of the draft of taking efforts to “delete mention of the legitimate authority of Sudan”.
In addition, Russia said that the UK resolution encourages ongoing hostilities in Sudan, citing calls to stop the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) siege on Al-Fashir that were changed with “warped wording proposing that they stop attacking civilians only”.
Polyanskiy also said that disagrees with the authors of the draft on the narrative of the humanitarian situation, claiming that it ignored the data and input of Sudanese authorities.
Thus, Russia called upon the US and UK to listen to Sudanese concerns regarding closing border access.
Double standards
Russia accused western nations of “double standards” in how it approaches the wars in Sudan and Gaza. Polyanskiy pointed to the western stance on the latter, where the west is said to emphasise Israel’s right to self-defence, thereby “giving Israel carte blanche to breach international humanitarian law”.
Neocolonial ambitions
Accusing the UK of having neo-colonial ambitions in Sudan, Russia issued general calls to reject “neocolonial thinking”.
Russia said it will continue to use its veto power in the UN Security Council to prevent “western meddling” in Sudanese affairs.
SUDAN’S SPEECH
Below is a translated transcript of the speech given after the vote by Al-Harith Idris, Sudan’s ambassador to the UN. It included:
· Criticism of the ‘Both Sides’ Narrative of Sudan’s war.
· Calls for Sudanese ownership of the peace process.
· Calls to designate the RSF a terrorist group.
· Rejection of international intervention in Sudan.
· Emphasis on Sudan’s sovereignty as stipulated by the UN charter.
Criticism of the Two Sides narrative
Madam President, achieving peace during multi-party wars such as the war in Sudan requires the adoption of a truthful narrative. The narrative currently adopted - that this is a war between two parties - is one of the reasons why we haven't reached an agreement on describing this war.
We must take into account the specificities of the conflict and the efforts of countries interest in peace to build an understanding of the contribution of the national state to peace, thus ensuring a better chance to achieve and stop the conflict.
The United Nations provides for the unity of states, their sovereignty, their territorial integrity, and stopping any aggression against states. This has not really happened in the case of the war of aggression against Sudan. Pressures and coercions have been exercised in a coordinated way to weaken the state. This is due to choices by international actors in an international order that is collapsing spectacularly. International order must be re-established.
According to the UN Secretary General's new agenda for peace, the council is still hesitant to name the aggressors despite knowing who they are. Arms consignments to militias and mercenaries have increased incredibly after the Sudan opened the Adre border crossing, which was extended while setting certain conditions for the State to oversee these operations to facilitate humanitarian work.
This expanded regional interventions and aggravated the war: even when the militias targeted civilians with attacks, even when it perpetrated massacres and forcibly displaced civilians. It took the council 18 months to condemn these atrocities. We thank council members who condemned these atrocities in their national positions.
To stand by the Sudanese people, stop the aggression and the war, one cannot be neutral. One cannot be passive. Some reject dealing with terrorists and some do their utmost to eliminate terrorist groups, but under the pretext of impartiality, they're coercing the Sudanese government to accept peace with foreign mercenaries, so that tomorrow, they would become political players and then divert from the political track and launch attacks as part of a plot that Sudanese are very aware of: the plot to fragment Sudan and conclude deceitful peace agreements.
Sudanese ownership of the peace process
Madam President, there are those who insist on making Sudan dependent on humanitarian aid. Sudan has fertile land and has enough agricultural potential to feed the world. Of course, the Sudan is able to feed the Sudanese people that have been wronged time and time again by some international actors.
This need has been exploited to encroach upon the sovereignty of the Sudan. Some foreign rescue organisations, which amount now to more than 19,000 as I stated at a previous statement, are now demanding to be able to enter the Sudan from any direction and however they please, and just notify Sudan.
For the council to regain its vital role in maintaining international peace and security, it must engage with the choices of the people, especially in Africa that is aspiring to being liberated from restrictions, to be able to contribute peacefully and positively in international peace.
Sudan is still languishing under UN imprisonment since 2004. This position needs to be reconsidered. This systematic imprisonment reduces the role of the Sudan, constricts its ambitions and prevents Sudan from contributing to building peace and democracy based on national ownership.
This is why I call upon your council to support the national plan to protect civilians, which will be submitted to you, for you to support it. This plan is, in itself, a national roadmap to end the war.
Designate the RSF a terrorist group
The people of the Sudan are looking forward to the council adopting a positive dynamic, and they asked for unity against terrorism and mercenaries and militias that have been destroying Sudan in a systematic way for 18 months. Condoning these groups after the bloodshed they have caused in Sudan is clear complicity with them.
We asked for condemning the atrocities of the militias, and for designating them as terrorist organisations. But this was rejected, and this is a clear license for the militias to continue perpetrating these atrocities.
Rejection of international intervention
We stand against any international or UN intervention or interference under the pretext of making peace according to outdated models relying on hard power. We are in a position to contribute to devising a plan for sustainable peace and to protect civilians based on soft power and the will of the people.
Sudan is in an existential battle where choices are limited. Either Sudan remains free, independent and united, or it vanishes. The experience of UNITAMS as a political mission ended with the outbreak of the war and the aggravation of the conflict that it was established to address. It came as a result of the complicated transition that was meant to be a smooth translation.
This is why we believe in national ownership. So the people participate in building peace, so that peace is consolidated. Peace building does not come from above. It cannot be based on the formula imposed from above or imposed by donors to re-engineer Sudan according to their whims, and even choose who would rule Sudan.
Sudan will stand against the foreign interventions that aim to fragment Sudan and strengthen the militia and the mercenaries so that the Sudanese army does not win in maintaining the unity and territorial integrity of Sudan, and repel the mercenaries.
Stressing Sudan’s sovereignty
Videos circulated online exposed the diabolic agendas of these mercenaries. They are enjoying causing a deliberate genocide incrementally against Sudan in order to serve the agendas of international actors that are sponsoring these mercenaries.
Within this narrative, international actors are destroying the capacity of the army by imposing an arms embargo, even as arms are made available to the militias by some members of this Council [France], as we have seen in a recent report by Amnesty International.
The Charter of the United Nations provides for the sovereignty of states, the sovereign rights of states, sovereign equality between states, ensuring the legal personality of states and ensuring the territorial integrity of states.
Some parties are violating all of this, which is inconsistent to the cosmetic paragraphs that we see in the preambles of resolutions by the Security Council on sovereignty.
Calls to action
We look for the Security Council to stand with the Sudanese state to suppress the aggression in Sudan that is sponsored by the UAE.
We ask the Council to turn away from diplomatic efforts to settle the conflict pushed for by certain actors to serve their own interests, that have nothing to do with peace or stopping the war.
The Council must prevent the UAE and regional affiliates from sending arms to new generations of militias. The Council must condemn armed gangs and terrorist gangs from the Sahel and neighboring countries.
They are violating the charter. They are perpetrating atrocities. They are displacing people, and they are bringing people from outside of Sudan to occupy the homes of Sudanese residents. They are even using AI against the territorial integrity of the Sudan.
The Secretary General in his policy brief of the new agenda for peace stressed the need to uphold the charter as conflicts and terrorism are on the rise. He called for non-interference. He called for adopting regional initiatives to settle conflicts. He called on states to refrain from half-hegemonic ambitions against neighboring countries. He called for preventive diplomacy, and he addressed the increasing role of armed groups within states. He also referred to increasing terrorism in Africa.
I thank the council. I thank all those who cooperated with Sudan to achieve peace. We are ready to cooperate with you to:
· Stop this war
· Condemn the militias and consider them terrorist militias
· Stop the flow of arms across the borders
· Respect the sovereignty of Sudan through implementing a peace plan to protect civilians.
I thank you, Madam President.
