Explanation of vote by Permanent Representative Vassily Nebenzia before UNSC vote on a draft resolution on renewal of the mandate of 1718 Committee Panel of Experts
Point of order:
Mr.President,
We have already elaborated on our fundamental concerns regarding the approach adopted by the delegation of France on 25 March with regard to the UN Security Council meeting that we requested on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of NATO aggression against Yugoslavia under the agenda item "threats to international peace and security". The French colleagues demanded, as an ultimatum, that Russia should recall its request. Then France initiated a procedural vote on the agenda for the meeting, despite the fact that agenda item "threats to international peace and security" is directly within the competence of the Security Council and that the Japanese Presidency had already included the aforementioned meeting in UNSC schedule. Unfortunately, the Presidency was unable to confirm its decision in front of the Council.
Thus the actions of France (as well as the US and UK who spoke out in support), resulted in a situation when a UNSC member was refused a meeting that they requested. This constitutes a flagrant violation of the right of every member of the Security Council to request meetings that they deem necessary and that fall within the mandate and competence of the Council. Furthermore, the role of the Presidency in scheduling meetings has been called into question. Unfortunately, the Japanese Presidency has not expressed a clear position in this regard. Therefore, in order to avoid double standards and differences of opinion with our Western colleagues (which are obviously not procedural but political in nature) we request the Japanese Presidency to put to a vote its decision to hold today's meeting.
Thank you.
Main statement:
Mr.President,
It may seem that the Security Council has convened to consider a routine matter of extending the mandate of the Panel of Experts of the 1718 Sanctions Committee. The mechanism is intended to facilitate the work of the Committee to ensure the effectiveness of the restrictions against the DPRK imposed by this Council. However, the technical nature of the Panel’s mandate should not mislead us.
Over the past years, the situation on and around the Korean Peninsula has changed dramatically. The sanctions regime, born of noble intents of UN Security Council resolutions and aimed at preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the region, is not only losing its relevance, but is extremely disconnected from reality. We see an unprecedented policy of the US-led Western coalition towards "strangling" Pyongyang, which includes harsh unilateral restrictions, aggressive propaganda and direct personal threats against the DPRK authorities. Together, all these measures call into question the very possibility of resolving the problems on the Korean Peninsula in the future.
The active militarization of the Korean Peninsula with the direct participation of Washington and other NATO members whose borders are thousands miles away from the DPRK brings the situation to an even more dangerous line. What is particularly alarming is the increasingly overt use of Washington's nuclear capabilities in allied military maneuvers. This dangerous development in the region affects Russia’s fundamental national security interests.
Against this background, it is obvious that over the past years the sanctions have not helped to achieve the goals set by the international community and have not led to the normalization of the situation around the peninsula. This situation does not encourage the parties to dialogue, especially after Washington showed its “foul game" to the whole world.
At the same time, sanctions are a heavy burden for the North Korean population. As a result of the erosion of trust between the UN and Pyongyang, the United Nations is not present on the ground to deal with this important issue. This needs to change urgently.
In a sense, the case of the DPRK is unique. This is the only country under indefinite sanctions of the Security Council. Basic mechanisms for adjusting the restrictions do not work, and there are no procedures that would allow to make well-grounded decisions to delist certain individuals. All the other sanctions regimes against countries have ultimate realistic goals and are subject to regular review.
Therefore, we believe it is high time the Security Council embarked on a "thinking process" with a view to updating the sanctions regime against the DPRK. Our country has repeatedly put forward relevant ideas and sought to adapt restrictions to the rapidly changing realities on the ground. One such initiative is the Russian-Chinese humanitarian draft resolution, which is still relevant. However, all our attempts to promote it have always been met with the absolute unwillingness of Western countries to abandon their destructive and punitive logic towards North Korea.
This detrimental situation affected the 1718 Committee's Panel of Experts, using it as a tool and rendering it unable to fulfill its direct duties. The Panel’s work has been reduced to playing along with Western approaches, replicating biased information, analyzing newspaper headlines and low-quality photos. In doing so, the Panel effectively testified to its inability to develop sober assessments of the state of DPRK’s sanctions regime. The Panel fixated on insignificant trivialities disproportionate to the problems of the Korean Peninsula.
Against this backdrop, Russia proposed to hold an open and honest review of the UNSC sanctions against the DPRK, with a view to transferring the restrictions onto annual basis. This would galvanize an engaged discussion of the accumulated problems, and adapt the Council's restrictive measures to rapidly changing conditions. This scenario could also give Pyongyang incentives to dialogue.
Had we agreed on renewing sanctions yearly, mandate of the Panel of Experts would have had sense, for the Panel could then propose constructive ideas for updating the existing restrictions. However, the United States and its allies did not want to heed us and did not include our ideas in the draft resolution put to a vote today. In these circumstances, we see no added value in the work of 1718 Committee's Panel of Expert and cannot support the American draft resolution.
We call on the members of the Security Council to listen to our arguments aimed at finding a way out of this harmful situation.
Thank you.
Right of reply by First Deputy Permanent Representative Dmitry Polyanskiy:
Mr.President,
What we just heard from our Western colleagues assured us that we had done the right thing by not supporting the Panels of Experts’ mandate renewal.
NATO members have "thrown off their masks" and demonstrated why they really need to extend the mandate of 1718 Committee's Panel of Experts. They need to channel through it the groundless and biased allegations against Russia, which we have heard in abundance in this Chamber today. The US delegation's reproaches were particularly cynical and pathetic. Let me be clear that a country that has used its veto four times in the past five months to allow Israel to mercilessly kill and starve to death Palestinian civilians, and that declares in this Chamber that Security Council decisions are not binding, has no right to lecture others.
Thank you.
