Statement by Ambassador Vassily A. Nebenzia, Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations, at the Security Council meeting on the extention of the mandate of the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in the Central African Republic
The Russian Federation was unable to support resolution 2448 (2018), proposed by our French colleagues to extend the mandate of the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in the Central African Republic. We abstained not because we do not support the Mission or disagree with anything to do with it.
On the contrary, we are grateful for its activities and the dedication of its peacekeepers. The reason is the manner in which the work on the text was done, especially in the final stages, and it leads us to wonder once again about the true reasons for the behaviour of the authors of the resolution, who, unlike us, are apparently continuing to play a zero-sum game in Africa.
Furthermore, behind all of this we get a glimpse of an attitude that has persisted for decades to the independence that African countries have achieved through their struggles for national liberation and that treats their lands like some kind of patrimony or their own preserve in a vicious cycle where metropolis meets colony. Throughout all the rounds of expert consultations, we asked that our concerns be heard and that the text reflect a number of points of principle, aimed chiefly at increasing the transparency of the interactions with Bangui’s international partners, something that Western delegations are constantly calling for, and a recognition of the important role of regional actors in the process of achieving a settlement in the Central African Republic.
Once again, unfortunately, our desire for mutually respectful work in the Council was repudiated. Our arguments during the work on the resolution were ignored. Moreover, we detect in the resolution’s content the penholders’ clear overstepping of their authority to assert a national agenda or reflect the priorities of their closest partners. There was basically no effort to seek compromises or reach a consensus. We were offered what were termed compromise solutions that took no account of our legitimate demands, and we were told that this was as far as the penholders could go, it was their maximum. What I want to know is who decides what the maximum is. Their maximum is not even our minimum.
Practically speaking, we were faced with a fact and, not for the first time, were told to take it or leave it, to go along with the situation as presented in the name of preserving the unity of the Security Council. It is not the first time that we have encountered this in the Council or said that it is time that this culture of discourse, or rather the lack thereof, must come to an end.
The way the draft was agreed on once again emphasized how essential it is that we change the current system of penholdership for various items on the Security Council’s agenda, which has been usurped by the Western troika. The authors of the document flatly refused to take into account a number of our principled political concerns. The result was that it did not reflect the important concept welcoming peace initiatives that align with and contribute to achieving the African Initiative for Peace and Reconciliation in the Central African Republic. Nor did we hear any convincing or clear reasons why the French delegation was categorically opposed to our incidentally very generalized proposed wording. But we certainly do remember that on 14 November, when consensus on a draft resolution was not reached, it was immediately taken off the table at the request of one delegation.
For some reason we did not see Paris take a similarly careful approach to our position. The suggestion that the meeting in Khartoum that for the first time in a long time brought the leaders of the Central African Republic opposition groups together around the same negotiation table was not aligned with the African Initiative is totally wrong. We heard the same kind of excuses in 2015 when France prevented similar efforts to achieve peace by rejecting the Nairobi agreement between the main opposition groups headed by François Bozizé and Michel Djotodia on the invented pretext that it was not in line with the previous agreements.
Since then we have all seen that the security situation in the Central African Republic is deteriorating, the socioeconomic situation is getting worse and the human suffering is continuing. In that connection, we would specifically like to point out that we have taken note of the French delegation’s promise to reflect the importance of the Khartoum process in future Security Council documents. We will be watching attentively to see that promise fulfilled.
Another subject not reflected in the resolution was the major contribution that has been made to training the Central African armed forces by the Russian instructors who are in the Central African Republic at the invitation of its leaders and are working to improve the armed forces’ real battle readiness.
Instead, the penholders bent over backwards to puff up the role of the European Union Military Training Mission in the Central African Republic, which as the Europeans themselves admit is focused on human rights training for the military, which is not exactly going to help it ensure security and control throughout the country. In our view, what is extremely revealing is the evolving story of the approval in the Committee established pursuant to resolution 2127 (2013) of the second batch of Russian weapons sent free of charge to the Central African Republic in response to Bangui’s official request. There is supposed to be a consensus on the importance of strengthening the national security sector, and we have responded to all of the questions.
But we are now being told that the Central African Republic does not have the proper storage facilities. And yet for a subsequent delivery of 1,400 submachine guns from the French — which on top of that are not from their own stores but seized from smugglers in murky circumstances — storage facilities were suddenly found. Where is the logic in that? Or is it another infamous example of double standards?
As this shows, guided by their own narrow self-interests, the countries of the West are putting obstacles in the way of rebuilding battle-ready forces in the Central African Republic and restoring the Government’s legitimate authority throughout the country, despite all their assertions to the contrary.
I will have to disappoint those who are getting ready to blame Russia for all of the world’s deadly sins. Incidentally, we were surprised to learn from the BBC today — Council members can find it on the Internet themselves — about a statement by United States National Security Adviser John Bolton on Russia and China’s role in Africa.
The same claims that he made about our countries could just as well be made about the United States. In fact, that was what the reporter describing the situation was saying. It can be found on the BBC’s website. The fact is that the international community’s unSited support for stabilizing the Central African Republic has not vanished, and our understanding of the importance of extending the mandate of the peacekeeping mission in that country is still there.
But we cannot accept it when in the guise of so-called good intentions with regard to consolidating support for Bangui, in practice the resolution’s penholders plant the idea about the exceptional nature of their own efforts. We hope that reason will ultimately prevail in the interests of the people of the Central African Republic.
Russia will continue its active and peaceful work to stabilize the situation and establish peace in the Central African Republic, and we are ready to engage in respectful, constructive collaboration with anyone so inclined. There is room for everyone who wants to help the Central African Republic.
