Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations

Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations

Statement by Mr. Peter Iliichev, Deputy Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations, at the Security Council meeting on reports of the Secretary-General on the Sudan and South Sudan

May 31, 2016



Russia supported the adoption of resolution 2290 (2016). In voting for it, we based our decision on the significant progress recently achieved towards the settlement of the conflict in South Sudan, including the establishment of the Transitional Government of National Unity. We also take into account the sensitivity of the current situation and the need for effective international support for the peace process in that country.
We have repeatedly expressed concern that excessive pressure, particularly that exerted by sanctions, can undermine those achievements and entrench the positions of the South Sudanese parties. Russia cannot in principle accept a situation where anyone — especially a member of the Security Council — should seek to use sanctions instead of undertaking serious political and diplomatic work.
We therefore strongly opposed the inclusion in today’s resolution a provision warning of the broadening of the Security Council sanctions regime against South Sudan in the coming months, including the imposition of an arms embargo. Let us not forget the needs of the Government of South Sudan in ensuring security, law and order in the country. We are glad that common sense prevailed in the Council in the end. However, our support for resolution 2290 (2016)as a whole does not mean that we agree with all its provisions. Unfortunately, as in the case of other Council resolutions on South Sudan, the authors did not take into account the serious and reasonable concerns of a number of delegations. We believe that it is inappropriate — especially in a Security Council sanctions resolution — to include a provision on the review of the Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) Bill. This provision not only serves to create advantages for foreign NGOs, but also distorts the South Sudan Peace Agreement. Nor can we justify inclusion in the text of a reference to the reports of the High United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. The Security Council did not request these reports; they were discussed in the Human Rights Council. The contents of the document have nothing to do with the primacy of Security Council leadership. We are also disappointed by the refusal of some delegations to include in the resolution reference to the importance of international assistance in normalizing the situation and overcoming the economic and humanitarian problems in South Sudan.
In our view, the international partners should apply not only sanctions, but also positive incentives to South Sudan. No one is interested in its economic collapse. We hope that in the course of the work on a new draft resolution on South Sudan in July, these legitimate concerns will be taken into account. Otherwise, the unity of the Council and its effective performance in South Sudan may again be threatened.