Statement by Permanent Representative Vassily Nebenzia at a UNSC Briefing on its Working Methods
Madam President,
We thank the delegations of Denmark and Pakistan for jointly organizing the annual open debate on the Security Council’s working methods and for their active work last year as co-chairs of the Security Council Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions (IWG). We are grateful to Ms. Shamala Kandiah Thompson for her briefing.
The Russian Federation has consistently advocated streamlining and rationalizing the Council’s working methods with a view to enhancing its effectiveness in discharging its exclusive mandate having to do with the maintenance of international peace and security. It is essential that any changes in this regard be thoroughly worked through and geared towards achieving a genuine, rather than nominal, improvement in the quality of the Council’s work. They must duly take into account the specific nature of this body, the sensitive nature of many of the issues on its agenda, as well as the importance of ensuring the effective implementation of its decisions.
In this context, we have consistently supported the Council’s annual open debate on this matter, which helps identify potential areas for further improvement and optimization of its working methods. The effectiveness of this practice is evidenced by the fact that many substantive proposals and initiatives put forward by Member States have been incorporated into the compendium of the Council’s working practices, which we know as Note 507.
The importance of this document can hardly be overstated. It is actively used by incoming non-permanent members as they prepare to take over their “watch” on the Council and remains a distinct asset facilitating the Council’s work. We trust that today’s discussion will also contribute to the work of the IWG and that new ideas will enrich subsequent deliberations within that format. This, of course, implies that defining the Council’s working methods themselves, as well as identifying any steps to modify them, have been and will remain the prerogative of the Council.
Madam President,
It is regrettable that the Council continues to face the problem of its agenda being diluted through the inclusion therein of issues going beyond its mandate, such as human rights and climate. The practice of bringing such initiatives to the Council’s table leads to duplication of mandates, inefficient allocation of resources and diversion of the Council’s attention from its core responsibilities. The United Nations itself also falls victim to this trend. Thus, UN field presences are assigned tasks that are unlikely to strengthen stability, which ultimately only stirs up public criticism vis-à-vis the UN and undermines its authority. Against this backdrop, we observe an increasing number of host countries seeking to rid themselves of such presences.
We also note the persistent reluctance of our Western colleagues to review sanctions against countries where restrictive measures no longer correspond to the situation on the ground. The “sanctions cudgel” against the DPRK, Sudan, South Sudan and the Central African Republic is still being employed by certain States as a favored instrument of external political pressure, exerted, moreover, under the UN banner. This is happening even though the circumstances that prompted these sanctions are no longer in place. Against this backdrop, we are concerned by attempts to broaden the scope of sanctions instead of reviewing sanctions regimes.
We regret to note that the Council does lack the ability to engage in constructive discussion and genuine negotiations. Many drafts advanced in the Council are divorced from reality, have never been coordinated with the key implementers, and are openly confrontational in nature. Such documents not only fail to contribute to sustainable solutions but, in many cases, are doomed to failure from the get-go. And there is no point in complaining about it.
We consider it important to stress the unwillingness of a number of States – primarily those belonging to the Western camp – to seek compromise on important issues of peace and security. As practice shows, decisions that are not adopted unanimously do not carry the same weight “on the ground” as consensus resolutions.
Some delegations entirely disregard previously adopted Council decisions and even attempt to resurrect long-expired resolutions from oblivion without any legal grounds whatsoever for doing so. For the sake of their parochial political interests, these countries are ready to go as far as to even sacrifice the effectiveness of the Security Council’s work, including in terms of functioning of its subsidiary bodies. Artificial attempts to link the appointment of Chairs of subsidiary bodies to the unjustified unilateral demands of a particular group of States not only further exacerbate divisions among Council members, but also have a direct adverse impact on the Council’s work across a wide range of areas. In this context, those countries that speak on this matter, including some permanent members of the Council, have no one to blame but themselves.
What also remains pressing is the issue of penholdership. The role of penholder on the majority of files continues to be monopolized by just three delegations. Even though these countries have long since lost their status as colonial powers, they continue to act as if they were exceptional, adopting a mentoring posture vis-à-vis other States and even entire regions. The views of host countries and regional actors, who often have a better understanding of the situation “on the ground,” and even the views of representatives of the UN Secretariat, are simply ignored. Russia has consistently advocated expanding the circle of penholders, primarily through greater involvement of non-permanent members of the Security Council. In this regard, we consider it useful to continue discussions on this issue within the IWG, with particular attention paid to the views of African States.
There are also persistent problems with regard to the methodology used to negotiate Security Council resolutions. Work is often being conducted under artificially imposed time pressure, which prevents comprehensive expert review of draft texts. As a result, obviously raw, underdeveloped documents give the Secretariat vague instructions and are often unrealistic in terms of their goals and objectives.
We advocate maintaining a balance between open and closed meetings of the Security Council. We can see some Council members openly abusing the open meeting format in order to stage propaganda shows, while preferring to discuss issues sensitive to them behind closed doors.
We have repeatedly pointed out the excessive volume of the Council’s documentation. Every year, the Security Council produces several hundred documents, and the added value of some of them is, regrettably, questionable. For our part, we have consistently maintained that the Council’s final “products” should be concise, precise, easy to understand and, most importantly, results-oriented.
This year, the Council faces the highly responsible task of selecting a candidate for the position of the next Secretary-General of the United Nations. We stress that this process must proceed in strict accordance with Article 97 of the UN Charter, which clearly defines the respective roles of the Security Council and the General Assembly in this matter.
Thank you.
