Statement by Deputy Permanent Representative Dmitry Chumakov at a UNSC Briefing on Natural Resources Governance: the Foundation of Peace, Security and Prosperity
Madam Minister,
Madam President,
We welcome your personal participation in this open debate organized by the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Just like the informal “Arria-formula” meeting held on July 13 under your chairmanship, today’s discussion – with the contributions from the Secretary-General and the Director-General of the WTO, whom we also welcome here today – not only demonstrates the importance of today’s topic but also reveals certain differences in approaches to governing natural resources.
The assertion that there is a link between conflicts and natural resources is well-grounded, but it is contingent upon the circumstances of each specific situation.
The desire of certain States to aсquire the natural resources of other countries at a bargain price has often been – and continues to be – the cause of profound security crises. Suffice it to recall the military interventions in Iraq, Libya, and Syria, where the battle for political clout was accompanied by a struggle for natural resources. And today’s crisis in the Middle East is largely linked to issues of control over key energy and transportation corridors, including the Strait of Hormuz, through which a significant share of the world’s hydrocarbon supplies passes.
Ukraine is no exception. To a number of western countries, Ukraine matters not only as a geopolitical foothold but also as a source of abundant agricultural resources and critically important minerals, including rare-earth elements. Indeed, they do not even hesitate to admit this publicly.
Unfortunately, resource-related challenges are particularly pressing on the African continent. Armed conflicts in Africa often revolve around the issue of natural resources. “Blood minerals” are being used to finance hostilities and sustain the activities of numerous illegal armed groups. Conflict zones are expanding, violence is intensifying, and illegal armed groups are competing with State authorities for control over mineral deposits.
Major crisis hotspots in Africa, such as the one in the east of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, clearly illustrate how this endless vicious cycle has for decades fueled security threats to African States.
An additional aggravating factor is the intention to secure uninterrupted access to minerals that are deemed critical for the energy transition. As we can see, every means is being employed in the fight for Africa’s natural resources – from unequal cooperation to corruption, blackmail, threats, interference in internal affairs, and the fomenting of armed conflicts.
Madam President,
It is the States themselves that bear primary responsibility for the sovereign management of their natural resources and determine how to develop and use them in accordance with their national interests and development priorities. We are convinced that there is no, and cannot be, a universal model for natural resource management that would be equally suitable for all.
We have noted that certain experts and representatives of Member States effectively argue that the sovereignty of States over natural resources is not an imperative and can only be exercised if there is some form of “good governance,” ensuring “transparency” and “traceability.”
We cannot agree with such an approach. In our view, the imposition of these conditions reflects the same notorious predatory attitude toward the countries of the Global South, which we have seen for more than 500 years.
A telling example in this regard is the distribution of revenues from the sale of a standard pack of coffee. According to the International Coffee Organization, the global market for this product has in recent years been estimated at approximately $200 billion. Yet, producer countries retain only about $20 billion of export revenues, which is as little as one-tenth of the total. Former colonial powers are well aware of this imbalance, as this is not a new problem – experts from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) wrote about this as far back as 2007. Has anything been done over the past twenty years to rectify this injustice? – This is a rhetorical question.
According to the latest data from the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), the economies of 46 African States – virtually the entire continent – are dependent on commodity exports. Twenty of these countries depend specifically on exports of unprocessed minerals. The persistence of this neocolonial economic order under which raw materials tend to be extracted from countries of the Global South demonstrates that decolonization has essentially never been completed. Under such conditions, there can be no meaningful talk of genuine partnership, nor of combatting poverty. And the mechanisms of “good governance,” “transparency,” and “traceability” under discussion today risk becoming not instruments of peace, but new forms of external control.
The monopolization by Western countries of international monetary and financial systems, including payment mechanisms for trade in natural resources, is yet another clear manifestation of neocolonial practices. In this context, gradually shifting away from the US dollar as the sole dominant global currency is a natural and irreversible process. We clearly observe this trend when it comes to cooperation within BRICS, the SCO, and other international organizations.
In today’s world, there are no alternatives to ensuring the equitable participation of developing countries in global markets. This can only be achieved through reforming international trade rules, expanding access to technology, and establishing processing capacities in resource-producing countries. Nor can we ignore the growing demand of the Global South for a fair international financial architecture that reflects the realities of today’s multipolar world.
We align ourselves with the delegations recalling that it is the UN General Assembly resolution 1803 (XVII) adopted in 1962 that remains the fundamental international document governing States' sovereignty over their natural resources. One of its key provisions states: "International cooperation for the economic development of developing countries, whether in the form of public or private capital investments, exchange of goods and services, technical assistance, or exchange of scientific information, shall be such as to further their independent national development and shall be based upon respect for their sovereignty over their natural wealth and resources." Regrettably, this principle has become even more relevant today.
We are convinced that international cooperation in the field of natural resource governance should be structured around strengthening industrial and scientific capacities of States, improving their public administration institutions, providing technical assistance, and supporting efforts to combat illegal extraction and cross-border smuggling of natural resources, while also addressing the issue of the free movement of capital, which many find highly uncomfortable. These are undoubtedly important issues, but they hardly fall within the purview of the Security Council.
In conclusion, we would like to stress that, for peace and development to prevail, it is exceedingly important, in our view, to prioritize the good-faith implementation of existing international obligations relating to natural resources. We need to abandon neocolonial practices, interference in the internal affairs of sovereign States, the use of unilateral sanctions that contravene international law, and reckless military adventures. Only then will it be possible to engage in a truly substantive discussion on how best to enhance cooperation in natural resource governance for the benefit and prosperity of peoples.
Thank you.
