Explanation of vote by First Deputy Permanent Representative Dmitry Polyanskiy on the Russian-Chinese Draft Resolution on Sanctions against Iran
Remarks prior to the vote:
Mr. President,
First of all, I would like to welcome Mr. Abbas Araghchi, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iran, who is present in this chamber today.
Colleagues,
Today, the Security Council is set to consider a draft resolution submitted by Russia and China on the technical extention of UNSC Resolution 2231 on Iran's nuclear program for another six months.
As is well known, we submitted the resolution on August 28, immediately after the United Kingdom, France, and Germany attempted to launch the so-called “snapback” mechanism in breach of all legal and political frameworks. Nevertheless, it was not immediately that we put our document to a vote, as we did hope that common sense would prevail among our Western colleagues and that they would withdraw their unfounded complaint and show willingness to engage in constructive negotiations in the format involving the initial parties to JCPOA. We did hope that both our European colleagues and the US would come to their senses and choose the path of diplomacy and dialogue rather than their clumsy blackmail, which can only stir up escalation in the region.
What have we seen instead over the past 29 days? The same scenario, quite typical of Europeans: pressure, raising the stakes, and ultimately lies.
When submitting the aforementioned notification, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany assured everyone that they were prepared to abandon their escalatory policy if Iran complied with the conditions they had set. I like would remind you that they named three points: resuming cooperation with the IAEA, providing information on their stock of enriched uranium, and returning to negotiations with the US.
Against this backdrop, Iran acted as a responsible player, focused on constructively resolving the situation, despite the fact that it was entirely provoked by the hypocritical policies of Western countries. They are now very reluctant to recall that the current crisis around the JCPOA was initially triggered by the US withdrawal from it, followed by the European participants' thereof consistently refusing to comply with their obligations.
Despite all this, our Iranian colleagues demonstrated strategic wisdom and diplomatic flexibility and made significant concessions on all the issues mentioned. September 9 saw an agreement signed between the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) and the IAEA in Cairo. According to the IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi, this document covers all nuclear facilities in Iran, including those attacked by Israel and the US this past June. Moreover, despite Washington's act of aggression, Tehran was still ready to resume dialogue with the US. First, it was Russia that offered such an opportunity, proposing a meeting of the initial partied to the JCPOA in Vienna “on the sidelines” of this month's IAEA Board of Governors session. The US and the E3 publicly rebuffed this proposal. Then, it was Iran that expressed its willingness to engage with the US here in New York, precisely during this High-level Week, but yet again Washington gave a negative answer.
Thus, Iran has taken all possible steps to accomodate the E3 and the US. And what compromises have Washington, London, Paris, and Berlin made during these 28 days? None whatsoever. No matter what Tehran does, Western countries keep issuing new ultimatums. Colleagues, this is not diplomacy – this is deception and theater of the absurd.
If the UK and France are truly prepared to deliver on their promises to revoke the snapback clause, given Iran's constructive approach, the vote on the Russian-Chinese draft resolution afford them one last chance to demonstrate that they honor their committments. This is especially true given that, with the amendments made, the document now covers all – and I stress the word “all” – the concerns they voiced late August. This resolution now includes a call for continued cooperation between Iran and the IAEA, as well as for the resumption of negotiations within the format of the initial participants in the JCPOA, which implies the presence of Iran and the US at the negotiating table alongside Russia, China, and the E3. This is also an opportunity for the US to demonstrate its willingness to negotiate and its committment to diplomacy when it comes to resolving crises, rather than the attempt to kill the nuclear deal from the outside.
Mr. President,
Despite the lack of substance in Western claims to implement the “snapback” mechanism, it is clear that the very absence of consensus among the UNSC members on this issue is leading us all down the path of legal nihilism to a deeper division within the Council. This situation is fraught with extremely adverse consequences in terms of the Council's key responsibility of maintaining international peace and security. It is hard to even imagine the magnitude of escalation in the Middle East that would arise from attempts by a small group of countries to use the UN Security Council to push through their self-centered interests.
The Security Council has a chance to avoid such a dangerous scenario – right now, it is literally on the table in front of each of its members. The proposal by Russia and China for a technical rollover of Resolution 2231 for six months, until April 2026, leaves room for finding a solution that would be agreeable to all. As suggested in the operative part of our draft, this should be done through negotiations between all the initial participants in the JCPOA, as was the case 10 years ago when we were considering the nuclear deal.
We hope that all our UNSC colleagues will vote in favor of this resolution, thereby demonstrating a responsible and depoliticized approach and proving that they are committed to diplomacy not only in words but in deeds. This is a moment of truth for every member of the Security Council. We hope that you, colleagues, will make the right choice.
Thank you.
Remarks following the vote:
Mr. President,
We are grateful to our Council colleagues who supported the draft resolution submitted by Russia and China on the “technical” extension of Resolution 2231 for six months, until April 2026, and for the immediate resumption of negotiations in the format involving the initial parties to the JCPOA to find ways out of the crisis around it. Those members of the Security Council who supported this document reaffirmed their commitment to international law, equal and mutually respectful dialogue, and to the task of maintaining international peace and security. If adopted, this document could have preserved the chance for the international community to reach a diplomatic resolution to the differences in the context of Iran's nuclear program.
We regret that a number of our UNSC colleagues were unable to summon the courage and the wisdom to support our draft. Their abstention indicates, at the very least, their doubts vis-a-vis the destructive policy pursued by the US, the UK, and France, to definitively desmantle the nuclear deal and to bury the diplomatic path to addressing the crisis around it. However, one way or another, by voting as they did, they have become accomplices to this.
As for those who refused to support our draft, we cherish no longer any illusions about them. These countries have finally demonstrated that all their assurances about their commitment to a diplomatic settlement vis-à-vis Iran's nuclear program throughout all these years were nothing but lip service.
And from the statement made by the representative of France prior to the vote, which sounded like an unfortunate attempt to justify himself, it was clear that honesty, common sense, and decency are things that our Western colleagues have long forgotten. Furthermore, those who voted against our draft resolution also spoke against Iran's further cooperation with the IAEA, which was something that the second operative paragraph directly and unequivocally called for. So, you colleagues, can file grievances against yourselves if problems arise here. And, to be honest, it is hard to shake off the feeling that our Western colleagues did not even read our draft resolution, since virtually everything they are now calling for in this chamber is already contained in the text.
Mr. President,
With regard to the statements delivered by the United Kingdom and France that they have allegedly triggered a snapback, we categorically reject them as invalid and we have repeatedly spell out our arguments in detail, specifically in the joint letter from the foreign ministers of Russia, China, and Iran dated August 28, which was circulated in the Council. A party that systematically violates an agreement cannot invoke the mechanisms provided thereunder, which is a key principle of international law (in particular, the “clean hands doctrine,” the principle of pacta sunt servanda, and the advisory opinions of the International Court of Justice). Moreover, logic, basic justice, and common sense point to this either. Therefore, whatever our British and French colleagues may claim, their complaint cannot serve as a justification for any decisions or actions by the Security Council.
Therefore, both procedurally and politically, the outcome of today's vote means only one thing. Since the Security Council did not adopt a resolution on the technical extension of UNSC Resolution 2231, then it will cease to be in effect in accordance with the established timeline – which is the termination day of the JCPOA, namely October 18, 2025. After that, any restrictions and rules provided for therein, including those relating to Iran's nuclear program, will cease to be relevant. As I have already mentioned today, there has been no “snapback” and there will be no “snapback.” Any attempts to “resuscitate” the anti-Iranian UN Security Council resolutions that were in effect until 2015 are null and void. I would like to emphasize separately that the UN Secretariat, of course, has no grounds for renewing the relevant mandates. Any attempts to do so would constitute a violation of Article 100 of the UN Charter and would compel us to seriously reconsider our relations with the Secretariat.
Mr. President,
Russia and China have done everything possible to prevent a negative scenario with regard to the JCPOA, and give diplomacy a chance. Now, all responsibility for any consequences of today's vote, both for the situation on the ground and for the future work of the Security Council, lies squarely with those States that did not support our draft resolution.
Thank you.
Right of reply:
I would like to very briefly react to the statements made by my French colleague.
Jerome, your explanations now sound even less convincing than before. Therefore, I would suggest that you not take the floor anymore. You are only digging yourself into a deeper hole.
You have cited alleged facts that have no connection to reality, forgetting to mention the most important fact, which was voiced today by the Iranian Foreign Minister, and which concerns your country directly. I refer to the fact that there was a draft agreement between Iran and the E3, which was supposed to be approved and subsequently prevent the crisis. But your big brothers in the United States did not allow you to go ahead with this agreement.
You forgot to mention this, which eloquently illustrates how genuinely “independent” your country is today in the international arena.
As regards your claims vis-a-vis the Secretariat, I would like to remind you that one delegation already tried to trigger a snapback once, and attempted to do so in circumstances that were absolutely identical to those we have today, when there was no consensus in the Security Council on whether this procedure has legal grounds.
Back then, the UN Office of Legal Affairs and the Secretariat decided that, in the absence of unity in the Council, they could not resume sanctions nor reinstate sanctions committees that had already been abolished.
We see no difference between that situation and the current one. Therefore, we are confident that the UN Secretariat will make the right decision and will not succumb to the pressure exerted by you, not by us. Because we stand on the side of common sense and international law, while you are trying to impose on everyone a “rules-based order” that you yourself are trying to formulate on the fly right now, in this room.
Thank you
