Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations

Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations

Explanation of vote by Deputy Permanent Representative Anna Evstigneeva after the UNSC vote on a draft resolution on the renewal of mandate of 1591 Committee Panel of Experts (Darfur)


Russia abstained in a US-proposed draft resolution on renewal of mandate of 1591 Panel of Experts on Darfur. 

It is gratifying that the authors partially met the proposals of a number of delegations and agreed to cut the excessive language on the political situation, humanitarian aspects and human rights issues. The authors convinced us that the Council cannot remain indifferent to the events in the Sudan, so the text must be brought in line with the current facts on the ground. As a result, in one day we are having two resolutions on Sudan with overlapping content, especially on the humanitarian and human rights aspects. If a call is voiced twice, will it become more convincing? I do not think so.

Russia has no principled complaints regarding the work done by the Panel of Experts. We believe that it should proceed in an effective and impartial manner. At the same time, it is important that the Panel's work should not go beyond the mandated limits. Unfortunately, some of the provisions of the proposed resolution could be interpreted as an attempt to expand the Panel's mandate beyond Darfur, although the sanctions regime applies only to that part of Sudan.

Moreover, we consider it unreasonable to extend the mandate of the Panel beyond the time frame of the sanctions regime itself, the renewal of which the Security Council has yet to consider in September this year. Such an overlap is completely uncharacteristic of sanctions committees.

We see in this an attempt by the United States to pre-empt the process and impose a view on the members of the Council and Sudan that the sanctions regime should be extended. We would like to emphasize that the decision in September will be taken on the basis of the actual situation and an assessment of the advisability of maintaining or lifting the restrictions or revising their parameters. It will certainly not depend on the expiration of the mandate of the Panel of Experts. This “shell game” should not set a precedent for the Council.

Thank you.

Video of the statement