Explanation of vote by Deputy Permanent Representative Anna Evstigneeva after the UNSC vote on a draft resolution on the situation in El Fasher (Sudan)
Mr.President,
Russia abstained at the vote on a UK-proposed draft UNSC resolution on the situation around El Fasher (Sudan).
Although the British authors made certain efforts to work on the text, especially in terms of moving commas at the final stage, it was simply impossible to ensure a vote by consensus on their draft resolution. That is so because since the product is detached from the reality on the ground and ignores the principled comments of the Sudanese themselves, that have also been raised by the African members on the Council.
Initially, the draft posed as an attempt to respond swiftly to the events around El Fasher, the capital of North Darfur, and to call on the Rapid Support Forces to end its siege. However, more than two weeks have passed since the text was first discussed. During that time, thanks to the efforts of our Western colleagues, it has undergone serious changes, and now the situation in El Fasher remains nothing more than a pretext. It is difficult to determine what exactly this resolution really aims to achieve, apart from the obvious desire to keep the UN's eye on the situation and to promote decisions that are questionable from the point of view of respect for the sovereignty and unity of the country.
We cannot agree with the proposed call on all Sudanese parties to ensure free humanitarian access, including cross-border shipments. We draw the attention of Council members to the fact that the issue of controlling national borders and the passage of any cargoes is a sovereign matter for the authorities in power. Any attempt to impose artificial exceptions to this immutable principle, and even more so to delegate authority to non-State actors, is a flagrant encroachment on the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country. I emphasize that there should not and will not be any cross-border deliveries of humanitarian aid without the consent of the official authorities of Sudan. We call on the United Nations humanitarian wing to adhere strictly to the relevant Guiding Principles.
We call on certain Council members to stop hiding behind good intents of ensuring humanitarian access to the Sudan. It is obvious that they are doing so in order to promote their own agenda, which is far from constructive. As we know from experience of some of the member countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council, the delivery of large consignments of humanitarian goods to Sudan is quite possible under the current circumstances and has been successfully carried out. The only question is the willingness of our Western colleagues to follow that positive example and begin to cooperate with the Sudanese authorities. At the same time, we trust that Port Sudan will be able to submit its views on suitable modalities for expanding humanitarian access.
We do not quite understand the desire of some delegations to envisage new reports on Sudan, albeit incorporated into the reports on Security Council resolution 2715 (2023). We have repeatedly stated that, on the ground in Sudan, there are no United Nations personnel capable of drafting such reports, therefore whatever they write remotely cannot objectively reflect the developments in the country.
We are not inclined to overdramatize the problem of hunger in Sudan. We agree that the country faces serious challenges in ensuring food security. However, they are not primarily connected with a lack of food, but rather with difficulties in its distribution in a number of areas engulfed in hostilities and the difficult financial situation of the population. We believe that, instead of artificial instrumentalization of the issue of hunger, priority should be given to interaction with the Sudanese authorities in addressing the problems of food and agricultural support. I draw the attention of Council members to the fact that the misuse of the issue of imminent famine would undermine the credibility of UN assessments of the situation with food security.
Mr.President,
It should be noted that the resolution on the occasion of the holy month of Ramadan, which had been pushed through the Council in March, remained on paper. But instead of at least seeking its implementation, the sponsors introduce another draft that is very similar in essence.
Nor does the current resolution contain any substantive proposals to address the complex situation in Sudan. The document clearly does not take into account the views of the Sudanese side and is not based on any new agreements.
Secretary-General’s personal Envoy on Sudan, Mr. Ramtane Lamamra will be in New York next week. We believe he could highlight his efforts and orient the Council toward pragmatic steps. Unlike some Western envoys, he travels not only around the region but also to Sudan itself.
We wonder why the British coordinators have not even waited for this briefing, although they have been dragging out time for two weeks since the fighting began in El Fasher. Either they do not trust the conclusions of the United Nations mediator or they wanted to preempt his conclusions.
In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that the Security Council should consider all conflicts on a case-by-case basis and never make its response dependent on political considerations. All conflicts differ significantly as far as their history, the nature of their external and internal drivers, military capabilities, the possibility of refugee outflow to neighboring countries, and the scope of humanitarian assistance.
We are convinced that in the Sudanese context, priority should be given to efforts aimed at preserving state institutions and the unity and territorial integrity of the country by adopting a political solution identified by the Sudanese themselves.
Thank you.
