Explanation of vote by First Deputy Permanent Representative Dmitry Polyanskiy after UNSC vote on a draft resolution renewing the mandate of resolution 2652
Mr.President,
Russia abstained on a draft resolution (put forward by France and Malta) endowing the European Union with the mandate to proceed with Operation IRINI to prevent migrant smuggling and human trafficking.
Yesterday's briefing, which was called by the Russian Federation, unfortunately did not provide an answer to the question why we need this resolution if the European Union, as we all saw yesterday, is unable to properly carry out functions that have been assigned to it at its own request.
We did not obstruct this adoption purely out of respect for the efforts of the French and Maltese co-facilitators, who did a good job on the new draft. This was preceded by consultations (that we had insisted on having), which made it clear that leaving the text unchanged and limiting it to a technical rollover would be a wrong thing to do.
In particular, the facilitators have restored important provisions taken from resolution 2240 of 8 years ago. However, it is clear to anyone who has got at least slightest knowledge of the situation in the region or has read the Secretary-General's report on the implementation of resolution 2652 that these measures are no longer sufficient and that the mechanism provided for in resolution 2240 and subsequent Security Council resolutions is not working. Traffickers in human beings escape criminal prosecution, while migrants drown at sea or become imprisoned.
At yesterday's briefing, representatives of UNHCR and IOM made a strong point, backing it up with actual figures and facts, that the Mediterranean Sea has become a graveyard for many thousands of immigrants from Africa. In these circumstances, idleness would undermine the authority of UN Security Council.
Colleagues,
Recommendations of the Secretary-General and his report make it clear what additional measures are required. At a minimum, all persons rescued and intercepted at sea should be assigned safe ports of landing in accordance with the international law of the sea. In addition, crimes against migrants and refugees must be investigated, and all victims must have access to justice and be provided with reparations, whereas the perpetrators must be held accountable. We proposed to have relevant language included in the resolution.
It is worth noting that our proposals are in line with the standard approach of our Western colleagues about the need to strengthen accountability and fight impunity. However, in this case, the coordinators, who are constrained by the EU discipline, flatly refused to accept our amendments. They found it more important to favor the European Union than to take practical steps to remedy this unacceptable situation.
I cannot deny that we were quite surprised yesterday by the undeservedly high praise from some Western colleagues for the EU's Operation IRINI, which is supposedly making a major contribution to rescuing migrants at sea. It seems that our colleagues and us did not read one and the same report. In any case, according to the Secretary-General's report that we have received, EU's contribution to rescuing people at sea is very modest, to put it mildly.
Mr.President,
Unfortunately, the resolution that was adopted today gives no reason to believe that the inhumane approach of the European Union to migrants and refugees in the Mediterranean will change and that the shameful practice of the courts of European coastal states to shove migrants-carrying vessels out of their "jurisdiction", which results in painful deaths of people in distress, including women and children, will cease.
It is unlikely that EU member states, who do a lot of talking on the importance of cooperation with civil society, will lift their ban on humanitarian and non-governmental organizations providing assistance to migrants and refugees and stop imprisoning crews who bring on board those whom they see in distress at sea and, for doing that, face charges of human trafficking.
Odds are that the European Union will try to hide behind the screen of its alleged exclusivity and start arguing that everything it does always meets the interests of its neighbors – in vein of the proverbial “garden VS jungle” logic. We do not consider such excuses plausible. That is why we will continue to seek strict compliance by European champions of human rights with their relevant commitments.
Thank you.
