Explanation of Vote by Deputy Permanent Representative Anna Evstigneeva after the UNSC Vote on a Draft Resolution on South Sudan
Mr. President,
The Russian Federation abstained in the vote on the US-drafted UNSC resolution renewing the mandate of the United Nations Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS).
Russia fully supports the activities of the UNMISS and its new head, Ms. Anita Kiki Gbeho. The tasks entrusted to the Mission – maintaining stability and security in South Sudan, the peacekeeping component of its mandate, and addressing humanitarian issues – remain critical. As we can see, the Mission is tackling them successfully.
The language of the resolution contains a host of dangerous and, in our view, erroneous messages. Despite numerous comments, the authors, nevertheless, persisted in linking the prospects for maintaining the UN peacekeeping presence with some progress of Juba in terms of the political process, protecting civilians, humanitarian access, and human rights. We stress that the Security Council has not developed any performance indicators in this regard. However, it is precisely progress in addressing the large-scale challenges facing South Sudan that should serve as grounds for reducing or winding down the activities of the Blue Helmets, and not the other way around.
We noted that the text contains instructions for the Secretary-General, jointly with the UN military and police leadership, to conduct an analysis of peacekeeper activities and prepare proposals for adapting their operations to current realities. Unfortunately, the sponsors denied troop-contributing countries the right to participate in the preparation of this document. But what is most disconcerting is that even before the release of these detailed assessments, the text already provided for a significant reduction in the peacekeeping contingent. We understand that the current number of Blue Helmets on the ground is below the envisioned “ceiling.” Moreover, the Mission has just gone through difficult times and had to downsize due to a liquidity crisis. However, the UNMISS’s broad mandate remained virtually unchanged; all tasks related to the protection of civilians, humanitarian access, and human rights – which require sufficient personnel – have been retained. Under these circumstances, reducing the contingent appears illogical and contradictory. The Mission must be prepared for any scenario and geared-up for any potential security challenge. To this end, UNMISS must have sufficient resources. Nor can we forget that its main objective for the immediate future remains maintaining a stable situation in the country in the run-up to the nationwide elections scheduled for the end of the year.
Finally, we have to note that the authors have once again opted for the tactic of exerting pressure on South Sudan. Instead of emphasizing progress in the political process, the text focuses on the insufficiency of Juba’s efforts, with the addition of criticism and unwarranted alarmism. Moreover, the country’s government is even being denied the right to be correctly named in the document.
We urge our American colleagues not to abuse their penholder status on South Sudan in an attempt to push through their own agenda aimed at the marginalization of the current leadership of this country. The task of the Security Council is to provide friendly assistance to this young nation in building their State institutions, rather than seek Juba’s shortcomings out. Constructive cooperation is exactly what both the South Sudanese and UNMISS currently need.
Thank you.
