Statement by Permanent Representative Vassily Nebenzia at a UNSC Briefing on Hunger and Conflict
Mr. President, Mr. Minister,
We thank the briefers for presenting their vision on the nexus between food security and conflict.
The organizers of today’s debate suggest looking at these issues from a broader perspective – through analyzing the impact of regional conflicts on global food markets and supply chains.
When discussing the issue from this angle, we cannot ignore the most glaring and pressing example – that is, the aggression against Iran unleashed by the United States and Israel on February 28. The ensuing escalation has jeopardized the normal functioning of one of the world’s most important trade arteries – the Strait of Hormuz – and triggered a major logistical shock, with the effects thereof being felt far beyond the Middle East. This is not merely a matter of the current rise in transportation costs. Future planting seasons in import-dependent countries in Africa and Asia are under serious threat due to rising energy and fertilizer prices. The World Food Programme (WFP), in particular, has warned that tens of millions of people could face hunger as a result.
We are closely following the work of the Secretary-General’s Task Force on the Strait of Hormuz, coordinated by the UNOPS Executive Director.
We also cannot ignore the fact that the United Nations has explicitly cited the so-called Black Sea Initiative as one of the “sources of inspiration” for the new mechanism. We consider it necessary to warn against an overly loose interpretation of that experience. The mechanism, which was presented as humanitarian in nature, turned out to be implemented in an extremely one-sided manner. Therefore, presenting it as an unequivocal “success story” and a ready-made model for Hormuz would be, to say the least, foolhardy.
Mr. President,
A significant factor destabilizing the global food market – one that our Western colleagues prefer to gloss over – is the imposition of illegal unilateral restrictive measures in circumvention of the Security Council.
In this regard, the flagship 2025 report The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World is particularly revealing. Its authors concluded that energy, food and fertilizer markets had been destabilized, inter alia, by anti-Russian sanctions. Last year, we drew the Council’s attention to the findings of that report and to attempts made by a number of Western delegations to challenge the very inclusion of such assessments in UN analytics. Against this backdrop, it is noteworthy that a similar report for 2026, published in July, makes no mention whatsoever of the impact of anti-Russian sanctions. What has changed? The objective economic data, or the approach to determining which data are politically convenient to mention? This is, of course, a rhetorical question.
The Secretary-General also acknowledged the detrimental impact of unilateral coercive measures, which was reflected in his report on this matter for 2025. It explicitly states that such restrictions affect not only vulnerable States but also disrupt regional and global supply chains, including in the agricultural and food sectors.
Against this backdrop, attempts to hold Russia responsible for volatility in global food prices appear wholly untenable. It is all the more strange to hear such accusations now, when the Kiev regime, using unmanned systems and intelligence provided by NATO and EU countries, is stepping up drone attacks targeting civilian vessels in the Sea of Azov and the Black Sea. In July alone, more than one hundred such attacks were recorded against commercial vessels carrying Russian agricultural products. These strikes by the Ukrainian Armed Forces, which make no military sense, violate international law and have already caused delays in supplies of grain, oilseeds and feed crops to international importers. Obviously, this cynical campaign by Kiev is aimed at sowing chaos on the global food market, even though Ukraine’s share of global food production is modest, no matter how hard the Kiev regime is trying to prove otherwise.
It is precisely the actions by the Zelensky regime, which has resorted to a tactic of total destruction of vessels under any flag in the Sea of Azov and the Black Sea, that have hampered navigation. What should be the first step towards stabilization is not various deals based on nothing more than Kiev’s word, with no guarantees that it will honor them, but rather an end to Ukraine’s destabilizing actions and acts of sabotage and terrorism against civilian vessels, as well as to its obstruction of international trade routes.
Since our Western colleagues are so enthusiastically championing the protection of global trade routes, they are well advised to rein in their protégés in Kiev, who are adding fuel to the fire of the food crisis. For our part, as President of Russia Vladimir Putin confirmed on August 22, we will resolve the current problems affecting grain exports and ensure supplies to the global market. Our export potential this year stands at no less than 60 million tonnes.
Mr. President,
Eight years ago, the Council adopted resolution 2417. Its subject matter is quite specific: food insecurity and the threat of famine in situations of armed conflict. It was not designed as a universal mechanism for monitoring every secondary impact of regional crises on global prices, energy markets and international trade.
Therefore, attempts to interpret its provisions expansively and extend them to any global economic crisis may dilute the agreed scope of the resolution and further politicize issues that should be addressed comprehensively by the relevant specialized bodies of the United Nations. Nor do we see any need to establish additional early-warning mechanisms under the auspices of the Council. The problem here is not a lack of tools, but rather a lack of willingness to use the existing ones in a timely and impartial manner.
If anyone needs a clear example of what resolution 2417 was designed to address, you do not have to look very far. It is the Gaza Strip. Despite some improvements in recent months, the situation there remains critical. According to recent estimates, more than 1.4 million people, or 67 per cent of Gaza’s population, are acutely food insecure. The situation in the West Bank is also alarming. Israeli operations, settler violence, and restrictions on movement and access to land are undermining the ability of Palestinians to provide themselves with food. According to the FAO, more than 72,000 farms – almost two thirds of the total – are in need of emergency assistance. It is in Palestine that the Council should be working to ensure implementation of the provisions of resolution 2417. The same logic applies to Haiti, Yemen, Somalia and Sudan.
Mr. President,
Emergency food assistance is critically important, but it should not become a permanent mode of existence for countries in crisis. We need to help States rebuild their agricultural production and strengthen their ability to feed their populations on their own.
Russia, for its part, remains one of the world’s breadbaskets and a reliable supplier of agricultural products to international markets, thereby contributing to global food security. In 2025, Russia exported agricultural products to more than 160 countries. A considerable share of our supplies were provided free of charge in the form of food and technical assistance to the countries most in need, including those affected by conflict. This year, our contributions to the WFP budget have already exceeded $33 million, while over the past five years they have surpassed $250 million. Russian assistance has been provided to Afghanistan, African countries, Syria, Palestine, Yemen, Myanmar and other States. We are also expanding our cooperation with FAO. Our country has financed projects on locust control and agriculture rehabilitation in East Africa, support for farmers in Syria, and creation of climate-resilient agricultural systems in Central Asia and the Sahel region.
Mr. President,
Resolution 2417 requires neither an expansive interpretation nor new mechanisms. What it requires is good-faith implementation in situations where conflict genuinely causes hunger. Rather than politicizing this issue, the international community should work to bring conflicts to an end, scale up humanitarian assistance and help affected countries restore their own agriculture. And, above all, we should refrain from creating new crises in the first place, so that we do not have to search for mechanisms to deal with their consequences.
Thank you.Начало формы
Конец формы
