Remarks by Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation Vassily Nebenzia in explanation of vote on the United Kingdom's draft resolution on the Yemen sanctions regime
Mr. President,
The Russian Federation did not support the draft resolution proposed by the United Kingdom extending sanctions and the mandate of the Panel of Experts on Yemen etablished pursuant to SC resolution 2140, because not all of our concerns were taken into account.
During the expert consultations, we clearly and explicitly set out our principled and duly justified remarks and expressed our objections regarding a number of provisions of the British draft. A number of our remarks was taken into account just today, when another contrived crisis loomed in the Security Council. And this all could have been agreed on calmly, without drama and pressure.
I would emphasize that also during discussions of the report of the Panel of Experts of the 2140 Committee there was no unity inside. However, many contentious issues were incorporated into the initial draft resolution. Many delegations did not have an opportunity to participate on equal footing in the work on a balanced text. Tell us: Do we really need divisions in the Security Council at the time when the situation in Yemen requires our concerted collective actions to facilitate the settlement that will help bring the conflict to a political track, ensure a comprehensive ceasefire and deliver help to the Yemeni people. It is fortunate that at least today we were able to overcome this division.
If the crisis had occurred, it would only have hindered the work of the UN and Special Envoy of Secretary General Mr. Griffiths, whom Russia fully supports. We reiterate the need for consolidation of the efforts of the international community in order to achieve overall stabilization in the region. We should focus not on isolation, not on pressure, not on blame game, but on truly collective efforts to find ways to resolve the crisis. The aim of the resolution was to extend the sanctions regime and the mandate of the Panel of Experts, rather than to compete in promoting their approaches that go beyond the objectives of the resolution.
Unfortunately, what have happened today yet again attests to the unconstructive working methods of the authors of the draft, which should have been initially aimed at adopting a consensus document with account of all voices, not just ours. Once again, we stress that the penholdership mechanism requires meaningful reconsideration. The fact that during the work on the SC draft resolutions our concerns are not heeded and often simply disregarded, ultimately puts, not us, but the sponsors of the draft, in an uncomfortable position. If you do not want to listen to us during the consultations, if you do not want to take our concerns into account, that this will impact on our voting positions, as was the case today. We certainly do not wish to achieve everyrhing just for ourselves, as some have said today. All we want is a balanced text of the resolution. But we cannot agree with the "take it or leave it" approach, which does not imply compromise. There is no compromise at all, and we can not agree to that kind of approach.
Thank you.
