Speech of the Russian Deputy Representative at the Security Council Session on Sudan

Last week, Russia’s Deputy Permanent Representative, Dmitry Polyansky, gave a speech at the UN Security Council after voting on a resolution concerning Sudan, where Russia exercised its veto power against a draft resolution proposed by the UK, accompanied by Sierra Leone.

Below is the text of the Russian representative’s speech, as translated by Sudanese journalist Wasil Ali Taha:

Mr. President,

First, I would like to thank you for your excellent presentation of new British colonialism and the arrogance clearly demonstrated in your statement today. Anyone who listened to your speech — full of bitterness and resentments — can now understand why your country is rapidly losing influence and respect in the world.

Dear colleagues,

The Russian Federation voted against the draft resolution concerning Sudan put forward by the British and Sierra Leonean delegations.

We agree with our colleagues in the Security Council that the conflict in Sudan requires a quick and urgent solution. It is also clear that the only way to achieve this is for the warring parties to reach a ceasefire agreement. We believe that the role of the Security Council here is to assist them in this endeavor.

However, this should be done in a consistent and open manner, rather than imposing the opinions of some Security Council members on the Sudanese through Council decisions, along with their post-colonial ideas concerning the future of the country. The Council should not play into the hands of a former colonial power eager to “score points” with the Sudanese community in the United Kingdom.

Dear colleagues,

The main issue with the British draft is that it is based on a misunderstanding of who is responsible for protecting civilians in Sudan and ensuring the country’s borders and security. There is also a misconception regarding who has the right to make decisions about inviting foreign forces into Sudan, and ultimately, who UN officials should engage with to address existing issues and arrange for aid. We have no doubt that only the government of Sudan should play this role.

But it is clear that the British penholders are trying to strip Sudan of this right. Throughout the drafting process, they made every effort to omit any mention of the legitimate authorities in Sudan from the main provisions of the draft.

Their position is absurd and unacceptable, especially considering the fact that the government of Sudan represents its country in international organizations, coordinates key operations within the state, and participates in distributing humanitarian aid; in areas under government control, Sudanese citizens themselves are seeking asylum and protection.

We must regard such a position adopted by our colleagues as a mere attempt to give themselves an opportunity to intervene in Sudan’s internal affairs and facilitate their involvement in further political and social engineering in the country. This was precisely the case in the spring of 2023, when attempts to impose decisions that lacked support from the country’s population laid the foundation for the tragedy that occurred in Sudan.

The true motives behind the draft resolution are also revealed by the fact that previous calls by the Security Council for rapid intervention forces to end the siege of Al-Fasher and other cities have been replaced in the draft text with new distorted language suggesting that the fighters should stop their attacks on civilians only. Thus, the resolution essentially encourages the continuation of hostilities.

I would like to assure you that my country will not hesitate to continue using its veto power to prevent such scenarios, which could have severe consequences for our African brothers.

Moreover, we strongly reject the proposal in the draft resolution to use external mechanisms to ensure accountability for acts of violence. Bodies such as the International Criminal Court have already demonstrated their complete inability to address Sudan and other situations. We are convinced that the administration of justice should remain the sole responsibility of the Sudanese government and cannot be fragmented.

Dear colleagues,

Last time, the Security Council asked the UN Secretary-General to submit a report with recommendations on protecting civilians in Sudan. The report clearly states that the conditions are not yet ripe for the deployment of international forces in the country. From our side, we would like to add that this is indeed the case: there is no ceasefire agreement, nor an understanding of where exactly these forces would be deployed in the country or what their objectives would be. Furthermore, such a request for foreign presence should only come from the current Sudanese leadership. In the long run, we do not rule anything out, but we are convinced that if we begin this work now — disregarding the views of the authorities in Sudan — it will lead to nothing good. Poorly designed peacekeeping efforts during the active phase of internal conflict, which is vast in terms of geography, could lead to a complete disaster. If this scenario were to occur, it could forever undermine Sudan’s trust in the United Nations, which has already been seriously damaged by the inconsistent activities of the United Nations Integrated Transition Assistance Mission in Sudan (UNITAMS), whose work has already been terminated.

We also completely disagree with the narrative promoted by the authors of this paper regarding the dire humanitarian situation and their deliberate disregard for the views and statements of Sudanese agencies involved. UN humanitarian agencies and their Western partners need to refresh their memory regarding the UN’s guiding humanitarian principles, including the apolitical nature of any assistance. It is inappropriate to demand that Sudan open all its borders to the delivery of humanitarian aid while ignoring the numerous border crossings provided by the state authorities to deliver assistance.

The restrictions imposed by Port Sudan are not trivial; this is why the threat of sending weapons across borders to feed the rebels looms. It may be better to address the root causes of the Sudanese people’s concerns rather than demanding transparent borders. We believe it is crucial that any steps in the humanitarian field be agreed exclusively with the Sudanese central authorities. In fact, Washington and London continue to exploit the issue for their own purposes, and through illegal unilateral sanctions, they are simply obstructing the efforts of the country’s leadership to deliver assistance to the people.

Dear colleagues,

We urge you to take a sober look at how the Security Council is dealing with the Sudanese issue. Without constructive and serious interaction between all Security Council members and the Sudanese government, and without a sincere desire to help the Sudanese overcome their difficulties, any decisions made by the Council are doomed to fail. We urge you to avoid the approach of increasing pressure.

The Secretary-General’s personal envoy, Mr. Lamamra, continues his efforts — and we must give him time and the political opportunity to speak with all those who may have some influence on the settlement, whether they are internal or external players.

Finally, it is important that we rid ourselves of double standards, which are particularly glaring in the case of Sudan. When it comes to Sudan, some countries loudly call for a ceasefire and demand that both sides stop the violence and protect civilians, while in the case of Gaza, these same countries give “blanket authorization” to Israel to continue escalating, ignoring flagrant violations of international humanitarian law by the Israeli military. Similarly, these countries prioritize Israel’s right to self-defense and protection of its citizens, but when it comes to Sudan, they somehow deny the same right to its government and accuse the Sudanese army of all evil.

Dear colleagues,

We urge you all to definitively abandon new colonial thinking and stop all attempts to artificially create chaos in countries that pursue independent policies in order to “fish in troubled waters.”

Thank you for your attention.