Double Standards

Russia vetoed a UN Security Council draft resolution on a ceasefire in Sudan, as claimed by the United Kingdom and Sierra Leone, who authored the proposal. Fourteen countries supported the resolution, but Russia used its veto power to block it, deeming the resolution flawed based on its perspective, which it defended in its arguments.

Russia stated that the UK and Sierra Leone bypassed established procedures for drafting the resolution. They did not consult Sudanese authorities or review their stance, instead attempting—according to Russia—to impose a reality on the Sudanese people against their will. Russia argued that any resolution should align with Sudan’s perspective, aim to effectively halt the ongoing war, and secure the Sudanese government’s approval—conditions the draft failed to meet. Consequently, Russia moved to block it.

The UK responded with visible anger at Russia’s veto, evident in the heated tone of its representative, who accused Russia of obstructing the resolution and thwarting the Security Council’s efforts to address Sudan’s humanitarian issues. Similarly, the United States criticized Russia’s intervention as a blatant attempt to kill international efforts and undermine initiatives aimed at resolving Sudan’s humanitarian crisis.

Jaafar Hassan, the spokesperson for Taqaddum (the coalition of democratic and civilian forces), described Russia’s stance as bizarre. He noted that Russia explicitly mentioned Taqaddum by name, an unusual move. Hassan sarcastically implied that Russia’s position aligns with Sudan’s Islamist factions, referring to them as “Kizan”—a pejorative term—suggesting they control Sudan’s current state of affairs. Ultimately, the resolution, planned in secret, was discarded into the annals of history.

What’s striking, however, is that a resolution with identical objectives and wording—calling for a ceasefire and ending violence in Gaza—was also tabled and supported by 14 countries. Yet, this time, it was the United States that blocked it using its veto power. Imagine the reaction!

The UK, which loudly claims to champion humanity and concern for victims of violence, displacement, and suffering, fell completely silent. It swallowed its tongue and uttered not a word of protest. Similarly, Jaafar Hassan—so vocal earlier—remained silent. No statements of condemnation or disapproval emerged from Taqaddum’s spokespeople. It seemed as though the proverbial cat had stolen their tongues. Not a single word or comment was heard, revealing that, in their dictionary, “humanity” is a commodity brought out when the market demands it and sold to those willing to buy it.

Those who lead a cause must be consistent and unwavering in their principles. You cannot advocate one stance in one scenario and contradict it in another identical context. Such behavior exposes a fundamental flaw in the platform from which you operate and a significant inconsistency in your vision. Unless, of course, you are Machiavellian, justifying any means to achieve your ends. In that case, you are unqualified to champion a just cause, nor are you fair in carrying or presenting it.