Russia Performed Dictatorship
// Blocking a UNSC resolution on Zimbabwe
Russia and China blocked a UNSC draft resolution on Zimbabwe, which envisages imposing sanctions on that country because of a crackdown on opposition during the recent presidential election. It ensued an unprecedented scandal: the USA and Great Britain accused Russia of violating the agreements reached in Hokkaidō, and pointed out that Moscow is losing the trust of the Group of Eight.
A UN Security Council draft resolution on Zimbabwe, which was put to the vote on Friday, had been prepared in connection with an acute political crisis that broke out in that country after June’s presidential election. The country’s permanent ruler Robert Mugabe triumphed in the voting, where multiple irregularities were reported.
The UN Security Council resolution drafted by a group of countries headed by the USA provided for imposing severe sanctions on Zimbabwe, including a ban on arms supplies, freezing accounts of President Mugabe and another 13 top politicians of the country, and a ban on their overseas trips. The document was based on Chapter VII of The UN Charter, which allows using force to implement the resolution.
Although the American party intended to put to the vote the draft resolution on Zimbabwe back on Tuesday, consultations over the wording wouldn’t finish until Friday. To adopt the resolution, at least 9 votes (out of the 15 UNSC members) and a lack of veto of the UNSC permanent members (the USA, France, Great Britain, Russia and China) are required. The initiators of the resolution managed to collect the minimum of 9 votes: Burkina Faso joined the 7 UNSC members that have traditionally sided with the USA (Great Britain, France, Italy, Belgium, Croatia, Panama and Costa-Rica). On the other hand, 6 countries (Russia, China, the Republic of South Africa, Vietnam, Libya and Indonesia) didn’t support the proposal to impose sanctions on Zimbabwe.
Being aware of the fact that it’s only the UNSC heavyweights’ veto that can frustrate their plan to adopt the resolution, the USA and its partners applied maximum effort to come to an agreement with Moscow and Beijing. Thursday, as he came back from the G8 summit, Britain’s Prime Minister Gordon Brown claimed that “a decisive break-through” was reached during the meeting of the world leaders. According to Mr Brown, in the course of negotiations Moscow agreed to support the proposed cluster of sanctions against Zimbabwe.
Nevertheless, on Thursday evening the Russian party notified its western partners that it was not going to back the Zimbabwe resolution. It need be reminded that according to the practice that has become routine with the UN Security Council, to avoid a scandal, a resolution is not put to the vote in case there are irresolvable disputes between the UNSC members. Every case of using a veto signals a deep fissure in the Security Council, which its members always try to avoid. At the same time the using of a veto shows that the parties’ positions are so diverse that they are ready to demonstrate it publicly.
One day before the voting, knowing that Russia disagrees with the proposed variant of the Zimbabwe resolution, the USA decided to go through thick and thin all the same. During a UNSC session, which was held on Friday night MSK (UTC+4), and where Vietnam’s Ambassador Le Luong Minh presided, nine ambassadors voted for draft resolution S/2008/447, whereas five envoys (including those of Russia and China) voted against it, with Indonesia abstaining.
It need be said that a veto has been rarely used during voting at the UN Security Council. A double-veto is even a rarer occasion. It’s the third time in history that Moscow and Beijing use it. Earlier it happened in 2007 during voting on the Myanmar resolution and in 1972 as the UNSC considered a resolution on the Middle East.
After the UNSC members failed to pass the resolution on Zimbabwe, quite a scandal broke out. Regardless of the fact that it was a double-veto, Britain’s Ambassador to the UN, Sir John Sawers, attached the blame to Russia mainly calling its conduct “inexplicable.” From his point of view, in Hokkaidō Moscow along with the rest of the G8 members signed a statement containing a pledge to take financial measures against Mugabe’s regime. According to the British envoy, it was the Russian party that torpedoed the Zimbabwe resolution: But for Moscow’s veto, China wouldn’t have dared be the one to say “no” – it wants avoid aggravating its relations with the world community ahead of the Beijing Olympics planned for August.
American Ambassador to the UN Zalmay Khalilzad was even less emollient than his British opposite number. Judging by his statement, the Russian party really let down its partners first promising to support sanctions against Zimbabwe during the G8 summit in Hokkaidō, and then neglecting its promise after “something happened in Moscow” (Mr Khalilzad didn’t mention what could make the Russian party suddenly change its mind). “Russia’s conduct today casts doubt on confidence in it as a partner with the G8,” Zalmay Khalilzad claimed with irritation, throwing a meaningful look at Russia’s representative.
For all that, Russian Ambassador to the UN Vitaly Churkin rendered the accusations of Moscow’s overriding the agreements reached in Hokkaidō “irresponsible and factually inaccurate.” The Russian party appears to read the Zimbabwe statement of the G8 its own way and interpret it differently than its western partners. Mr Churkin emphasized that “it’s not by pure accident that the G8 statement doesn’t mention the role of the UNSC, and says nothing about what the UNSC should do in this connection.” “It’s the G8 statement that was the ground for Russia’s decision regarding the voting on the project,” the Russian Envoy said virtually making the G8 statement about Zimbabwe set off the draft resolution of the UN Security Council. According to Mr Churkin, the present draft is “the SC’s interfering in states’ home affairs, which contradicts the UN Charter.”
However, in the view of a UN expert, the prime motivator only marginally concerned Zimbabwe. Moscow just couldn’t allow the USA to realize its idea, which would have created a precedent that provided for threatening those countries whose voting outcome doesn’t satisfy Americans with UN sanctions. According to the source of Kommersant, “the Zimbabwe precedent could have marked a start of legitimizing “color revolutions” by the UN Security Council.”
Besides, Alexey Malashenko, Moscow Center Carnegie Expert, told Kommersant that putting its veto on the Zimbabwe resolution introduced by the USA, Moscow has raised stakes in geopolitical horse-trading over other urgent issues, from Abkhazia to Iran. Torpedoing the resolution on Zimbabwe, Moscow it trying to make Washington more amenable and at the same time to demonstrate American diplomacy’s limited capabilities.
&Barack Obama Came to Russia’s Defense
Barack Obama said he doesn’t support the idea of ousting Russia from the Group of Eight. “It would be a mistake,” he said in an interview with CNN, Saturday. From his viewpoint, cooperation with Moscow is essential in the world’s struggle against nuclear weapons proliferation. “If we’re going to do something about nuclear proliferation – just to take one issue that I think is as important as any on the list – we’ve got to have Russia involved. The amount of loose nuclear material that’s floating around in the former Soviet Union, the amount of technical know-how that is in countries that used to be behind the Iron Curtain – without Russia’s cooperation, our efforts on that front will be greatly weakened,” Mr Obama asserts.
It need be added that his rival John McCain supports expelling Russia from the group of the world’s top EDCs because of its overriding liberal values. “We need a new Western approach to this revanchist Russia,” Mr McCain argues. He believes that India and Brazil must be admitted to the G8 instead of Russia.
Dmitry Gornostaev, RIAN correspondent in New York, specially for Kommersant; Sergey Strokan
All the Article in Russian as of July 14, 2008
|
