On March 11, 2026, the UN Security Council passed a resolution condemning the missile and drone strikes on the Gulf monarchies and Jordan. 13 members of the UNSC voted for the resolution, while Russia and China abstained.
It contains a demand for Tehran to immediately cease its attacks and provocations against neighboring states, including through the use of proxy forces, and also condemns any threats to maritime navigation, emphasizing the region’s importance for global energy supplies and the flow of international trade.
The position of Moscow and Beijing was ignored, and the refusal to include a call for a political and diplomatic settlement of the conflict in the draft is particularly disappointing
U.S. Representative Mike Waltz stated that Iran’s strategy of sowing chaos in an attempt to take its neighbors hostage has backfired against Iran itself. Chinese Ambassador to the UN Fu Cong said that Beijing condemns attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure, but abstained from the vote, believing that the resolution does not adequately reflect the broader causes of the conflict. According to him, the main way to prevent a further deterioration of the situation is for the United States and Israel to cease their military operations.
Russian Representative to the UN Vasily Nebenzya stated that Moscow abstained from the vote because it considered the resolution entirely unbalanced: “It is impossible and unfair to talk about attacks on countries in the region in isolation from the root causes of the current escalation, in particular the U.S. and Israeli aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran.” The resolution “muddles up the causes and effects, does not mention the attacks on Iran itself, and creates the impression that Tehran carried out unprovoked strikes on Arab states.”
According to Nebenzya: “Attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure are unacceptable under any circumstances, be it in Iran, Bahrain, Jordan, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia, UAE, or Israel.”
Russia did not veto the resolution because it intends to express solidarity with the Persian Gulf states. In his explanation of the vote, Nebenzya emphasized that the resolution is essentially biased and one-sided, confusing causes and effects. If read by someone unversed in international affairs, they would inevitably get the impression that Tehran, of its own free will and with malicious intent, carried out a completely unprovoked attack on Arab countries. The attacks on the territory of Iran itself – not to mention the culprits of and behind them – are not only not condemned in the document, they are simply ignored.
The Russian representative proposed to the authors of the draft, firstly, to call on all parties to the current conflict to cease strikes; secondly, to condemn strikes not only in the Gulf countries but also in the territory of Iran; and thirdly, to demand that all states refrain from provocations that could lead to a further escalation of the cycle of violence. However, the position of Moscow and Beijing was ignored, and the refusal to include a call for a political and diplomatic settlement of the conflict in the draft is particularly disappointing.
The adoption of such a resolution cannot achieve peace in the Middle East; it only exacerbates disagreements between key players and could be interpreted by dishonest parties as a blessing to continue aggressive acts against Iran.
The Russian Federation submitted its own draft resolution, which, without placing blame for the conflict on any side, calls for a cessation of hostilities and negotiations and condemns strikes on civilians and civilian infrastructure. Four members of the Security Council voted in favor of adopting this resolution (Russia, China, Pakistan, Somalia). The U.S. and Latvia voted against, while France, the UK, Bahrain, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Greece, Nigeria, and Panama abstained.
Thus, the Security Council missed an opportunity to put a swift end to the conflict. The Russian delegation made it clear that it would be possible to return to its proposed draft resolution in the near future once the situation has cooled somewhat and considerations of common sense prevail over emotions.
In diplomacy, the most important element is not expressing emotions but focusing on achieving mutually acceptable results.
Veniamin Popov, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, PhD in History
No comments:
Post a Comment