New Delhi: In a week marked by a transition in the Security Council’s presidency, the UN’s top body in charge of international peace and security issued its third statement in two months on the situation in Myanmar, even as the decade-old conflict in Syria continues to reveal the deep fissures between the members.
Last week, the council issued three press statements – on the suicide attack against Makassar church in Indonesia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and the killing of Chadian UN peacekeepers in Mali. There were also meetings on the challenges of the DRC elections and Resolution 1540 that is related to the prevention of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
But, the council’s deliberations were primarily dominated by the two ongoing conflicts – Syria and Myanmar.
The UK had sought a meeting on Myanmar urgently following the killing of over 100 civilians on March 27. However, this time it was held under the “Any Other Business” category on March 31, which meant that its proceedings were not part of the official records of the UNSC.
Several countries made public their national statements which continued to reveal the gulf in the council on further steps to be taken to pressurise Myanmar.
India’s statement condemned the violence, but the envoy pointedly did not name the perpetrators. Instead, India was a party by consensus to the “press elements” released by the council president, Vietnam, on April 1.
India has been pushing for engagement with the Myanmar junta regime, with the visit of the UN special envoy as an initial step.
The council expressed “deep concern” at the deteriorating situation and “strongly condemned” the use of violence against peaceful demonstrators. There was, again, no mention of further steps, except that council remains “actively seized of the matter”.
At her wrap-up press conference, US’ permanent representative, Linda Thomas-Garfield, had to answer a volley of questions on Myanmar. To a query on whether the Myanmar general’s defiance showed that the council’s credibility was at stake, she disagreed. “I don’t think our credibility is at stake. We have to redouble our efforts, where we would be looking at what other things we can do”.
Also read: At UNSC Meeting on Myanmar, India ‘Condemns Violence’, But Urges ‘Engagement’ With Regime
The incoming president, Vietnam’s Dang Dinh Quy, had to also similarly field questions about the south-east nation, where the military has cracked down on protestors since the February 1 coup.
As #VietNam assumes Presidency of #UNSC in April, we expect to1⃣fostering ties btwn @UN & regional organizations2⃣surmounting Bomb&Mine consequences, maintaining #SustainablePeace, strengthening connectivity for effective actions3⃣protection of infrastructure amid armed conflicts pic.twitter.com/T0tTTxQmjj
— Viet Nam Diplomacy #WeWillWinTogether (@MOFAVietNam) April 1, 2021
Unlike some other countries in Council, Vietnam directly condemned the violence “on civilians” and referred to the highest daily rate of fatalities on March 27. But, Vietnam is also against unilateral sanctions but did not favour punitive action against Myanmar for now.
“Number one priority now is to stop the violence. And to stop violence is to deescalate tensions, and any measures will have to take that into account for now… if it creates a favourable situation for dialogue between various sides and finds a satisfactory solution, we will support that,” he said.
On Friday, an aria-formula meeting on Myanmar is scheduled, allowing non-UNSC members to air their views.
Vietnam’s presidency will also coincide with a renewed ASEAN push to take the initiative on Myanmar by holding an urgent summit at the end of April. Both Vietnam and Myanmar are members of the regional body.
The last high-profile open debate of the US’s April 2020 presidency was on Syria’s humanitarian disaster, which marked the conflict’s tenth anniversary.
In an impassioned speech, US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken rebuked council members who “all sit in these chairs and speak these words” but cannot find in their hearts the common humanity to do something. “How is that possible? I have two young children of my own. I suspect many members of this Council have young children or grandchildren. I think of my kids when I think of the Syrian children we’ve heard talked about today”.
Also read: UNSC Watch: P-5 Clash Over Libya, India Worries About UN Report Leak
He called on for intensifying “cross-line and cross-border deliveries” of humanitarian aid.
Blinken also asked the council to reauthorise the Bab al-Hawa crossing between Turkey and Syria, as the validity of resolution 2533 that sets up the cross-border mechanism is due to expire in July.
The cleavage between the P-5 members is on the type of humanitarian access. While cross-border deliveries refer to humanitarian assistance from a neighbouring country into Syria, cross-line operations indicate aid convoys moving from government-held to rebel-held territories.
The US-led bloc in the council has been calling for focussing on cross-border mechanisms to reach the vulnerable population in north-west Syria. In contrast, Russian and Chinese statements focus on respect for Syrian sovereignty. Russian airstrikes last month had reportedly targeted the Bab al-Hawa border crossing. By emphasising cross-line aid operations, Moscow has been attempting to pull in western countries to deal with the Bashar al-Assad government, observers noted.
As articulated by permanent representative T.S. Tirumurti, India’s position is that there had to be an immediate engagement “consistent with Syrian independence, territorial integrity and sovereignty as well as addresses the urgency of the humanitarian issues to alleviate the suffering of the Syrian people”.
“At the same time, concrete steps need to be taken to address hurdles that are obstructing the functioning of both cross-border and cross-line operations, in particular, the delays in granting requisite approvals to humanitarian aid convoys,” he noted.
Meanwhile, the final 2021 report of the Panel of Experts monitoring the implementation of UN sanctions against North Korea was made public last week.
One of their jobs was to solicit information from member states if international trade data analysis shows any transaction in prohibited items.
Also read: UNSC Watch: New President; US Puts Myanmar Front and Centre at Council
The report states that the panel made two inquiries from India – for the period between May and December 2019 and the second for the period between January and July 2020. It says that statistics recorded imports of zinc, iron and steel products, textiles, electrical equipment, machinery, and food and agricultural items worth $1.36 million. Further, there were also exports of industrial machinery, iron and metals and vehicles worth $ 339,000.
“To both inquiries, India replied without original documents or other pertinent details that “after careful checks, we have found that there were no exports to or imports from DPRK” of prohibited items for both periods,” said the report.
In the mid-term report released in October 2020, India had told the panel that relevant Indian agencies have confirmed that no imports or exports of items and goods have taken place to or from DPRK. “..in a few instances where the goods were declared as originated from DPRK or destined for DPRK, the consignments were interdicted to verify the country of origin/destination. In all such cases, the goods were found to have actually originated from or be destined for the [Republic of Korea.]”, informed India.
This week in UNSC
The week begins with a briefing on the UN Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA) on Tuesday, followed by a briefing on the Great Lakes region on April 7.
Vietnam has planned four signature events during this month. The first one – a ministerial-level open debate on mine action – will be on April 8.
