New Delhi: With Myanmar on its plate, the UN Security Council last week may have spoken in a unified voice, but national interests ultimately continue to dictate political dynamics in nearly all topics of international peace and security.
It has been a busy week at the UNSC, which held four meetings and an open debate, approved three resolutions, issued two presidential statements and one press statement.
The US organised a high-level open debate on food security and conflict on March 11, where UN secretary-general Antonio Guterres rang the alarm bells. “Today, I have one simple message: If you don’t feed people, you feed conflict. Conflict drives hunger and famine, and hunger and famine drive conflict,” he said.
He pointed out that with a 20% increase from the previous year, more than 88 million were living in acute hunger and instability at the end of 2020. “Projections for 2021 point to a continuation of this frightening trend,” he added.
India’s permanent representative, T.S. Tirumurti, asserted that food insecurity by itself was not a sufficient condition for political violence and conflict. “The link between the two is context and region specific and varies according to a country’s level of development and the strength of its political institutions and social safety nets. Fragile states generally have weak capacities to design, implement and monitor policies and programmes related to food, thereby increasing their vulnerability while facing a conflict situation,” he said.
Stating that the solution for the lack of food security in conflict-affected states lies elsewhere, Tirumurti said that Council should take up conflict-induced food insecurity issues “only in the context of specific countries where it may pose a threat to international peace and security”.
The council members are currently negotiating a draft presidential statement on food security and conflict, which may be issued this week.
Last week’s key Council action was the presidential statement on Myanmar, issued by the Council president, United States. It meant that it was endorsed by all members, including China and Russia.
As The Wire had reported, Indian officials had made some suggestions during the negotiating process, all of which were incorporated.
Also read: UNSC Watch: COVID-19 Resolution Finds Record Sponsors, Council Loses its ‘Guernica’
Just like the UNSC press statement of February, the Council expressed “deep concern” at the developments, but for the first time, used the words “strongly condemns” for the violence by security forces against the protestors.
Under pressure from some member states, there was no specific reference to future punitive action, except that the Council will keep monitoring Myanmar closely.
The presidential statement also spotlighted the regional countries by expressing strong support for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).
The continuing attack on civilians, especially journalists, in Afghanistan led the Security Council to issue a press statement on March 12.
“The members of the Security Council condemned in the strongest terms the alarming number of attacks deliberately targeting civilians in Afghanistan. These heinous attacks have targeted civil servants, the judiciary, the media, health-care and humanitarian workers, including women in prominent positions, those who protect and promote human rights, and ethnic and religious minorities,” said the UNSC press statement.
The statement was drafted by non-permanent members Estonia and Norway, who are the ‘penholders’ for Afghanistan.
On a more optimistic note, the second presidential statement last week was on Libya, which welcomed the Libyan parliament’s endorsement of a new government of national unity led by Prime Minister Abdul Hamid Dbeibah.
This new unified interim government will replace the Government of National Accord (GNA), which largely administered Tripoli and surrounding areas and the Khalifa Haftar-led Libya National Army government in the country’s eastern part.
The three resolutions were all related to increasing the mandate of missions in Sudan, South Sudan and the Central African Republic. All but one were passed unanimously.
For the second time this year, Russia abstained on a Security Council resolution. Earlier, it was related to Yemen. This time, it was on the volatile CAR, where the Council extended the mandate and increased the size of the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilisation Mission in the Central African Republic (MINUSCA). In 2021, these are the only resolutions that have not been adopted unanimously.
For those not giving attention to that part of Africa, the Russian interest may be surprising. It is, in fact, the preeminent external actor now, ousting France. Russian military instructors were deployed in CAR in December 2020 on the request of CAR President Faustin-Archange Touadéra ahead of the elections. These instructors were withdrawn, but Russian private military contractors remained to support the government troops fighting rebels.
Russia has three objectives, as per this RUSI commentary. It wants to curtail France’s influence, challenge UN sanctions as these impact commercial interests, and use the conflict as a springboard to expand Russian influence in central Africa.
At last month’s debate on CAR in the Council, India had suggested that while it supported the reinforcement of MINUSCA, the Council also needs to focus on building the capacity of the Central African Republic’s security forces.
A general view shows a part of the capital Bangui, Central African Republic, February 16, 2016. Photo: Reuters/Siegfried Modola/File Photo
India had to dance around the diplomatic minefield of the Ukraine issue twice last week.
On March 10, there was a briefing by the chairperson-in-office of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), Swedish foreign minister Ann Linde to the 15-member Council.
She termed Ukraine as the “most serious challenge” to the European security order and asserted that OSCE Special Monitoring Mission should be allowed to carry out work throughout the country, unhindered.
During the discussions, India’s deputy permanent representative, K. Nagaraj Naidu, reiterated that bilateral agreements negotiated between the parties concerned provide the basis for a negotiated and peaceful resolution of disputes.
The reference to “bilateral agreements” has been India’s position on international disputes, shaped by New Delhi’s embrace of the Shimla agreement as the basis for resolving the conflict over Kashmir.
India’s position on bilateral agreements trumping other formats also aligns with the Russian line in Ukraine.
New Delhi clearly tried to balance by also underlining that commitment to “a rules-based international order, underpinned by respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty, rule of law, transparency, freedom of navigation in the international seas and peaceful resolution of disputes remains critical and relevant as well”.
Russia has always expressed deep scepticism for the “rules-based order” phrase, stating that it was a west-centric concept meant to pressure “unwanted countries”.
The other gathering was an Arria-formula meeting on Crimea organised by council member Estonia. India’s deputy permanent representative R. Ravindra said that there was “political sensitivity” about the topic. “The path forward can only be through peaceful dialogue for a lasting solution acceptable to all concerned,” he said, adding that India’s relations with countries in the region stand on their own merit.
📺Watch:
DPR-Political Coordinator @RAGUTTAHALLI speaks in the Arria Formula meeting organized by @EstoniaUN on #Ukraine 🇺🇦 pic.twitter.com/na248aslNd
— India at UN, NY (@IndiaUNNewYork) March 12, 2021
This week in the UNSC
After the Euro-centric one, Russia will be organising its Arria-formula meeting on Crime on March 17. The UK is also scheduled to hold a discussion on Freedom of Religion or Belief in the same format later this week.
The Security Council’s video conferences will be on Syria’s political situation, Yemen and the implementation of resolution 1701, which called for a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah.
This is a weekly column that tracks the UNSC during India’s current term as a non-permanent member. Previous columns can be found here.
