CHINA AND RUSSIA VETO UNSC BURMA RESOLUTION

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 000024 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PREL PHUM UNSC BM SUBJECT: CHINA AND RUSSIA VETO UNSC BURMA RESOLUTION REF: USUN 17 ¶1. On January 12, the Security Council voted 9 - 3 (China, Russia, South Africa) - 3 (Indonesia, Qatar, Congo) on the UNSCR introduced by the United States and co-sponsored by the United Kingdom on the situation in Burma. The negative votes by permanent members China and Russia resulted in defeat. ¶2. China, South Africa, Indonesia, Qatar, and Russia delivered Explanations of Vote prior to the vote. After the vote, the United States, UK, Italy, Congo, Ghana, Belgium, Slovakia, France, and Panama delivered Explanations of Vote. The permanent representative of Myanmar was the last speaker. ¶3. All Council members expressed concern about the situation in Burma, and all expressed support for the Secretary-General's "Good Offices" mission. Recalling views SIPDIS presented during negotiations, the opponents and those who abstained emphasized the view that the Security Council is an inappropriate venue for this topic as the situation in Burma does not meet the UN Charter definition of threats to international peace and security. ¶4. Noteworthy statements included the following: (full session can be viewed at www.un.org/webcast; statement by USUN Ambasssador Wolff is available at www.un.int/usa): China (no): China's position is a matter of principle; action in the Council on this matter is the last option China wants to see.... We encourage the Secretary-General to appoint a Special Representative on Myanmar as soon as possible. South Africa (no): Our vote should not be read as a question, judgment or comment on the content of the resolution, but reflects our most fundamental view that the situation in Myanmar does not meet the Charter's mandate. This issue is best left to the Human Rights Council, and we fear it may compromise the Good Offices mission. Indonesia (abstain): This resolution addresses vitally important issues, but it is not a proper subject for the Council in comparison to situations elsewhere involving the direct use of armed force against civilians, matters which should have a higher priority in the Council. As a member of ASEAN, as a neighboring country and as a member on this Council, Myanmar must now recognize that the issue is no longer just a bilateral nor regional issue but an international one. Qatar (abstain): Our position reflects our respect for the UN Charter and opposition to interference in the internal affairs of a country, but we understand this resolution aims to take a preventive measure. Russia (no): Russia's position has been clear. We oppose placing Myanmar on the Council's agenda because the situation does not represent a threat to international peace and security. UK (yes): The Council doesn't have an exclusive right to any one issue; the entire UN community should work in a complementary fashion. Italy (yes): We profoundly share the concerns about the situation in Burma, but we are also believe punitive approaches are ineffective and prefer a consensual attitude in the Council. Congo (abstain): Other UN bodies are more competent to deal with this matter. Ghana (yes): Contemporary definitions of security must be broader. Panama (yes): I regret the pressure that has been applied in bringing this issue for a decision today. Regret that we could not reach consensus; consider outcome a failure. Burma: Security Council should be proud of itself. Gratified that two permanent members acted to uphold the UN Charter. We have close and cordial relations with all five of our neighbors. Resolution would not have helped the Good Offices mission. We responded to Gambari request by releasing five student dissidents. WOLFF