S/PV.5153 Security Council

I should like to inform the Council that I have received a letter from the representative of the Sudan, in which he requests to be invited to participate in the consideration of the item on the Council’s agenda. In conformity with the usual practice, I propose, with the consent of the Council, to invite that representative to participate in the discussion, without the right to vote, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter and rule 37 of the Council’s provisional rules of procedure. There being no objection, it is so decided.

The Security Council will now begin its consideration of the item on its agenda. The Council is meeting in accordance with the understanding reached in its prior consultations. Members of the Council have before them documents S/2005/57 and Addendum 1, S/2005/68, S/2005/140 and S/2005/60. Members of the Council also have before them document S/2005/206, which contains the text of a draft resolution submitted by the United States of America. I welcome the presence at this meeting of the Secretary-General, His Excellency Mr. Kofi Annan. It is my understanding that the Council is ready to proceed to the vote on the draft resolution before it. Unless I hear any objection, I shall put the draft resolution to the vote now. There being no objection, it is so decided.

The result of the voting is as follows: 12 votes in favour, none against and 3 abstentions. The draft resolution has been adopted as resolution 1591 (2005). I shall now give the floor to those members of the Council who wish to make statements following the voting.

Algeria fully shares the legitimate concern of the international community in the face of the tragedy in Darfur. We are profoundly outraged and upset by the heavy price that the civilian population has paid, and continues to pay, as a result of that fratricidal conflict. It is therefore quite normal for Algeria to express its compassion and solidarity with the victims of that tragedy, because we understand that the nature of the relationship that links us to the Sudan and its people imposes special duties and responsibilities upon us. It is for that reason that Algeria resolutely supports all the efforts of the international community to resolve the crisis and to prevent any further suffering for the civilian population. We have called for an African solution to the crisis from the outset. We have contributed to, and unreservedly supported, the African Union’s approach to a peaceful settlement of that crisis. We are doing everything we can, within our means, to support those efforts in the political, logistical and humanitarian areas. With regard to the political sphere, we have maintained ongoing contact with the parties in the Sudan and encouraged them to show restraint and to cooperate fully with President Obasanjo’s mediation as part of the Abuja process, as well as with the Security Council. We firmly supported the decision of the African Union to deploy a mission to Darfur in order to verify respect by all the parties for the Ceasefire Agreement signed at N’djamena and the two Abuja Protocols. We have also contributed by deploying military observers to the field. With regard to logistical support, in order to facilitate the speedy and full deployment of the African Union mission, whose presence in the field has been useful and effective wherever it has been deployed, Algeria has decided to make available to the African Union three heavy-duty cargo aircraft to transport troops and equipment, thereby contributing to overcoming one of the obstacles facing the mission. Lastly, with regard to the humanitarian dimension, Algeria has contributed to efforts to ease the suffering of the civilian population by providing significant humanitarian assistance and by deploying a medical mission comprising 36 doctors. At the United Nations, Algeria is doing everything it can to ensure that the Security Council fully shoulders its responsibilities vis-à-vis this crisis, including by supporting the efforts of the African Union, while at the same time respecting its leadership role and its resolve to succeed in this undertaking, which is unprecedented in the history of our continental organization. We are therefore pleased at the decision of the United Nations to send an assessment team to the Sudan, whose report we await with great interest. Our contribution to the Council’s efforts is motivated by a concern to have this body adopt a positive and balanced approach that takes account of the complexity of the situation in the Sudan and that respects that country’s sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity. That was the vision the Council enshrined in resolutions 1574 (2004) and 1590 (2005), which were adopted unanimously. It was in that same spirit that my delegation took part in the discussion of the resolution that has just been adopted by the Council. We had hoped that, through today’s important action, the Security Council would have moved the conflict in Darfur a decisive step closer to resolution. We therefore regret that it could not do so unanimously — all the more so because we know that there is a convergence of opinion on the analysis of the situation and on the urgent need to act to ease the suffering of the civilian population, meet their expectations and relieve their distress. Indeed, there was consensus within the Council on the need to send a strong message to the parties to cause them to respect their commitments. There was also agreement as to the objectives to be pursued through the resolution: to bring the parties unconditionally back to the Abuja talks, to put an end to attacks against civilians, to remove all obstacles to humanitarian assistance, to support the efforts of the African Union and to strengthen the peace in the South — utilizing the resulting momentum to resolve the conflict in Darfur. While we supported that approach, we and other delegations made constructive proposals to rebalance the text and to ensure that its message was completely unequivocal. Those proposals were fully in line with the position adopted by the African Group, set out in the letter it addressed to the President of the Security Council on 28 February 2005. Those proposals were in complete harmony with the position adopted by the African Group in its letter addressed to the President of the Security Council on 28 February 2005. We told the sponsors of the draft about our doubts concerning the relevance and usefulness of certain measures laid down by the resolution regarding the evolution of the crisis in Darfur and the negative impact they might have on the north-south peace process. We also felt that the resolution did not take into consideration the early signs of a trend — which we hope will be a lasting one — towards both parties respecting the ceasefire. The level of violence has dropped significantly in the past few weeks, and in our opinion the Council should have encouraged this development. We regret the fact that the sponsors of the draft, against all expectations, decided to keep the text as it was and made no effort to iron out the disagreements and to promote a consensus, which was very clearly within the Council’s grasp. The international community has missed an historic opportunity to speak with one voice. The message that it wanted to deliver and which we all support would have had more weight if it had had the backing of all members of the Council.

The Russian Federation is concerned by the continuing complex political and humanitarian situation in the Sudanese province of Darfur. Unfortunately, both sides — the Government of the Sudan and the rebels — so far have not fully complied with the demands of the United Nations, and that is the major reason for the continuation of the Darfur conflict. During the difficult work on drafting the resolution just adopted by the Security Council, the position of the Russian delegation, as well as that of our partners in the Council, was intend to promote the speedy righting of this negative situation and to make the parties aware of their responsibility to the people of the Sudan and to the international community. The question, however, is how to achieve that objective and ensure a cessation of this humanitarian tragedy without simultaneously doing anything detrimental to the process of peacefully settling the situation in the Sudan, which is so difficult to achieve. We are convinced that the potential of political and diplomatic measures to defuse the conflict in Darfur has by no means been exhausted. Implementing those measures is particularly relevant right now, at the beginning of the deployment of the United Nations peacekeeping operation in the south of Sudan, which has been authorized by the Security Council — an operation designed to create favourable conditions for an intra-Sudan settlement and reconciliation, including in Darfur. It is important to give time to the united Government of the Sudan, which was created in accordance with the Nairobi Agreement, so that it can show itself in a positive light, including with regard to Darfur. The imposition of sanctions against that Government is hardly likely to create a constructive atmosphere for its efforts. This, naturally, does not negate the justification for targeted pressure on those who in fact are creating obstacles to normalizing the situation in Darfur. On numerous occasions we have noted the need — that is the need — to draw up an effective mechanism to assist the parties to quickly resume the negotiating process in Abuja and to achieve positive results in moving it forward. Sanctions against the Sudanese Government are hardly likely to promote that. In addition, serious doubts arise as to the practical ability to implement the sanctions regime imposed by the Security Council, and that does not help to strengthen the effectiveness of the important instrument of sanctions. In that context to which I have referred, we have taken note of what was expressed during the discussion of this resolution before its adoption, namely, the possibility of reviewing the sanctions regime. We consider that the Council should, if the situation allows, as quickly as possible review the decision to impose an arms embargo, particularly in the light of the formation of the coalition Government of the Sudan. In addition, it should be taken into account that both the African Union and the League of Arab States have unequivocally opposed the unfounded strengthening of sanctions pressure in the Darfur context. We share the fundamental approaches formulated by those authoritative organizations concerning the settlement in the Sudan. Unfortunately, the authors of the draft resolution did not fully take into account the concerns I have referred to. In such circumstances, the Russian delegation unfortunately was not able to support this draft. At the same time, Russia will continue to actively promote — inter alia within the Security Council, and taking into account its earlier decisions — the speediest possible stabilization of the situation and a political settlement in Darfur and in the Sudan as a whole.

The Chinese delegation abstained in the vote just taken because we have serious reservations about the resolution adopted this evening. A few days ago the Security Council adopted resolution 1590 (2005) authorizing the deployment of a peacekeeping operation in southern Sudan. That was a correct decision, which will help ensure the comprehensive implementation of the north-south Peace Agreement. It will also help the Sudanese people to achieve peace and stability at an early date. Easing and defusing the current crisis in the Darfur region in an appropriate way is an indispensable part of the peace process throughout Sudan and is the common wish of the international community. It is also a solemn commitment made by the Sudanese Government. The situation in this region touches the hearts of all. It is our view that following the unanimous adoption of resolution 1590 (2005), the Security Council should seize this positive momentum and urge the parties concerned to resume political dialogue without conditions and as soon as possible and to reach a political framework agreement under the auspices of the African Union. In order to reach that goal, it is necessary to keep appropriate pressure on the parties. However, just maintaining pressure without regard for the complexity of the issue and the specific circumstances of the Darfur crisis could end up further complicating the situation and making it even more difficult to resolve. That would not help the effort to find a political solution to the Darfur issue. The African Union has expressed a clear view on this, which should be taken into full consideration by the Security Council. China has always taken a cautious approach to the issue of sanctions and we abstained on both resolutions 1556 (2004) and 1564 (2004). It has been our consistent view that in dealing with the issue of Darfur, the Security Council should first and foremost have a sense of urgency. Secondly, it should play a constructive role. And thirdly, it should support and work with the African Union. Thanks to the efforts of the international community, the humanitarian crisis in the Darfur region has gradually eased. However, to address the root causes of the problem, all parties must have the good will and resolve to undertake political negotiations. There are many complex factors that could explain why it is so difficult to resume the Abuja political talks. One of these relates to the messages sent by the Security Council. China has repeatedly stressed that the Security Council should exercise the greatest caution with respect to “measures” that could make negotiations more difficult and have a negative impact on the peace process. Based on that consideration, we suggested that major amendments be made to the text so that all sides could reach consensus and speak with one voice. However, our suggestion did not receive a positive response. Because of this, the Chinese delegation was obliged to abstain in the vote on the resolution.

Tanzania regrets that the situation in Darfur compelled us to adopt today’s resolution, after months of waiting for the Abuja peace process to resume. To date, the peace process remains stalled, and there is no significant improvement on the ground with regard to the humanitarian situation. The N’djamena Ceasefire Agreement is, at best, fragile. We have reason to believe that, if there had been more time to consider the draft resolution, we would have found more accommodating and consensual language to take into account a number of realities in the Sudan in general, and in Darfur in particular. Those realities include the following. First, through the Naivasha peace process and the Comprehensive Peace Agreement signed on 9 January 2005, the current Government of the Sudan is committed to and capable of pursuing a peaceful solution to the Darfur crisis. The installation of a new Government in two months’ time in Khartoum, born of the north-south peace process, will bring added commitment and experience to the search for a peaceful settlement in Darfur. Secondly, the African Union Mission is on the ground in the Sudan to monitor and supervise the ceasefire and, by its presence, to provide security to civilians. It has proved to be very effective on both counts where it is deployed. We hope that following the recent joint assessment mission of the African Union, the United Nations and the European Union, the bottlenecks with regard to more rapid deployment will be overcome, so as to enable the African Union to deploy additional troops expeditiously. The increased numbers will make the ceasefire more durable so as to permit the political and diplomatic initiative to revive the stalled peace process negotiations in Abuja. It should be noted that the Sudanese Government must remain able to provide the required cooperation and support to the African Union mission in Darfur. We hope that it will be possible for the peace process to begin before the measures outlined in today’s resolution become operational. Thirdly, the new transitional Government in the Sudan should not be subjected to a sanctions regime less than three months from now. It should be given a chance to start in a positive atmosphere and an unfettered environment. The Council should consider reviewing these measures as soon as the new Government is in place. These measures should not in any way prejudice assistance to the Government of the Sudan for reconstruction at the forthcoming donors conference to be held in Oslo next month. We appeal to all the parties in the Sudan to respond to the concerns of this Council and the international community with regard to the situation in the Sudan by making a bold and decisive move towards peace in Darfur before the measures adopted here today become effective.

I give the floor to the representative of the Sudan.

We do not deny that the Security Council should address the situation in the Sudan and the events in Darfur. Nor do we deny that it should focus its attention on matters of international peace and security. But if the real purpose is to find a solution to this problem, we do not like the Council adopting a series of unwise resolutions that might make the situation worse, instead of improving it. The Government of the Sudan is more interested in solving this problem. The Government of the Sudan, which has been trying patiently for years to resolve the oldest war in Africa, does not consider it difficult to resolve the matter of Darfur. The question that arises here is: why have the Abuja negotiations stood still, without making any progress? Why did no negotiations take place for more than a month, at a time when the Sudan had announced that its Vice President was to lead the negotiations? The answer is very simple and very clear, and it does not require any deep thought or high intelligence. The other side is waiting for the Council to wield a stick so that it can continue to do what it has been doing. But the more sticks that the Council uses to try to resolve the problem, the more complicated it will make it. The Council talks about support for the African Union. Yet once again it has adopted a resolution that complicates the situation for the African Union. It will complicate the situation on the ground. The Council will be responsible for that. The sponsors of the resolution know the situation on the ground. We have kept the lines of communication open, and they know what has been going on. Why is this happening? It is happening because there are other issues and domestic political matters that are more important than solving the question of Darfur. There are conflicts concerning the International Criminal Court. There are certain pressure groups and drumbeaters who put pressure on Governments. We know that; it is a fact. The African Union, as affirmed by one of the major delegations in the Council, is the only body that can deal with Darfur. There is no country that has the same force. But we are complicating the situation for those who would like to put troops on the ground. Why is all this happening? During negotiations on the resolution, the sponsors of the draft refused to show even a little flexibility with a view to reaching consensus. They justified that by referring to a congressional resolution. But there are other resolutions in Congress, and their content is stranger than that of the resolution that has been adopted. This resolution is thus a resolution of the United States Congress — a Congress that does not know the history of peoples, does not read the history of other nations and does not know about the cultures of other peoples, because it does not read about those cultures. If it read about those cultures, it would not understand them. If it tried to understand, it would not be able to do so, because the mentality of the Congress is one that looks at other cultures in a different way. This resolution goes against the position of Africa, whose forces are in the Sudan and are suffering from the situation. The African position is open to negotiations aimed at resolving this problem. The African position is informed by the culture of Africa and all the complexities of the situation. But all the concerns expressed by the African Union were neglected. Its stance was neither unilateral nor contentious; it emanated from three lengthy and important meetings held by the African Union, which culminated in the submission of a paper to the Council. If members of the African Union decided to vote in favour of this resolution, they had the right to do so; they are sovereign countries and completely free. But that in no way represents the African position. The African position was set out in the documents sent by the African Union to the Council. However, the Council decided to ignore that position, because African culture has no meaning and the African way to solve problems is not important. Indeed, other cultures come here to tell us what we have to do. I do not have much more to say. I do, however, want to say that I hold the Council responsible for having adopted these unwise and irresponsible resolutions.

I had not intended to take the floor, but I want to reflect on what we have done here. Twelve members of the Council, including two African States, voted for this resolution, which we hope will address the situation in Darfur. However, I have to defend the honour of the United States Congress. Many of the members of Congress care deeply about the issue, and many of them have gone to Darfur and actually had firsthand experience working with some of the non- governmental organizations there. We know that they and all of us in the United States hope that this resolution will contribute to an end to the violence in Darfur and to a successful resolution of the Abuja peace process.

The Security Council has thus concluded the present stage of its consideration of the item on its agenda. The Council will remain seized of the matter.