Russia's veto highlights the ongoing geopolitical tensions surrounding international interventions in conflict zones, particularly in Africa.
The situation in Sudan reflects broader issues of sovereignty and external influence, raising questions about the role of international organizations in domestic conflicts.
The veto may lead to increased tensions between Russia and Western nations, particularly as the humanitarian crisis in Sudan continues to escalate.
Future resolutions regarding Sudan may face similar opposition from Russia, complicating international efforts to address the conflict.
On November 19, 2024, Russia exercised its veto power at the UN Security Council against a draft resolution proposed by Britain and Sierra Leone, which called for an immediate cessation of hostilities in Sudan and the protection of civilians amid ongoing conflict since April 2023. The resolution garnered support from 14 of the 15 Security Council members, with only Russia opposing it, leading to significant criticism from British and American representatives.
Russian delegate Dmitry Polyansky outlined seven key points justifying the veto. He argued that the resolution disregarded the legitimate authority of the Sudanese government and accused the British of attempting to interfere in Sudan's internal affairs. Polyansky emphasized that the resolution could facilitate external interference and political manipulation in Sudan, akin to past incidents that contributed to the current crisis.
Polyansky further criticized the draft for its language, suggesting it encouraged ongoing hostilities rather than promoting peace. He asserted that conditions were not yet suitable for deploying international forces to protect civilians and that any such request should come from Sudan's current leadership. The Russian representative also dismissed calls for external accountability mechanisms, asserting that justice should remain the prerogative of the Sudanese government.
Additionally, Polyansky contested the narrative of a dire humanitarian situation, arguing that Sudan's government had legitimate reasons for imposing restrictions on aid and that humanitarian efforts should be coordinated with Sudanese authorities. He concluded by calling for an end to perceived double standards in international responses to conflicts, particularly contrasting the situations in Sudan and Gaza.
