Throughout the process of the development of the Security Council’s working paper on the management of the Rohingya crisis, member states have been displeased with the work ethic of the Russian Federation.
China not satisfied
While the delegation of China was hard at work with other delegations over the details of the paper, they commented on Russia’s choice to take a back seat role, sitting aside with Poland, reading the working paper, saying: that they were “not about to invite” Russia to be a sponsor of the “jumble of ideas.” China was displeased that Russia had only contributed a few clauses of the document; they were not quiet in this stance either, openly speaking about their disappointment in the Russian Federation’s standoffishness. This unwillingness to cooperate, however, would prove to be detrimental to the Security Council’s progress in committee session today. By speaking openly to the Russian Federation, China could have addressed Russia’s concerns regarding human rights abuses, saving the council from the disappointment that ensued.
Russia’s point of View
Upon speaking to the delegation of the Russian Federation it was discovered that they were taking a less active role in writing the working paper because they were not satisfied with its coverage of the protection of the Rohingya people’s human rights. Poland agreed, saying that the jumble of ideas “is a start” but did not fully address the major issue of human rights abuses in this situation. While this quiet protest may have been unhelpful to the writing of the working paper, the Russian Federation did nothing to deliberately inhibit its construction.
When the working paper was taken to voting bloc, Russia vetoed the draft resolution, sending the rest of the council back to the drawing board. Many member states were deeply disappointed in this, unhappy that their hard work had amounted to nothing. While Russia had agreed to be a signatory on the working paper, the Security Council still failed to ensure that Russia was in full agreement with their ideas before voting on the draft resolution. In the Security Council, communication is imperative (especially with the veto powers) and it is clear that in this case that communication was not sufficient.