YouSaid · the spoken record

Pierce

lines on the record: 1,742
first: 2006-06-20
most recent: 2020-03-12
sittings or episodes: 239
sources: un-security-council

Every line below is reproduced as it was said and linked to the record it came from. Nothing here is summarised or generated. Directory · Search · Corrections

“I should like to respond to the remarks made by the Ambassador of Bolivia about the United Kingdom. We have no doubt about the sovereignty of the United Kingdom over the Falkland Islands, South Georgia, South Sandwich Islands and surrounding maritime areas. Successive British Governments have made clear that sovereignty will not be transferred against the wishes of the Falkland Islands. The Falkland Islanders voted overwhelmingly to maintain their current constitutional arrangements with the United Kingdom. Turning to the Chagos archipelago, the United Kingdom is participating in the proceedings before the International Court of Justice, even as we disagree with jurisdiction in that case.”
2018-04-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8233 (2018) · source
“Secondly, there must be an immediate cessation of hostilities and compliance with all Security Council resolutions, including those that mandate humanitarian access. Thirdly, the regime must return to the Geneva talks and agree to engage on the substantial agenda put forward by the United Nations Special Envoy Staffan de Mistura. Fourthly and finally, there must be accountability for the use of chemical weapons and other war crimes in Syria. The Secretary-General rightly highlighted the political process. We propose that, as we members of the Security Council will all be together next weekend in the retreat with the Secretary-General very kindly hosted by Sweden, we use that opportunity to reflect on next steps and the way back to the political process.”
2018-04-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8233 (2018) · source
“It is hard to believe that it is in line with the principles and purposes ofthe Charter to use or condone the use of chemical weapons, and in the United Kingdom's view it cannot be illegal to use force to prevent the killing of such numbers of innocent people. I will take no lessons in international law from Russia. Despite all the foregoing, we would like to look forward. The United Kingdom, together with France and the United States, will continue to pursue a diplomatic resolution to the Syrian crisis. My French colleague will say more about our work in a few moments. We believe that it must comprise four elements. First, Syria's chemical weapons programme must be ended and the chemical weapons stockpiles destroyed once and for all.”
2018-04-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8233 (2018) · source
“This is one of the most serious challenges to the international non-proliferation regime we have ever faced. A State party has violated the Chemical Weapons Convention, it has defied the Security Council, and it has broken international law. Repeated attempts over several years to hold them to account have been met with Russian obstruction and resistance. In the Security Council, we have repeatedly attempted to overcome this obstruction without success. We are faced with a litany of violations, no sense of guilt, no sense of regret, no sense of responsibility, a shameful record, wrapped in a mix of denial, deceit and disinformation. I would invite those like the Russian Ambassador who speak about the Charter to consider the following.”
2018-04-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8233 (2018) · source
“Yet four times Russia vetoed different proposals from different Council Members to do just that. The Syrian regime and it supporters are responsible for the gravest violations of international humanitarian law in modern history. They have used indiscriminate weapons, notably barrel bombs and cluster munitions, against civilians, and they have deliberately targeted medical facilities and schools, as well as humanitarian personnel and civilian objects. They have used sieges and starvation as methods of warfare, accompanied by attacks on opposition-held civilian areas. The regime has persistently obstructed humanitarian aid and medical evacuations. Tens of thousands of people have been illegally detained, tortured and executed by the regime.”
2018-04-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8233 (2018) · source
“This is not assertion on our part but a matter of record, and I draw the Russian Ambassador's attention to his points about Barazan and Jimrya. The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) still has unanswered questions and discrepancies. He knows this. We all know this. The Council was briefed by the OPCW Director-General. Resolution 2118 (2013) decides in the event of non-compliance to impose measures under Chapter VII of the Charter. Yet on 28 February 2017, when the United Kingdom together with France, proposed a draft resolution (S/2017/ 172) taking measures under Chapter VII short of the use of force, Russia vetoed (see S/PV.7893). The very least the Security Council should have been able to do was to follow up on the findings of the report of the Joint Investigative Mechanism by extending its mandate.”
2018-04-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8233 (2018) · source
“It was therefore not for want of international diplomatic effort that we find ourselves in this position today. After a pattern of chemical-weapons use since the outbreak of the conflict, Al-Assad defied the international community in 2013 by launching a sarin gas attack on eastern Ghouta, which left more than 800 people dead. Despite the adoption of resolution 2118 (2013) and despite four years of patient engagement, Syria continues to use chemical weapons against its people and has failed to answer a long list of serious questions. The only conclusion we can reach is that Syria has not declared or destroyed all of its chemical weapons, despite its obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention.”
2018-04-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8233 (2018) · source
“I think that the debates in the Council and the briefings we have had from the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and others have proved that. Secondly, it must be objectively clear that there is no practicable alternative to the use of force if lives are to be saved. I think that the vetoes have shown us that. Thirdly, the proposed use of force must be necessary and proportionate to the aim of relief of humanitarian suffering. It must be strictly limited in time and in scope to this aim. I think we have heard both in my intervention in Ambassador Haley's how that has also been met. The history of the Syrian conflict is a litany of threats to peace and violations of international law. The Security Council has met 113 times since the Syrian war started.”
2018-04-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8233 (2018) · source
“Its use of chemical weapons, which has exacerbated the human suffering, is a serious crime of international concern as a breach of the customary international law prohibition on the use of chemical weapons, and that amounts to a war crime and a crime against humanity. Any State is permitted under international law, on an exceptional basis, to take measures in order to alleviate overwhelming humanitarian suffering. The legal basis for the use of force for the United Kingdom is humanitarian intervention, which requires that three conditions to be met. First, there must be convincing evidence, generally accepted by the international community as a whole, of extreme humanitarian distress on a large scale, requiring immediate and urgent relief.”
2018-04-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8233 (2018) · source
“A significant body of information, including intelligence, indicates that the Syrian regime is responsible for the attack we saw last Saturday. Some of the evidence that leads us to this conclusion is as follows. There are open source accounts alleging that a barrel bomb was used to deliver the chemicals. Multiple open source reports claim that a regime helicopter was observed above the city of Douma on the evening of 7 April. The opposition does not operate helicopters or use barrel bombs. And reliable intelligence indicates that Syrian military officials coordinated what appears to be the use of chlorine in Douma on 7 April. No other group could have carried out this attack. Indeed, Da'esh, for example, does not even have a presence in Douma. The Syrian regime has been killing its own people for seven years.”
2018-04-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8233 (2018) · source
“Furthermore, none of the British, United States or French aircraft or missiles involved in this operation were successfully engaged by Syrian air defences, and there is also no indication that Russian air defence systems were employed. Our action was a limited, targeted and effective strike. There were clear boundaries that expressly sought to avoid escalation, and we did everything possible, including rigorous planning, before any action was undertaken to ensure that we mitigated and minimized the impact on civilians. Together, our action will significantly degrade the Syrian regime's ability to research, develop and deploy chemical weapons and deter their future use. The United Kingdom Prime Minister has said that we are clear about who is responsible for the atrocity of the use of chemical weapons.”
2018-04-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8233 (2018) · source
“These are uncertain times and today we deal with exceptional circumstance. Acting with our American and French allies, in the early hours of this morning the United Kingdom conducted coordinated, targeted and precise strikes to degrade Al-Assad's chemical weapons capability and deter their future use. The British Royal Air Force launched Storm Shadow missiles at a military facility some 15 miles west of Homs, where the regime is assessed to keep chemical weapons in breach of Syria's obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention. A full assessment has not yet been completed, but we believe that the strikes to have been successful.”
2018-04-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8233 (2018) · source
“It is not only dangerous what Russia is doing in vetoing our resolutions and in supporting the Syrian regime's actions against its own people. It is ultimately prejudicial to our security. Indeed, it will let Da'esh re-establish itself. It is something that we believe we need to take action to defend.”
2018-04-13 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8231 (2018) · source
“In the area known as T-4, they helped the regime liberate this area but they took their eye off the ball and Da'esh took it back. They took it again, but, sadly, foreign fighters have been able to re-establish themselves there. This is not de-escalation. This is not political progress. This is a gross distortion by Russia of what is actually happening on the ground. The circumstances that we face today are truly exceptional. My colleagues from the United States and France have set out in great detail the catalogue of awful things that are happening to the Syrian people. That catalogue goes to the heart of what the Geneva Conventions, the non-proliferation regime, the United Nations and the Security Council are for.”
2018-04-13 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8231 (2018) · source
“However, it is not inconvenient for me to point out that Russia has given $5.5 million to the United Nations appeal. The United Kingdom has given a $160 million, and this is part of a contribution totalling $3.5 billion in all. It is not inconvenient for me to say that; it may be inconvenient for the Russian Ambassador to hear it. The Russian Ambassador also asked why we were not joining in and trying to stabilize actions in Syria and bring about peace. We have tried. Indeed, we have tried very hard to support Staffan de Mistura in getting the Geneva political process under way, and we shall continue to so. But we do not join Russia, because, sadly, its efforts have not been to try and restart the Geneva process. Instead, their efforts have been to support Syria in the use of chemical weapons and the bombardment of the Syrian people.”
2018-04-13 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8231 (2018) · source
“We prefer a productive relationship with Russia, but it is Russia's own actions that have led to this situation. What has taken place in Syria to date is in itself a violation of the United Nations Charter. No purpose or principle of the Charter is upheld or served by the use of chemical weapons on innocent civilians. On the contrary: to stand by and ignore the requirements of justice, accountability and the preservation of the non-proliferation regime is to place all our security - not just that of the Syrian people - at the mercy of a Russian veto. We will not sacrifice the international order we have collectively built to the Russian desire to protect its ally at all costs. The Russian Ambassador set out what Russia is doing on the ground in Syria. He thought that might be inconvenient for me to hear.”
2018-04-13 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8231 (2018) · source
“We are members and supporters of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and its Fact-finding Mission. In the debates in the Security Council earlier this week, we would have dispatched an investigative mission, had Russia and Bolivia not blocked that effort (see S/PV.8228). Syria is the latest pernicious chronology of Russia's disregard for international law and disrespect for the international institutions we have built together to keep us collectively safe. This is revealed in actions over Georgia 10 years ago, over Malaysia Airlines Flight MH-17 and over the attack in Salisbury, which we will return to next week. Let me repeat what I said in the Security Council last week. My Government and the British people are not Russophobic. We have no quarrel with the Russian people. We respect Russia as a country.”
2018-04-13 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8231 (2018) · source
“Of course, the Cold War was bracketed by East-West cooperation. We have been on the same side as Russia. In April 1945, Russia liberated Vienna as part of our joint efforts to bring peace to Europe. In 1995, it passed the Dayton Accords at part of our joint efforts to bring peace and stability to Bosnia and Herzegovina. But in 2018 the Russians refuse to work with us to bring peace to Syria. Instead, since the first attack on Ghouta and chemical-weapons use, in 2013, the Joint Investigative Mechanism has ascribed two uses of mustard gas to Da'esh, three uses of chlorine to the Syrian regime and one use of sarin to the Syrian regime before the latest attack. As my French colleague has set out, the United Kingdom, the United States and France are members in good standing of the Chemical Weapons Convention.”
2018-04-13 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8231 (2018) · source
“The British Cabinet met recently and concluded that the Al-Assad regime has a track record of the use of chemical weapons and that it is highly likely the regime is responsible for Saturday's attack. This is a further example of the erosion of international law in relation to the use of chemical weapons, as my French and American colleagues have set out, and it is deeply concerning. But more important than that, the use of chemical weapons cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. The British Cabinet has agreed on the need to take action to alleviate humanitarian distress and to deter the further use of chemical weapons by the Al-Assad regime. To that end, we will continue to work with our friends and allies to coordinate an international response. The Secretary-General mentioned the Cold War.”
2018-04-13 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8231 (2018) · source
“The Secretary- General has presented a catalogue of danger in the Middle East, including Gaza, Yemen and Iraq. It is no disrespect to those issues that today, like other speakers, I will concentrate on Syria. The United Kingdom will be ready to put its shoulder to the wheel on those other issues when the time comes. The situation we face today and the reason we are in the Security Council today arise wholly and solely from the use of chemical weapons on the Syrian people, most probably by the Syrian regime - not just once, but consistently and persistently over the past five years. The highest degree of responsibility, to quote the Russian Ambassador, is indeed what the Council, and in particular its five permanent members, are for, and it is our duty to uphold.”
2018-04-13 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8231 (2018) · source
“I appeal to everybody around the table to redouble efforts so that we have an ambitious programme of work for the Committee. We must stand up for the universal norms and standards we have spent decades building to create an effective and powerful non-proliferation regime, whether that deals with State actors or non-State actors.”
2018-04-12 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8230 (2018) · source
“If we are serious about dealing with the threats that the Committee was set up to counter, then this state of affairs cannot continue. Since last February the 1540 Committee has met formally only once, and barely any progress has been made with respect to the actions agreed in the 2017 programme of work. That means also that the commitments made in the relatively modest resolution 2325 (2016) have not been fulfilled. The new programme of work has only just been agreed, two months later than legally mandated. In those two months, the Committee was left without clear objectives or activities to pursue. I cannot think of any legitimate reason that any country would want to affect the work of the 1540 Committee in such an adverse way.”
2018-04-12 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8230 (2018) · source
“It is not enoughjust to condemn that, we need to find a way to take meaningful action and ensure that there are meaningful consequences for perpetrators. We have all benefited from the international order that has kept us safe since the end of the Second World War. It behooves us all to make every effort to uphold that international architecture. It is clear that not all countries share that View, and we have talked about that several times this week. With respect to the 1540 Committee, there is one Council member that has sought, at every opportunity, to slow progress and dilute the substance of every proposal, whether that be the programme of work, deadlines, calls to action or efforts to take progress forward. All of those have, sadly, been consistently watered down, and the Group of Experts has even been prevented from travelling.”
2018-04-12 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8230 (2018) · source
“The use of WMD by States is a worrisome pattern that clearly undermines our collective efforts to deter and eradicate the use of such weapons by State and non-State actors alike. We very strongly support the work to increase the capacity of States and are encouraged by the fact that there are now only 13 non-reporting States. Any non-reporting is troubling, but it is good that the number is decreasing. As I said, we were delighted to be paired with Equatorial Guinea and provide support. Nonetheless, it is clear that we stand on the cusp ofa nightmare where weapons of mass destruction are used with impunity, where our citizens live in real fear of an indiscriminate attack at any time and without warning.”
2018-04-12 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8230 (2018) · source
“Those events are awful enough. Yet, in acts of unbelievable irresponsibility, those risks have been exacerbated by the use of weapons of mass destruction by State actors. The chemical-weapons attacks in Douma and the attempted murders in Salisbury are the most recent examples, but there is also the assassination of Kim Jong-nam in Malaysia and the horror of Khan Shaykhun a little more than a year ago. I take this opportunity to state that, with regard the invitation from the Council for us to update members on the incident in Salisbury, we have requested a meeting next week to deliver a briefing on the findings of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.”
2018-04-12 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8230 (2018) · source
“As many of us have already said this week, we risk seeing a situation that the Security Council should dread - chemical and biological weapons becoming a routine part of fighting. Regrettably, we have been confronted in very recent times by multiple incidents of the use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by non-State actors. The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons-United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism found that Da'esh used mustard gas on at least two occasions in Syria. There are multiple instances of mustard gas use by Da'esh in Iraq. A planned chemical terrorism attack was thwarted in Australia in July last year. Those incidents clearly exemplify why the 1540 Committee and its work to prevent the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons by non-State actors is so important.”
2018-04-12 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8230 (2018) · source
“I sincerely thank our Bolivian colleague for his briefing on the work of the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1540 (2004). We welcome the new Coordinators. At the outset, I would like to state that we were very pleased to have been paired with Equatorial Guinea in terms of capacity-building. Resolution 1540 (2004) was the first subject on which I worked when I came to the Security Council, 10 years ago 4 my first time here. I am therefore very pleased to have this opportunity to talk about it today and to be able to say that for the United Kingdom the 1540 Committee is avital component ofthe international order. We need to empower it to fulfil its mandate, and we need to support it to the hilt.”
2018-04-12 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8230 (2018) · source
“Ijoin the French Ambassador in stressing how important that is. Human rights reporting and monitoring should be prioritized in the MINUSMA mandate, and we hope that it will be able to address those and other important human rights violations by signatory armed groups.”
2018-04-11 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8229 (2018) · source
“With that in mind, I have another call on all Member States to ensure that the continued shortfall of troop numbers and equipment, including the need for further air cover, reconnaissance capability and armoured personnel carriers, is generously met. The United Kingdom is committed to tackling threats in the Sahel. Following the Anglo-French summit in January, we have contributed Chinook helicopters to support Operation Barkhane, and those are aligned and working closely with MINUSMA. That is all designed to promote stabilization in a bid to enable MINUSMA to carry out its core mandate. Finally, let me say that we too are disturbed by reports of summary executions by the Forces Armees Maliennes, and we strongly encourage the Government to investigate those reports and ensure accountability for those responsible.”
2018-04-11 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8229 (2018) · source
“In view of the lack of progress, the United Kingdom now supports action to identify those obstructing, delaying or threatening the implementation of the Agreement, with a view to imposing sanctions on those actors. As I have stated, it is down to the parties themselves to implement the Agreement; but, like others, I would like to note the key role played by MINUSMA in the implementation. We commend the work of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General and all the staff, especially considering the challenging circumstances in which the military and civilian components are operating. As we look forward to renew MINUSMA'S mandate in June, we must ensure that its mandate is clear, it focuses on supporting the implementation of the Agreement and it is adequately equipped to support peace in Mali.”
2018-04-11 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8229 (2018) · source
“There has been some positive progress, and I do not want to underplay that, but it is also clear that this just has not been enough. The parties have agreed yet another new road map, rather than focusing on implementation of the existing timetable. There have been numerous revised deadlines and they have not been met. The delay to implementation will, unfortunately, have an impact on Mali's ability to conduct peaceful and inclusive presidential and parliamentary elections this year, and that, in turn, risks further destabilization to the security and humanitarian situation. In January, the Council noted the tools available under the Mali sanctions regime and expressed its intention to respond with appropriate steps should the parties not implement the commitments they made.”
2018-04-11 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8229 (2018) · source
“The United Kingdom strongly supports the Agreement on Peace and Reconciliation in Mali. It is the primary basis for sustainable peace and stability in Mali, and we need progress also in order to deny space to extremists. As other speakers have noted, at the Security Council's last meeting on Mali in January (see S/PV.8163) and also in its subsequent press statement (SC/13177), we welcomed the renewed commitment of the Government and the signatory armed groups to actually implementing the Agreement on Peace and Reconciliation by the end of March, and that was agreed in the revised timetable of 16 January. However, and disappointingly, it has been common theme of all interventions today that the persistent delays that tested the Council's patience in January are still continuing to frustrate us today, some time after the original deadline.”
2018-04-11 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8229 (2018) · source
“I thank Foreign Minister Coulibaly for taking time to join us today. I should like to join colleagues in thanking the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for his briefing and my Swedish colleague for his report and the expeditious work of his Committee. Like other speakers, we condemn the recent attacks against the peacekeepers in Mali, and we offer our condolences to the families of the three peacekeepers of the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA) who were killed last week, to MINUSMA, and to the Governments and the people of Chad and the Niger. I would just like to say how much I agree with what the Ethiopian Ambassador said about the greatest reward being progress on the ground. I think we all want to help MINUSMA to that end.”
2018-04-11 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8229 (2018) · source
“It would be like watching a fire, identifying that there was a fire, and doing nothing to put it out. The Russians invited us to return to the issue of an investigative mechanism on a separate occasion. I am afraid that the answer to that is 17 November 2017, when Russia vetoed a joint investigative mechanism that it had itself decided to set up. For all those reasons, all it would have taken is a written decision for an investigation set up by the Security Council. Russia could not take that small step, and therefore we were not able to support the draft resolution. I very much regret that, but the answer was in Russia's hands.”
2018-04-10 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8228Resumption1 (2018) · source
“I will be brief. In the Consultations Room just now, Mr. President, you and the representative of Sweden made valiant attempts at a compromise. We all appreciate what is at stake and thank you for your and Sweden's efforts. But, fundamentally, the United Kingdom could not vote for the Russian text (S/2018/322) because it does not establish an investigation into who was responsible for the attack. It only welcomes the Fact- finding Mission, which is already on its way. I repeat what I said in consultations: the Fact-finding Mission determines whether chemical weapons were used and, if they were, which chemical weapons were used. It does not, and cannot, establish who was responsible for their use - and thus start on the first step on the path to attribution and accountability. For that reason, we are not able to support the text.”
2018-04-10 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8228Resumption1 (2018) · source
“That is breathtaking both in its arrogance and its ignorance, and for that reason alone, if not the others, we could not support it.”
2018-04-10 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8228Resumption1 (2018) · source
“Specifically, it moves the parameters on access and imparts a quasi-judicial standard - "beyond a reasonable doubt" - that is inappropriate for the type of investigation that the Council wishes to establish. If the Russians want a criminal investigation, they could always suggest that we refer the matter to the International Criminal Court. Furthermore, there is selective quoting of the Chemical Weapons Convention to undermine the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons-United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism, and it takes a selective approach to the parameters of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. But, above all, the text is unacceptable because it seeks to assert that sovereign States are above international law and international norms.”
2018-04-10 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8228Resumption1 (2018) · source
“As I have taken the floor once today already, I will be brief. With regard to Karl Marx, I think he must be turning in his grave to see what the country that was founded on many of his precepts is doing in the name of supporting Syria by condoning the use of chemical weapons on Syrian territory. We voted against the Russian draft resolution (S/2018/l75) for a number of reasons. The Russian text is a distraction. It has lain dormant around the Security Council for weeks. There was no attempt to meet other Council members' concerns in its drafting, unlike the United States text (S/2018/321), which had adapted its original preferences precisely to try to meet those of the Russian Federation and others. The Russian text does nothing to bring a political process any closer.”
2018-04-10 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8228Resumption1 (2018) · source
“Russia's actions today are a step against the rules and authority of the Security Council and the wider United Nations. They are a step against international peace and security and non-proliferation, and they are a step against humanity.”
2018-04-10 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8228Resumption1 (2018) · source
“They are not fake; they need to be looked at and investigated by a proper independent mechanism such as the Council was prepared today to pass. Russia's credibility as a member of the Council is now in question. We will not stand idly by and watch Russia continue to undermine the global norms that have ensured the security of all of us, including Russia, for decades. As a P-S member, the United Kingdom will stand up for international peace and security; it is our moral duty. It is a matter of shame that Russia has once again blocked a draft resolution. The Russian Ambassador mentioned that it was not a question of counting the number of Russian vetoes. I beg to differ. To quote Lenin, quantity has a quality all of its own.”
2018-04-10 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8228Resumption1 (2018) · source
“This has come at the cost of Russia's own obligations and credibility as a permanent member of the Council, as a State party to the Chemical Weapons Convention and as a declared and supposed supporter of peace in Syria. The Security Council has been unable to act solely because Russia has abused the power of veto to protect Syria from international scrutiny for the use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people. Even today open- source investigations have located a chlorine cylinder, the same kind that the Joint Investigative Mechanism has found that the Syrian regime used, atop a house in Douma full of people who had clearly died from respiratory problems. I frankly doubt that in 48 hours Russia has verified all similar reports and can conclude that they are all fake.”
2018-04-10 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8228Resumption1 (2018) · source
“No traces were found by whom? I repeat: Russia is not authorized to carry out an investigation on behalf of the Security Council. We need an independent investigative mechanism for that purpose, and only that sort of mechanism can have the confidence of the Security Council, the confidence of the membership of the United Nations and the confidence of the people of Syria. Sadly, reports of chemical-weapon attacks in Syria have continued since the original Russian veto, in November. It has become very clear that Russia will do what it takes to protect Syria, whatever the compelling evidence of the crimes committed, and to shut down further investigation and discussion of those crimes.”
2018-04-10 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8228Resumption1 (2018) · source
“Conversely, by vetoing, Russia has crossed a line in the international order, and worse, if possible, history is repeating itself one year on from Khan Shaykun. Russia helped to create the original independent investigation that attributed Khan Shaykun to the Syrian regime and concluded that sarin, which can be developed only by a State actor, had been used. But last autumn, Russia vetoed renewal of that mechanism on not one but three occasions. The reason is clear: it is because Russia would rather cross the WMD line than risk sanction of its ally Syria. Instead, we are asked to believe that the Russian version of this latest attack should be the one that the Security Council believes. Russia is not authorized by the Security Council to carry out an investigation in Syria. Russia says that there were no traces of a chemical attack.”
2018-04-10 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8228Resumption1 (2018) · source
“This is a sad day for the Security Council; it is a sad day for the cause of universal norms and standards; and it is a sad day for the non-proliferation regime. But, above all, it is a very sad day for the people of Douma, who now are without the protection that the international system was set up to provide for them. This is the fourth time in six days that the Council has discussed chemical weapons. Yesterday 14 members of the Security Council called for an investigation. Several members called on the permanent five (P-S) to assume their responsibilities to uphold the universal prohibition on weapons of mass destruction (WMD). As a P-S member, the United Kingdom was ready to do that and was joined by France and the United States.”
2018-04-10 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8228Resumption1 (2018) · source
“It would be like watching a fire, identifying that there was a fire, and doing nothing to put it out. The Russians invited us to return to the issue of an investigative mechanism on a separate occasion. I am afraid that the answer to that is 17 November 2017, when Russia vetoed a joint investigative mechanism that it had itself decided to set up. For all those reasons, all it would have taken is a written decision for an investigation set up by the Security Council. Russia could not take that small step, and therefore we were not able to support the draft resolution. I very much regret that, but the answer was in Russia's hands.”
2018-04-10 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8228 (2018) · source
“I will be brief. In the Consultations Room just now, Mr. President, you and the representative of Sweden made valiant attempts at a compromise. We all appreciate what is at stake and thank you for your and Sweden's efforts. But, fundamentally, the United Kingdom could not vote for the Russian text (S/2018/322) because it does not establish an investigation into who was responsible for the attack. It only welcomes the Fact- finding Mission, which is already on its way. I repeat what I said in consultations: the Fact-finding Mission determines whether chemical weapons were used and, if they were, which chemical weapons were used. It does not, and cannot, establish who was responsible for their use - and thus start on the first step on the path to attribution and accountability. For that reason, we are not able to support the text.”
2018-04-10 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8228 (2018) · source
“That is breathtaking both in its arrogance and its ignorance, and for that reason alone, if not the others, we could not support it.”
2018-04-10 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8228 (2018) · source
“Specifically, it moves the parameters on access and imparts a quasi-judicial standard - "beyond a reasonable doubt" - that is inappropriate for the type of investigation that the Council wishes to establish. If the Russians want a criminal investigation, they could always suggest that we refer the matter to the International Criminal Court. Furthermore, there is selective quoting of the Chemical Weapons Convention to undermine the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons-United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism, and it takes a selective approach to the parameters of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. But, above all, the text is unacceptable because it seeks to assert that sovereign States are above international law and international norms.”
2018-04-10 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8228 (2018) · source
“As I have taken the floor once today already, I will be brief. With regard to Karl Marx, I think he must be turning in his grave to see what the country that was founded on many of his precepts is doing in the name of supporting Syria by condoning the use of chemical weapons on Syrian territory. We voted against the Russian draft resolution (S/2018/l75) for a number of reasons. The Russian text is a distraction. It has lain dormant around the Security Council for weeks. There was no attempt to meet other Council members' concerns in its drafting, unlike the United States text (S/2018/321), which had adapted its original preferences precisely to try to meet those of the Russian Federation and others. The Russian text does nothing to bring a political process any closer.”
2018-04-10 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8228 (2018) · source
“Russia's actions today are a step against the rules and authority of the Security Council and the wider United Nations. They are a step against international peace and security and non-proliferation, and they are a step against humanity.”
2018-04-10 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8228 (2018) · source