Theme

Diplomacy

Editor's choice
GULF CRISIS
UN Security Council issues toned down statement on the Strait of Hormuz

UN Security Council issues toned down statement on the Strait of Hormuz

On Thursday (2 April), the Security Council held a high-level briefing  focusing on the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). Bahraini Minister of Foreign Affairs Abdullatif bin Rashid Al Zayani chaired the meeting, which is one of the signature events of Bahrain’s April Council presidency. A Bahrain authored presidential statement was adopted but at the insistence 0f Russia and China the statement avoids tough language on the Strait of Hormuz. Certain other aspects of the negotiations on the draft presidential statement were also apparently challenging. It seems that the primary point of contention was language relating to the escalation in the Middle East caused by the joint Israeli-US strikes on Iran on 28 February. In the zero draft, the penholder proposed text that strongly condemned Iran’s retaliatory attacks on the GCC countries and Jordan, directly referencing the resolution2817 of 11 March on the matter that was presented by Bahrain on behalf of these countries. The relevant paragraph also included language that reaffirmed the importance of maritime security and the freedom of navigation and stressed that “any disruption to vital waterways may have implications for international trade and global economic stability”, an apparent reference to the ongoing Strait of Hormuz crisis. During the negotiations on resolution 2817, China and Russia apparently criticised the draft text for being unbalanced and for failing to consider the root causes of the conflict. In response, Russia circulated an alternative draft, which was more general than Bahrain’s and did not name individual countries. Co-sponsored by 136 member states, Bahrain’s resolution was eventually adopted with 13 votes in favour and two abstentions (China and Russia). Russia’s draft resolution failed to be adopted, garnering only four affirmative votes (China, Russia, Pakistan, and Somalia).   It seems that the same dynamics were evident during the negotiations on the draft presidential statement. China and Russia apparently raised reservations over the language concerning the Middle East crisis, requesting modifications to the relevant paragraph. In the first revised text, Bahrain apparently retained the zero draft’s language that directly alluded to Iran’s attacks and resolution 2817; however, the text was slightly modified to also reference resolution 552 of 1 June 1984, which demanded that Iran cease attacks on commercial ships to and from the ports of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. This appeared to be the penholder’s attempt to preserve the paragraph’s original formulation and intent, as similar language on threats against Gulf countries, including to their freedom of navigation, was included in resolution 552. However, it seems that China and Russia expressed concerns over the paragraph, requesting further amendments to the text. To facilitate consensus among Council members, the penholder softened the relevant paragraph’s language in the second revised text, removing all direct references to Iran’s attacks on the GCC countries and Jordan. In doing so, Bahrain apparently replaced it with text that recalled previous relevant Council resolutions, including resolution 2817 and resolution 552, that “take into consideration the importance of the Gulf region to international peace and security and its vital role to the stability of the world economy”. Despite such revisions, China and Russia nevertheless raised concerns, expressing reservations over references to resolution 552 and resolution 2817. In an apparent compromise, the final draft of the presidential statement does not incorporate any direct references to Iran’s attacks against the Gulf countries, nor does it mention the two resolutions. The penholder also removed all language that underscored the importance of freedom of navigation and noted the implications of any disruption to vital waterways for international trade and global economic stability. The toned-down final version of the relevant paragraph simply recalls the Council’s previous relevant resolutions, “which take into consideration the importance of the Gulf region to international peace and security and its vital role to the stability of the world economy”.(Click the image to read the full item).
Editor's choice
News
Armenian leader meets Putin in the Kremlin

Armenian leader meets Putin in the Kremlin

Armenian prime minister, Nikol Pashinyan, met at the Kremlin in Moscow, on Wednesday 1, April, with Russian president Vladimir Putin. The current state and prospects of Russian-Armenian strategic partnership and alliance, integration cooperation in the Eurasian region, and current issues on the regional agenda, in particular the development of economic and transport-logistics ties in the South Caucasus, were discussed, according to the Kremlin website. In his remarks before the meeting, Prime Minister Pashinyan said our relations with the Russian Federation are very deep, they are very important to us, and, in my opinion, they are developing dynamically in the context of the new realities in our region, when peace has finally been established between Armenia and Azerbaijan. And I think this has a positive impact on our relations with the Russian Federation, because for the first time since our independence, we have a railway connection with the Russian Federation. We import goods from Russia via Azerbaijan by rail. I hope we will also export in the near future. This, of course, strengthens our traditional economic ties, and it strengthens our ties within the Eurasian Economic Union. Regarding the European Union, of course, we know that, in principle, membership in the two associations is incompatible. But what we're doing and the agenda we have, at least for now, are compatible. That's a fact. And as long as there's an opportunity to combine these agendas, we will. And when processes develop to the point where a decision must be made, I'm confident that we, the citizens of the Republic of Armenia, will make that decision. Of course, in this context, our relations with the Russian Federation have never been and never will be in question, because, as I have already said, these ties and relations are very deep and not subject to discussion. (read the report in full by clicking the image at the top).