The UN Security Council on Iran: Is it hypocrisy back and forth?

Resolution 2817 condemns Iranian attacks on Gulf states and Jordan but is silent on the uprovoked attack on Iran

It is significant that 140 countries joined as co-sponsors of Resolution 2817 at the time of adoption. Several countries, however, have not joined, including Sri Lanka, citing various reasons ranging from a policy of not endorsing country-specific resolutions, to the resolution lacking balance and sensitivity

The UN Security Council yesterday adopted Resolution 2817 presented by Bahrain, a non-permanent member of the Council, on behalf of the GCC states.  The resolution condemns Iran for its “egregious attacks” against its neighbours, which includes GCC states and Jordan. It urges Iran to respect the sovereignty of the countries concerned, and to not violate the principles of the UN Charter and international law, among other things. 

While condemning “Iran’s attacks against residential areas and civilian objects, “ it demands that the armed attacks cease immediately, and that Iran “halt its threats, provocations and actions aimed at interfering with maritime trade, as well as support to proxy groups across the region.” 

Under international humanitarian law,  armed attacks on civilian objects can never be justified, and it was the case with targeted civilian objects in the Gulf. However, the fact remains that it was some powerful nations that developed and perfected the concept of collateral damage – a concept which has the least respect for human dignity and worth,  which the UN Charter has pledged to protect and promote at all times. 

The adoption of Resolution 2817 was ensured with 13 members voting in favour, and Russia and China abstaining. Pakistan and Somalia, two non-permanent members of the Council, were among countries that went with GCC states. Pakistan, at this point, made it clear that it would also support another draft resolution -- the Russian text -- that followed. 

Coming on the heels of Resolution 2817, the draft resolution introduced by Russia reportedly sought to address the root causes -- the unauthorised, unprovoked attacks on Iran. However, except for Russia, China, Pakistan and Somalia, which voted in favour of the Russian draft, many Security Council members including France and the UK abstained,  while Latvia joined the US in voting against. Interestingly, Bahrain also abstained on the Russian draft. 

There are possibly several reasons for Russia and China not voting down Resolution 2817:

 Russia has made it clear that at a minimum any resolution on the matter must acknowledge the diplomatic efforts made by Iran to arrive at a negotiated solution. Particularly, it’s upset over GCC countries’ non-condemnation of the bombing of a school in Iran killing over 185 girls, which it said was a humanitarian imperative to call out. Further, Russia often indicated it remained ready to mediate between Iran and the GCC states (and Jordan) to help resolve the conflict. 

 China, on the other hand, announced it was ready to negotiate an end to the larger conflict (US-Israel Vs Iran).

 Both countries had condemned the attacks on Iran as “unprovoked” and as constituting armed aggression. 

Nevertheless, they both didn’t intend to vote it down, because, at least on the surface, there was this delicate position that if their mediation offers were still on the table, the only way they could avoid antagonising the GCC states is by abstaining. However, it’s a fact that although they may not like some GCC countries’ conduct towards Iran, or their conduct in general in relation to US-Israeli hostility towards Iran or vice versa, opposing a move that came up in the name of the GCC states could be imprudent.

There is another important thing to note as well. Russia abstained on Bahrain’s resolution; therefore, Bahrain’s abstention from the Russian text may be a return of favour. Since Bahrain acted on behalf of the GCC states, it may possibly be taken that GCC states and Russia didn’t want to foreclose the option of mediation if necessary. The GCC was not known to have promoted any resolution within the Security Council, through one of its members represented on it, either as a matter of formal principle, or as an institutional practice. In this instance, it is on behalf of the GCC states that the initiative was brought up although the media generally projected it interchangeably with the GCC. 

The Permanent  Representative of Latvia was said to have remarked It’s ‘hypocrisy of the highest order’ lamenting the introduction of the Russian text rejected by the Council. Frankly speaking, such a comment could as well fit today’s reality of not being able to adopt a resolution in the Council condemning the armed aggression of Iran itself. The Russian text reportedly talked about the root cause --  the unauthorised, unprovoked attacks on Iran, and about the need for a diplomatic solution. 

It’s the practice of the Security Council that it is chaired each month by a member in alphabetical order.  The president for March is the US. The resolution that Bahrain presented on behalf of the GCC states enjoyed US’ blessings, and Israel’s statements within the Council and outside are a testament to how the resolution was valued by the Netanyahu government. 

It is significant that 140 countries joined as co-sponsors of Resolution 2817 at the time of adoption. Several countries, however, have not joined, including Sri Lanka, citing various reasons ranging from a policy of not endorsing country-specific resolutions, to the resolution lacking balance and sensitivity. 

Moreover, the resolution was not adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter (enforcement measures). Short of creating any binding legal obligations for Iran in the manner a Cheaper VII resolution would do, it was likely that a number of countries may have found it appropriate to show solidarity with the initiators in the way they did. 

In the meantime, the larger issue, namely the armed aggression of Iran remains completely unaddressed by the UN Security Council. It’s a Gordian knot to cut, and it’s “the hypocrisy of the highest order” that prevents this and other situations,  where permanent members of the Council have vital stakes, from being seriously and genuinely addressed.