The UN Security Council voted on a resolution to conduct an international investigation into sabotage at the Nord Stream and Nord Stream 2 gas pipelines. The document was prepared by Russia in collaboration with China. In addition to them, only Brazil supported the adoption of the resolution, which was not enough to pass the document. The rest of the countries abstained, calling first to wait for the results of national investigations. At the end of the meeting, US and Russian diplomats entered into a verbal duel, which other members of the Security Council were forced to follow. At the same time, Russia still has the last word.
On Monday, the UN Security Council voted on a draft resolution on holding an international investigation under the auspices of the UN Secretary General into sabotage on the Nord Stream and Nord Stream 2 gas pipelines. The document was proposed by Russia in co-authorship with China, as well as with the support of Belarus, Venezuela, North Korea, Nicaragua, Syria and Eritrea.
This is not the first time the situation at Nord Stream has been discussed in the UN Security Council; for example, a discussion on this topic took place in October last year. The issue of sabotage on the branches of the gas pipeline was also raised in February.
Now, after six months of proceedings at the national level, the Russian side has decided to propose a resolution. “There are serious doubts about the objectivity and transparency of national investigations,” explained Russia’s Permanent Representative to the UN Vasily Nebenzya.
Mr. Nebenzya lamented that the European countries conducting these investigations are “deliberately and consistently trying to mislead the council”, claiming that Russia is “informed about their efforts”, and in reality, the Russian side receives “nothing but replies”.
In confirmation of this, the Russian Permanent Representative presented the correspondence dated March 13 and 24, in which “Russian foreign agencies and competent authorities” unsuccessfully tried to interact on this issue with the authorities of Germany, Denmark and Sweden. “Without a transparent and comprehensive investigation of the truth, we cannot find out,” the diplomat concluded.
Vasily Nebenzya added: the concerns expressed by his colleagues about the expediency of an international investigation boil down to the thesis that it is necessary to wait for the results of work at the national level. However, it is possible that in such an “inefficient and non-transparent manner” it could last for years, he stressed. At the same time, according to the diplomat, the Russian side does not in any way seek to interfere with national investigations: “On the contrary, the text calls for ensuring all-round cooperation of member states with the commission being created.”
Mr. Nebenzya assured that “when creating the resolution, the Russian side acted as responsibly and flexibly as possible, trying to make it acceptable to all states.”
“The concerns voiced by the council members were taken into account,” he said and called on his colleagues to join the document.
In the end, no one spoke out against the document, but only three members of the Security Council supported it: in addition to Russia itself, these are Brazil and China. The rest of the meeting participants abstained. As a result, there were not enough yes votes, and the draft resolution fell through.
Disappointment with the voting results was expressed by China. China’s Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN, Geng Shuang, said Russia’s fears were not unfounded. According to him, “in fact, more than six months have already passed” since the start of the investigation, and things are still there. He expressed doubt that the necessary measures are being taken and evidence is being properly collected. At the same time, as the diplomat noted, since we are talking about a threat to international security, the investigation at the UN site is more than justified, it will not conflict with national investigations, but will only be of a coordinating nature.
Brazilian Ambassador Ronaldo Costa Filho supported his Chinese counterpart in his claims that the investigation was lengthy.
The UAE refrained from supporting the resolution, but in the comments of the permanent representative of the country, Lana Zaki Nuseiba, one could hear criticism of the national investigators. Explaining her decision to abstain from voting, she explained that it was about respecting the sovereignty of countries. At the same time, the diplomat expressed the hope that what is happening in the Security Council will be regarded as “a signal that in the near future there will be a deepening of cooperation between the countries conducting the investigation and interested parties.”
It is unlikely that Russia hoped for the adoption of the resolution. However, the fact that the United States and allies only refrained from supporting it (and did not oppose it) can be considered a kind of success for Russian diplomacy. It is possible that such a decision by the United States is due to the fact that Washington has recently been trying in every possible way to abstract from the story of the Nord Stream, and leaks about the “pro-Ukrainian trace” often appear in the American and European media.
US Deputy Ambassador to the UN Robert Wood, explaining his position on the resolution and as if anticipating the accusations of the Russian Federation, said: “The United States categorically rejects Russia’s unfounded accusations against us in connection with this act of sabotage. The United States did not participate in any way (in the sabotage on the Nord Streams.— “uh”). And point. The diplomat then referred to the first draft of the resolution, accusing Russia of politicizing the issue.
And in principle, is Moscow really worried about critical infrastructure, if you look at what is happening in Ukraine, the diplomat reasoned.
“Russia’s calls to bring the perpetrators to justice today seem like an empty ring,” he concluded.
The closest allies of the United States supported their position, some more extensively (Great Britain, France), some less (Japan). And they all insisted on the sovereign right of states to complete their own investigations and present conclusions.
Mr. Nebenzya said that “after today’s vote, suspicions about who is behind the sabotage at Nord Stream are only getting stronger.” According to him, “you don’t need to be a detective or an analyst here” to suspect the United States of what happened, which then “promised to destroy the Nord Stream, then later mocked and expressed joy that it had been blown up.” “That in our resolution he (Robert Wood.— “uh”) found predefined. Even the cap is on fire on the thief,” Mr. Nebenzya chuckled.
As a result, the UN Security Council turned into a theater of two actors. Diplomats from different countries watched with interest as the Russian and American sides continued to exchange remarks. The Russian Permanent Representative kept urging his American colleague to explain the words of President Joe Biden that there would be no Nord Stream. The American envoy stubbornly responded with a proposal to look at Ukraine’s infrastructure and accused Russia of politicizing the issue. Mr. Nebenzya objected to this that Russian officials did not accuse anyone until an article was published by an American, by the way, investigative journalist Seymour Hersh about their involvement. And the permanent representative of the Russian Federation again asked what Joe Biden had in mind.
The American representative tactfully apologized to those present for the inconvenience, and then retorted that he had not read and was not going to read Seymour Hersh’s sensational article about US involvement in the bombing. And again he reminded Russia of the situation in Ukraine.
However, the last word still remained with the Russian diplomat. Mr. Nebenzya ended the session by saying that he was very sorry that he did not hear an answer to his question, after which he turned away the microphone.