Only Brazil and China joined Russia at the U.N. Security Council in voting for Moscow’s resolution calling for a U.N. probe into the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines. The measure failed to garner the necessary nine votes for adoption.
The United Nations Security Council refused to establish an independent U.N.-led investigation into the sabotage that destroyed the Nord Stream natural gas pipelines under the Baltic Sea last September.
By a vote of three in favor and 12 abstentions, the Council on Monday threw its weight behind investigations by Germany, Sweden and Denmark instead, which so far have yielded few public results. Last month, economist Jeffery Sachs and former C.I.A. analyst Ray McGovern addressed the Security Council in favor of a U.N. investigation. Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh reported on Feb. 8 that the United States blew up the pipelines. U.S. intelligence, speaking through The New York Times, claimed it was a freelance operation by a “pro-Ukrainian group.”
Read the Russian resolution here. Following the video read comments from various ambassadors after the meeting.
Watch the hour-long Security Council meeting:
Stefano Vaccara, a U.N. correspondent for La Voce di New York, questioned various ambassadors in the corridor as they left the meeting. He reported the following comments.
US Ambassador Robert Wood:
“Brazil voted as it felt it should. I am not in a position to comment on their vote. The majority of the Security Council has decided that it is necessary to wait for the conclusion of the ongoing investigations and I believe that this is the responsible position to take among all those that have been heard. And the result of the vote proves it”.
Does the US believe it is fair to ask for a “deadline” for these ongoing investigations?
“Absolutely not. Investigations have to take as long as it takes to get to the truth and so I don’t think imposing a deadline helps the success of the investigation.”
But do you at least believe that Sweden, Denmark and Germany should share their investigations with the Security Council?
“I cannot speak for the rules that these investigative institutions have, on their jurisdiction, etc. I am not able to comment on them. I believe that these investigations need the necessary time”.
Ambassador Wood, but will you at least read Hersh’s article?
Russian Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia:
Ambassador, but between the investigations of Sweden, Germany and Denmark, isn’t there anything that Russia could trust, at least a little?
“No. Now we call all three ‘unfriendly countries’.”
Not even one is saved?
But not even Denmark, which a few days ago involved you in its latest discoveries?
“This happened because we were knocking on their door all the time, and in the end they had to show something to signal their cooperation, but it’s not enough.”
Why did you present the resolution if you knew it didn’t have the votes to pass?
“For this resolution we have held consultations for much longer than in any other resolution. We have introduced many suggestions that other countries had proposed, but this issue is now political, it is no longer technical”.
Ambassador Costa Filho of Brazil:
You voted for the resolution but you also made it clear that it is not a vote of no confidence in the investigations of Sweden, Denmark and Germany. But why wouldn’t their investigations be enough to find the perpetrators of the attack?
“Because it’s been six months and we don’t know anything.”
I just spoke to US ambassador Robert Wood and asked him if there should be a deadline for the investigation, and he immediately replied no, for the US, investigations need all the time they will need. What do you think?
“I can’t answer that question. He has his opinion. I’m not saying the investigation should be concluded now, but there should already be indications of where they are, and instead we have nothing.”
Brazil is getting into the habit of voting with Russia in the Security Council…
“No, it doesn’t seem accurate to say that. We voted consistently condemning the invasion. The only time we didn’t vote on the resolution was in the General Assembly when it called for the expulsion of Russia…”.
Just a few days ago, you voted with Russia to let a humanitarian speak but you were once again in the minority.
“But that was a procedural vote. We cannot say we are on Russia’s side.”
Let’s say then that Brazil in recent times shows independence or rather, “unpredictability”, in its vote?
“No, absolutely not. Independent doesn’t mean unpredictable. We decide on the merits of issues, which means we don’t always vote one side or the other. Brazil votes based on how it perceives the issue at hand. That’s the definition of independence. This is the definition of democracy, when one can express his conscience through the vote”.
Does this independence also help to obtain the position of permanent member in the eventual reform of the Security Council?
“We don’t think in those terms. In this case one thing doesn’t tie into the other. We don’t vote a certain way now thinking about the reform of the Security Council…”
Ambassador, let’s talk about peace: very little is heard of it these days in this institution. Next month, Russia will hold the rotating presidency of the Security Council. Lavrov will come here to New York. As an seasoned diplomat, do you think that something new could happen next month? A different approach, by peace I mean.
“It takes the will on both sides to sit down and discuss peace. We’ve been asking for it for a long time, for the whole year. The parties will have to sit down and discuss”.
Could Brazil be an “honest broker” for peace?
“President Lula has already offered to help make this happen, along with others.”