Despite unifying into one group in concordant agreement, the air was thick with tension, and fraught with much conflict as confusion took hold of the council once again. Questions were asked. Doubt was evident. Semantics became a flash-point ripe for conflict as the draft resolution was put under heavy scrutiny. The behaviour of delegates had become notably aggressive, as cross-talking turned commonplace.
The chaotic meeting came to a conclusion as delegates raised the placards on the draft resolution, the last in a series of three...
Green light given for resolution?
The resolution ended up finally passing with an overwhelming, and almost unanimous majority, notwithstanding the delegate of India; his sole opposition was frowned upon by much of the council. This momentous occasion, a far cry from the inefficiencies that plagued day one, symbolised an uneasy resolution to a frenzied discussion on ceasefires -- a notably garden variety issue. As much as the resolution saw the approval of council members, it also received heavy backlash from the chairs, who criticised the policies as being too “vague”. To the presiding chairs, it was abundantly clear that the resolution was a catch-all, cure-all, panacea for all the ills brought about by ceasefire negotiations (or lack thereof).
Correspondents -- caught in the crossfires of conflict
Although the delegate of China vocally expressed his disdain for his American counterpart (as evidenced by an exclusive interview with XinHua), his reserve during today’s session ensured a tense, but nonetheless diplomatic atmosphere. Regardless, tensions were unavoidable; the American delegate -- in a firm and assertive tone -- was quick to point out China’s status as a signatory in the draft resolution after the Chinese delegate unwittingly responded to a question posed by a member of the council. (Note: Signatories are not allowed to reply to queries during a closed debate)
In the reading of the jointly-proposed draft resolution, the Indian delegate raised his concerns over Article II, Section 4, which reads as follows:
“(The UNSC) Decides to establish a centralised war analytics and monitoring working group, also known as the War Analytics and Regional Monitoring Working Group (WARM)”
The Indian delegate specified that there already was a pre-existing sanctions body in the council, thus rendering WARM redundant. He further expressed his disappointment in council proceedings as he evaluated the discussions thus far as a vain attempt to rush out a resolution. The Vietnamese and American delegates fired back, and took up the endeavor of clarifying the nuanced differences between the proposed WARM and the sanctions body. Nonetheless, their explanations were insufficient in elucidating the Indian delegate’s query: The Indian delegate doubled down, and managed to rally the Russian delegate in substantiating his arguments. Strangely, both delegates had butted heads during the previous day’s committee session, suggesting that tensions between the two parties had been eased.
Hostilities then boiled to a fever pitch as the Vietnamese delegate coolly snapped, saying:
“What part of my words do you not understand?”
This was met by an increasingly indignant Indian delegate, who attempted to defend his stance amid an overwhelming cacophony of voices. In order to re-establish stability in the council, the chairs were forced to intervene.
Press conference with Xinhua and AP
The final resolution did not seem to be effective due to its non-binding nature, and as such, AP Correspondents clarified whether the resolution would include an enforcement body to ensure that ceasefires are not breached. The correspondent referenced the 2016 Syrian Civil War ceasefires, where the lack of administrative processes led to the derailing of peace negotiations. With regard to encouraging countries to take a more active role in facilitating ceasefire negotiations, the delegate of the United States stated that the two working groups, by which he meant both the existing Sanctions Committee and the proposed WARM, would effectively create a climate in which negotiations between the parties to the conflict could take place. The delegate of the United Kingdom also reiterated the importance of such a confidence-building process. However, it appeared that the supporting member states were merely pinning their hopes on the additional help of criminal justice experts, without considering the possibility that such a measure would be ineffective. Furthermore,such ambiguities in their framework endanger the peace-building process, especially since the resolution hardly seems to have specified concrete peace-building measures in more detail
