Security Council Vetoes Resolution Aimed at Reopening the Strait of Hormuz

United Nations, New York City

Sphinx News: Ahmed Ali

Today, Russia and China vetoed a Security Council resolution aimed at reopening the Strait of Hormuz, citing a draft text with ambiguous language and ill-founded claims, setting a potentially perilous precedent for broader regional escalation.

Presided over by the Kingdom of Bahrain’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, Abdullatif bin Rashid Al Zayani, today’s Security Council meeting floated a draft resolution on the ongoing situation in the Middle East, particularly concerning the prolonged closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

With the draft text initially floated by members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates), co-opted by the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, since March 3rd, its contents were staunch in their vindication against the Islamic Republic, calling for a reopening of the Strait of Hormuz by “any means necessary.”

In its initial proposal, the draft resolution invoked Chapter VII of the UN Charter, authorizing member states, acting nationally or through voluntary multinational naval partnerships, to use all necessary means in and around the Strait of Hormuz to secure transit passage and repress, neutralize, and deter attempts to close, obstruct, or otherwise interfere with international navigation through the Strait, until the Council decides otherwise.

Additionally, the draft text called for stricter, resounding appeals to deter Tehran for its purportedly heinous actions, aiming to impose measures, including targeted sanctions, against those who have taken actions to “undermine the freedom of navigation in and around the Strait of Hormuz.”

The text’s initial assertions proved far too ambiguous and vengeful for members of the Council, yet were interpreted by certain member states as embryonic to a potentially comprehensive diplomatic solution.

The Council would then embark on a month-long overhaul aimed at moderating the draft text’s initial provisions, an initiative spearheaded by both the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation.

Upon its very first consultations aimed at reconfiguring the draft proposal, non-compliant Council members cited the invocation of Chapter VII and the authorization of the use of force as a major point of contention, arguing that such a declaration would create more sporadic, potentially open-ended conflict along the already contested Strait of Hormuz.

Russia and China argued that, alongside the invocation of Chapter VII of the UN Charter, the draft text was fundamentally flawed in its use of lethal language, suggesting that authorization for the use of force, without clearly defined limits, may urge member states to engage in politically motivated, unrestrained behavior. Such a proposal, in the eyes of these two juggernauts of the Global South, not only raised an alarming precedent of legalizing forcible action but may exacerbate the destabilization of the Middle East, crippling the region’s already fragile security system.

Responding to these concerns, Bahrain removed the explicit reference to Chapter VII in its third revised draft. However, the authorization for the use of force and a determination that Iran’s actions near and around the Strait of Hormuz constitute a threat to international peace and security were retained. China and Russia argued that this did not address their concerns, maintaining that the draft continued to authenticate the use of force without accounting for the underlying causes of the escalation, unmitigated aggression by both Tel Aviv and Washington.

Moreover, Bahrain sought to continually amend its draft text, engaging in diplomatic negotiations with Council members that sought more “modest” adjustments. Refusing to alter their fundamental position in line with Beijing and Moscow, members of the GCC redefined the draft’s provisions against targeted sanctions measures, marking a seemingly positive response to suggestions made by both the United Kingdom and Colombia.

To address concerns raised by several members regarding the draft text’s language on the authorization and scope of force, the text additionally underwent successive iterations to introduce a clearly defined parameter for intervention. Based on proposals by the A3 (Africa three) members (DRC, Liberia, and Somalia), the fourth proposed draft text elucidated that any action taken must “be commensurate with the circumstances and undertaken with due regard for the safety of international navigation through the Strait of Hormuz.”

Following concerns raised by the United Kingdom, Bahrain incorporated more changes, “narrowing the geographical scope to the Strait and its adjacent waters and introducing a time limit of at least six months from the resolution’s adoption.”

In its final variation, the resolution’s contents had still not been sufficient for both China and Russia, where Bahrain ultimately made the decision, supported by Greece and France, to revise the resolution’s wording back to its original choice of language: “use all defensive means necessary.”

Despite the month-long negotiations, the final proposal for the draft text was not adopted, a decision solidified by both votes against coming from permanent members of the Security Council. The result of the voting was as follows: 11 votes in favor (United States, United Kingdom, France, Bahrain, DRC, Denmark, Greece, Latvia, Liberia, Panama, and Somalia), 2 votes against (Russia and China), and 2 abstentions (Pakistan and Colombia).

STATEMENTS MADE BY MEMBER STATES AT THE COUNCIL

Speaking to the Council after voting had taken place, Bahrain’s Foreign Minister Abdullatif bin Rashid al-Zayani said the resolution was intended as “a step toward a permanent solution that will ensure navigational freedom in the Strait of Hormuz.” Zayani added, “Failing to adopt this resolution sends the wrong signal to the world.” Regretting the “failure of the Council to act decisively” at a critical juncture, Bahrain deplored Russia and China’s veto as emboldening “a direct threat to the stability of the international order as a whole.”

In his remarks, Permanent Representative of the United States to the United Nations, Mike Waltz, told the Council, “I commend Bahrain and everyone who voted with this resolution for saying enough is enough.” Waltz noted the failed text “strongly encourages” member states to “coordinate efforts, defensive in nature, commensurate to the circumstances,” to ensure freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. It also reaffirmed the rights of member states “to defend their vessels from attacks and provocations,” in accordance with international law.

Polemical in his appeals against both Russia and China, Waltz framed the use of the veto as a betrayal of the Council’s “international obligations”, stating “no one should tolerate that they (Iran) are holding the global economy at gunpoint, but today, Russia and China did tolerate. They sided with a regime that seeks to intimidate the Gulf into submission.” He highlighted that Russia and China’s diplomatic partnership has purportedly compounded the Council’s inefficiency over the years, obfuscating political situations and “paralyzing the Council through obstruction and manufactured confusion.”

While denouncing the positions of China and Russia, Waltz also issued a vehement condemnation of Tehran’s current administration. While U.S. President Donald Trump has stepped up Washington’s rebuke of Iran’s actions in the Strait, with today being the last day for Iran to open up Hormuz before they are “bombed back to the stone ages”, where “a whole civilization will die” if no deal is reached, Waltz’s comments today equaled the President’s emphatic signals. Waltz told the Council, “Iran is a direct threat to international peace and security. It is responsible for its own thuggery, and it—alone—is responsible for the ramifications.” He added, “For nearly half a century, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, has built its reason for existence on intimidation and terror. It brutalizes its own people… and now seeks to punish the world as cynical leverage.”

Russia’s envoy, Vasily Nebenzya, described the resolution as “unbalanced, inaccurate, and confrontational” for framing Iran as the sole source of the region’s destabilization and threats to maritime security. Nebenzya retorted that Waltz’s pretext of international law was merely a hoax, where “the adoption of such a one-sided resolution would undermine any prospect for the resumption of negotiations for the purposes of resolving the crisis.” Nebenzya relegated the resolution as a pretext for legalizing Israel and the United States’ undeterred “illegal aggression” against Iran, adding that “the draft was designed to grant carte blanche for the continued aggressive acts and further escalation.”

For that reason, Russia could not support a document that set a dangerous precedent for international law and international maritime law, ambiguous in language, where “virtually every paragraph of the proposed draft abounded with unbalanced, inaccurate, and confrontational elements.”

Echoing the contentions of Russia, China’s Ambassador to the United Nations, Fu Cong, was solicitous of the GCC’s concerns, adding, however, that the draft text “fails to capture the root causes and full picture of the conflict in a comprehensive and balanced manner. It contains one-sided condemnation and pressure, the characterization of the situation as a threat to international peace and security, as well as the use of armed escorts.” Cong added, “Such language is highly susceptible to misinterpretation or even abuse. At a time when the United States is openly threatening the very survival of a civilization, when the current hostilities imposed on Iran are very likely to further escalate, the draft resolution, should it have been adopted, would send an extremely wrong message and have very serious consequences.”

After the vote, Ambassador Fu Cong told reporters that both China and Russia would sponsor a new draft resolution, one seemingly better equipped to “address the root causes of the conflict.”