Deep division, no action

China and Russia have once again prevented the UN Security Council from making any decision on Myanmar to protect Rohingyas from atrocities, just three years after demonstrating a strong anti-genocide stance.

In 2014, when the UNSC held a discussion on occasion of the 20th commemoration of Rwanda genocide, Beijing and Moscow joined other members of the council to air their concerns against genocide.

With their support the council unanimously passed a strongly-worded resolution, renewing its commitment to fight against genocide.

But three years down the line, China and Russia at the Security Council meeting on Thursday vehemently opposed any action against Myanmar. This exposed a deep division within the the UN's most powerful body, with the US, the UK and France demanding an end to "ethnic cleansing" of Rohingya, a Muslim minority in the Buddhist-majority Myanmar.

Empowered to take collective action to prevent and halt atrocity crimes, the UN is unable to take any action until an end to the deadlock in the UNSC.

The Security Council can resort to imposing sanctions or even authorise the use of force to maintain or restore international peace and security. But for this it needs to unanimously pass a resolution with no negative vote by any of its permanent members. 

The UNSC's three other permanent members -- the US, the UK and France enjoying the veto power along with China and Russia in the council l-- may need to find alternative ways to put pressure on Myanmar to resolve the Rohingya crisis, according to political analysts.

What China and Russia said at Thursday's meeting sends a clear indication that they did not move an inch from their previous stance on Myanmar and is likely to stick to their guns in the Rohingya issue in the coming days.

Eleven years ago, they cast a double veto to the UNSC's first draft resolution on Myanmar which called on the then military junta to stop persecution of minority and opposition groups. Their negative votes killed the measure at the UNSC.

It was a rare veto. According to a Reuters report on January 21, 2007, China and Russia had not cast a double veto since 1972. Through this move, they made the point the US needed to listen to their complaints carefully.

In defence, they argued that human rights violations were not the purview of the Security Council unless they endangered regional or international peace and security, which Myanmar did not.

Since then China and Russia have jointly been siding with Myanmar for their economic interests.

They again joined together in double veto in November 2009 to kill measures in the UNSC. The draft resolution would have urged Myanmar to ease repression and release of political prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi.

In casting their negative votes, the Russian and Chinese ambassadors argued that Burma, or Myanmar as it is known at the UN, should not be on the agenda of the Security Council, according to a report of Voice of America on November 1, 2009.

In March this year, they together blocked a short UNSC press statement on Myanmar which would             have "noted with concern renewed fighting in some parts of the country and stressed the importance of humanitarian access to all effected areas".

After eruption of the ongoing violence, the UNSC sat at a close-door meeting at the end of August and discussed the situation. But the Chinese ambassador strongly opposed UN's involvement to resolve the crisis. 

In the wake of global outcry against the atrocities, China and Russia allowed the Security Council to issue a press statement urging Myanmar to end violence against Rohingya. It was the first time in nine years that the Council had come together to issue a statement on Myanmar.

But the call fell flat.  

China and Russia again did not pay heed to global outcry at Thursday's open meeting held amid exodus of Rohingyas to Bangladesh from Rakhine state of Myanmar and the UN chief call for taking strong action. 

Sticking rigid to their stances, Beijing and Moscow rather questioned the UNSC's jurisdiction to take any measure and argued that any interference would worsen the situation in Myanmar.

Russia's Ambassador to the UN Vassily Nebenzia warned that "excessive pressure" on Myanmar's government to resolve the crisis "could only aggravate the situation in the country and around it."

China's deputy UN ambassador condemned "recent violent attacks" in Myanmar but says "there is no quick fix" to the plight of Rohingyas.

Earlier this month, Myanmar government officials said they were negotiating with China and Russia to protect them from any possible action by the Security Council.

The above records, however, show the Council over the years has discussed Myanmar behind closed-doors, but could not move forward due to veto by China and Russia.

Thursday's open meeting was second one after eight years. The last open meeting was held in 2009 when Ban Ki-moon was the Secretary-General.

Until Thursday, the line up among the UNSC permanent members remains same on Myanmar issue. The US, the UK and France have been vocal against human rights violation in Myanmar and want actions while China and Russia have been siding with Myanmar opposing any action.

Japan, Sweden, Bolivia and Egypt also spoke for ending the violence against the Rohingya.

Formed in the aftermath of the Second World War with the core goal to prevent genocide, the UN has failed on many occasions due to lack of political commitment of the big nations enjoying veto power in the security council.

Against this backdrop, the call for restraining veto power has been growing over the past few years.

In 2013, France presented a proposal to the UN General Assembly to limit the use of the veto power in situations of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. France reiterated its stance in the general assembly in 2015.

That year, 107 countries placed a proposal in the general assembly for enacting a code of conduct to limit the exercise of the veto power in situation of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

Both France and the UK have given their support to the proposed code of conduct. Three other members supported neither the France's initiative nor the proposed code of conduct.

This, too, exposed a sharp division among the permanent members of the UN's most powerful body.