February 24, 2026 06:42 am (IST)
Follow us:
facebook-white sharing button
twitter-white sharing button
instagram-white sharing button
youtube-white sharing button
‘No systemic risk’: Sanjay Malhotra breaks silence on ₹590 crore IDFC First Bank Limited fraud | India urges all nationals to leave Iran 'by available means' as US-Iran tension grows | India shines at BAFTA! All you need to know about Manipuri film Boong that stunned global cinema | Mamata Banerjee’s former right-hand man and ex-Railway Minister Mukul Roy dies after prolonged illness | Rahul Gandhi slams Modi as ‘compromised’, says PM can’t renegotiate India-US trade deal | Terror alert in Delhi: LeT may target Chandni Chowk with IED, say reports | US Supreme Court shocks Donald Trump on tariffs — but India may still end up paying more | PM Modi warns ‘AI must not control humans’ as India unveils bold tech vision at AI Impact Summit 2026 | Former South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol sentenced to life over failed martial law bid | Tata Group joins hands with OpenAI in massive AI push to transform India and global industries
UN Photo/Loey Felipe

Security Council fails to adopt three resolutions on chemical weapons use in Syria

| @indiablooms | Apr 11, 2018, at 02:49 pm

New York, Apr 11 (IBNS): Days after alleged chemical weapons attack in the Damascus suburb of Douma, the United Nations Security Council failed to adopt two competing resolutions that would have established a mechanism to investigate use of such weapons in Syria, as well as another concerning a fact-finding mission in the war-torn country.

Had one of the two mechanisms proposed in the drafts been approved, it could have filled the vacuum left by the Organisation for Prevention of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM) when its mandate expired last November.

The first draft considered today – penned by the United States – which would have established a new investigative mechanism for one year, as well as identify those responsible for the use of chemical weapons, was rejected owing to a negative vote from Russia.

The draft received 12 votes in favour, two against (Bolivia and Russia) and one abstention (China).

A negative vote – or veto – from one of the Council's five permanent members – China, France, Russia, United Kingdom and the United States – blocks passage of a resolution.

Today’s meeting marked the twelfth time Russia has used its veto to block Council action on Syria.

Similarly, a competing draft – penned by Russia – which would have established the mechanism for one year as well but would have given the Security Council the responsibility to assign accountability for the use of chemical weapons in Syria, was also not adopte.

This draft received six Council members’ vote in favour (Bolivia, China, Ethiopia, Equatorial Guinea, Kazakhstan and Russia), seven against (France, the Netherlands, Peru, Poland, Sweden, United Kingdom and United States) and two abstentions (Cote d’Ivoire and Kuwait).

The Council rejected a third text – also proposed by Russia – which concerned the work of the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission (FFM).

The draft received five votes in favour (Bolivia, China, Ethiopia, Kazakhstan and Russia), four against (France, Poland, the United Kingdom and the United States), and six abstentions (Cote d’Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Kuwait, the Netherlands, Peru, and Sweden).

Ahead of the Security Council meetings today, UN Secretary-General António Guterres had repeated his call on 15-member body to “find unity” on the issue of use of chemical weapons in Syria and ensure accountability.

“The norms against chemical weapons must be upheld. I appeal to the Security Council to fulfil its responsibility and find unity on this issue,” he said.

“I also encourage the Council to redouble its efforts to agree on a dedicated mechanism for accountability.”

 

 

 

Support Our Journalism

We cannot do without you.. your contribution supports unbiased journalism

IBNS is not driven by any ism- not wokeism, not racism, not skewed secularism, not hyper right-wing or left liberal ideals, nor by any hardline religious beliefs or hyper nationalism. We want to serve you good old objective news, as they are. We do not judge or preach. We let people decide for themselves. We only try to present factual and well-sourced news.

Support objective journalism for a small contribution.