The resolution, which is legally binding, addresses a conflict that has gone on for nearly three years, killing more than 100,000 people and creating more than 6 million refugees. It calls on the Syrian government to allow relief agencies to enter the country, including from across national borders; decries the dropping of barrel bombs by government aircraft; and strongly condemns terror attacks, plainly referring to some of the rebels fighting to overthrow President Bashar Assad.
It also calls on the U.N. secretary-general to submit progress reports, and while it does not threaten sanctions, economic or otherwise, it promises to take “further steps” against those who do not comply. Britain and France, among Syria’s most biting critics on the council, indicated their readiness to introduce a resolution calling for tougher measures in the event of noncompliance.
Before the vote, council diplomats said it was clear there would be no chance of approval from Russia, Syria’s strongest ally, if the measure contained any language on sanctions. So just before the text was finalized Wednesday night, the suggestion of sanctions came out; late Friday afternoon, Moscow signaled its assent. The countries pushing for the resolution were clearly aiming to put it up for a vote during the Olympic Games in Sochi to exert the greatest leverage on Russia.
On Saturday morning, as he entered the council chambers, the Russian ambassador to the United Nations, Vitaly I. Churkin, told reporters: “Of course we’re going to support it. It’s a pretty good resolution.”
Inside, Churkin made a point to say that the Assad government had made “progress” in facilitating the delivery of humanitarian aid. There was no suggestion that Moscow’s support for the Assad government was diminishing, though one U.N. diplomat said Russia’s vote could be a sign of its “uneasiness” over the government’s unwillingness to make aid delivery easier.
The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, emphasized that Churkin had joined in the condemnation of the Syrian government.
“We are heartened that our Russian colleagues have joined us in demanding the end of the use of indiscriminate weapons like barrel bombs,” she told reporters after the vote, “and how all the parties, but particularly the regime, need to stop using food and medicine as a weapon of war.”
Diplomats said the next test for Russia would come after the United Nations submits its first monitoring report in 30 days. If Syria is deemed to be violating the resolution, critics of the Assad government will probably call for tougher measures, especially if it seems likely to miss a deadline to destroy its chemical weapons arsenal by June 30.
Since the Syrian conflict broke out in March 2011, Russia has vetoed three resolutions trying to address broader concerns. It initially dismissed the need for this one, too, saying that it preferred to let the warring parties on the ground agree to local cease-fires, one by one, so as to let in food and medicine. But Russia eventually signaled its intention to engage by putting forward a resolution of its own, and several rounds of negotiations ensued.
In a nod to Russian demands, the resolution “strongly” condemns the “increased terrorist attacksresulting in numerous casualties and destruction carried out by organizations and individuals associated with al-Qaida, its affiliates and other terrorist groups.” The Syrian government refers to all of the rebels as terrorists.
In several places, the resolution points to the government’s singular role in blocking aid. For instance, it “demands that all parties, in particular the Syrian authorities, promptly allow rapid, safe and unhindered humanitarian access for U.N. humanitarian agencies and their implementing partners, including across conflict lines and across borders, in order to ensure that humanitarian assistance reaches people in need through the most direct routes.”
Inside Syria, both parties tried to use the resolution to bolster their positions and condemn their enemies.
Monzer Akbik, chief of staff to the president of the opposition Syrian National Coalition, said the group welcomed the resolution but was skeptical that the government would live up to its obligations.
“This means that the international community is talking in one voice and saying that the starvation and siege that the regime is inflicting on many areas in Syria should stop now and the regime should allow access to these areas,” he said.
For his part, the Syrian ambassador to the United Nations, Bashar al-Jaafari, said the delivery of aid “cannot be achieved unless it is accompanied by an end to terrorism.”
The most intense negotiations, diplomats said in interviews Saturday, concerned whether to include language on aerial bombardments, particularly of barrel bombs, which was a priority to several Western countries, and a reference to specific besieged communities. Naming those communities pointed to the Syrian government’s role in blocking aid. For the Russians as well as the Chinese, the subject of allowing aid across Syria’s national borders was especially troublesome. By late Wednesday, diplomats said, language on barrel bombs, besieged communities and cross-border access remained in the draft.
Also by Wednesday, the three countries that had drafted the document – Australia, Jordan and Luxembourg – had decided that the time for negotiations was over.
“Our bottom lines had been preserved,” one council diplomat said. “We had incorporated a good deal of some of the concerns from Russia and China.”
After the vote, Ban Ki-moon, the U.N. secretary-general, told the council: “This resolution should not have been necessary. Humanitarian assistance is not something to be negotiated; it is something to be allowed by virtue of international law.”
Jan Egeland, the former U.N. relief coordinator who now heads the Norwegian Refugee Council, said the secretary-general must be “ruthlessly honest” in monitoring the war.
“The test of whether this resolution is being implemented is simple,” he said by email. “All parties must enable real progress over the next 30 days in some key areas: by lifting sieges on populated areas and ensuring civilians in besieged communities access to humanitarian aid, by opening border crossings from neighboring countries for deliveries of lifesaving aid, by an effective system for approving humanitarian aid convoys to hard-to-reach areas, by cessation of attacks on civilian targets like schools and hospitals.”
Source: The Salt Lake Tribune
what ever
ReplyDelete