Security Council
6810th Meeting (AM)
Security Council Fails to Adopt Draft Resolution on Syria That Would Have
Threatened Sanctions, Due to Negative Votes of China, Russian Federation
Due to negative votes from
two permanent members, the Security Council today failed to adopt a
resolution that would have extended the mandate of the United Nations
Supervision Mission in Syria (UNSMIS) and which would have threatened
sanctions on the country if demands to end the spiralling violence were
not met.
The text, which received
11 votes in favour to 2 against (China, Russian Federation) with 2
abstentions (Pakistan and South Africa), would have extended the
Mission’s mandate, which expires on 20 July, for 45 days and would have
had the Council act under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter to
demand verifiable compliance — within 10 days of the adoption — with its
demands in previous resolutions that Syrian authorities pull back
military concentrations from population centres and cease the use of
heavy weaponry against them.
Through the defeated
draft, the Council would have expressed grave concern over the
escalation of violence and the failure of the parties, in particular the
Syrian authorities, to implement the six-point plan of Joint Envoy Kofi
Annan for an end to violence, humanitarian and media access, release of
detainees and the start of an inclusive political dialogue. It would
have demanded that all parties work with the Envoy in implementing the
30 June guidelines of the Action Group on Syria for setting that plan in
motion.
The Council established
UNSMIS — for three months and with up to 300 unarmed military observers —
in April to monitor a planned cessation of violence in Syria, as well
as to monitor and support the full implementation of a six-point peace
plan. In mid-June, UNSMIS suspended its monitoring activities due to an
escalation of violence.
The text would have
renewed the mandate of UNMIS on the basis of the Secretary-General’s 6
July report (document S/2012/535), which recommends a reconfiguration of
the Mission to increase support for dialogue with and between the
parties and enhance attention to the political track and rights’ issues
across the six-point plan. It would have requested retention of the
minimum observer capacity for that purpose.
In his report, the
Secretary-General stresses the valuable role the Mission could
continue to play. Outlining options for its future orientation, he
describes both withdrawal and the addition of a security component as
highly problematic. A final option — the risks for which, he suggested,
might be the more acceptable — was retaining the core elements of the
Mission, but refocusing it on activities within its mandate that could
be achieved under current circumstances.
Such activities included
strengthening the capacities for “good offices” to foster dialogue,
brokering local-level agreements to calm tensions, promoting ceasefires
between the sides, and deepening engagement. If UNSMIS were reoriented
in this manner, he said, the Mission would redeploy from the field to
the capital to minimize security risks, retaining core civilian and
military observer capacities to focus on the spectrum of initiatives
feeding into the political process. It could build up and expand its
activities, if security or political conditions allowed.
Following the vote,
supporters of the resolution underlined the extent of the continuing
carnage and the inability of the Mission to operate following a long
period during which they said that it was relying on what they called
President Assad’s empty promises to stop the use of heavy weaponry and
concentrated military force against population centres. The resolution
would not have set the stage for military intervention, they stressed,
and was forged through a search for consensus.
Saying he was appalled at
the double veto as the death toll reached 17,000 and counting, the
representative of the United Kingdom said that putting the text under
Chapter VII, by providing consequences for non-compliance, would have
shown the seriousness needed to end the killing, providing support to
the Joint Special Envoy’s six-point plan and helping the people of Syria
avoid an all-out civil war. The United States’ representative said
such consequences for non-compliance were demanded by Mr. Annan, adding,
“This is another dark day in Turtle Bay.”
The representative of the
Russian Federation said that the sponsors knew well that there was no
chance that the text in its current form would have been adopted, as his
delegation felt it opened the door to military intervention. The text
did not rule out such intervention, would have fanned the flames of
confrontation. It directed its language mainly against the Government,
despite the violence committed by the other parties, even after such
events as yesterday’s attack in Damascus.
Noting that the Russian
Federation had submitted its own text, he said he would not try to put
it to a vote, but instead work for a depoliticized text to allow the
extension of UNSMIS’ mandate. The representatives of China, Pakistan
South Africa and others also prioritized extension of the mandate,
including through a short, “technical” rollover.
Syria’s representative,
speaking after Council members, said that a simple, practical text
should have been adopted to extend the mandate of UNSMIS and aid the
implementation of the six-point plan, which his Government strongly
supported. Instead, a one-sided text that sought external intervention
had failed. The success of Mr. Annan’s plan required political will,
particularly on the part of those countries that had influence over the
armed groups and could get them to stop their violence.
He said that some
countries wanted the Annan plan to fail, by creating a parallel track
under the so-called Friends of Syria, through distorting facts and
through giving the impression of a tyrannical regime that was killing
its people. On the contrary, those who wanted peaceful reform had been
invited to engage in dialogue, but there were also groups bent on
destruction, as well as terrorist groups from outside the country, as
shown by yesterday’s attack in Damascus.
The representatives of France, Germany, India, Portugal, Guatemala, Morocco and Colombia also spoke.
The meeting opened at 10:25 a.m. and closed at 12:10 p.m.
Action on Resolution
Council President NÉSTOR OSORIO (Colombia)
announced that, in line with the Council’s rule of procedure by which
resolutions were taken up in the order in which they were submitted, the
text proposed by France, Germany, Portugal, United Kingdom, and the
United States (document S/2012/538) would be considered first. The
resolution submitted by the Russian Federation (document
S/2012/538/Rev.2) could then be considered.
The first resolution was
defeated by a vote of 11 in favour to 2 against (China, Russian
Federation), with 2 abstentions (Pakistan, South Africa).
Statements
Speaking after the vote, MARK LYALL GRANT (United Kingdom)
said he was appalled by the decision of Russia and China to veto the
draft aimed at bringing an end to the bloodshed in Syria and creating
the conditions for meaningful political progress. That was the third
time they had blocked efforts to address the crisis. More than 14,000
innocent Syrian civilians had been killed since the violence had begun
last year. And, since then, the regime had intensified the use of heavy
weaponry in population centres. More than 100 civilians were killed
daily. The events in Damascus over the last 48 hours demonstrated the
need for urgent and decisive action by the Council. Meanwhile, the
United Nations Supervision Mission in the Syrian Arab Republic (UNSMIS)
had been rendered inoperable, owing to the dangerous security
situation.
Eight days ago, he said,
the resolution just defeated had been proposed in an effort to change
the situation on the ground. Its logic was simple and clear: to use
the weight of the Council and the Arab League to bolster efforts to
implement the Joint Special Envoy Kofi Annan’s six-point plan, aim to
reduce the violence by all sides, and to create conditions for the
political progress agreed by all diplomatic partners on 30 June. The
resolution had been put under Chapter VII as a clear signal to all
parties that their commitments were binding. Both the Secretary-General
and Mr. Annan had repeatedly requested that the Council stipulate
compliance with the six-point plan and that past resolutions on Syria
be implemented. That was precisely what today’s text sought to do.
As a first step, he
continued, it focused on the removal of heavy weapons, repeatedly
affirmed by Mr. Annan and the Secretary-General and the move most likely
to alter the dynamics on the ground. Yet, throughout the negotiating
process, Russia and China had chosen not to support the action by the
envoy. When it came to turning words into action, to implement the two
Council resolutions they had supported, and improve security on the
ground towards leading to a transition process, they had refused,
arguing that Chapter VII was “somehow designed to seek military action
through the back door”. That was “irrational”. The Council adopted
many Chapter VII resolutions; this one was not under the Charter’s
Chapter 42 and “could not be misconstrued as military intervention”.
Instead, it gave them more time.
But still, he said, they
refused to engage, advocating instead the same approach, relying on an
“empty process”, the same one that had been broken with consistency
since last November. They had argued for a Mission extension in a
manner that wilfully ignored the fact that it was currently unable to
operate. Russia and China failed in their responsibility as
permanent Council members to help resolve the crisis, failing to support
the envoy, failing to support the Syrian people, and, for the third
time, blocking the attempt by the Council, supported by most of the
international community, to try a new approach. Their failure protected
the brutal regime and put their national interests ahead of the lives
of millions of Syrians, whose nation had spiralled into an all-out civil
war. The United Kingdom would continue to work with the envoy and
the international community, deeply regretful that the Council had been
unable to play the role for which it was established and duty-bound to
fulfil.
GÉRARD ARAUD (France)
said he had hoped not to read out the “ghastly list” of Syrian deaths
that had followed each of the vetoes by Russia and China. Today, after
more than 17,000 Syrian men, women and children had been killed, Russia
and China had, for the third time, exercised their veto of the
Council’s action. “We have done all in our power since their double
veto in February” towards meeting the legitimate aspirations of the
Syrian people, establishing rule of law and respect for human rights,
and coalescing the international community around the envoy’s mission on
the basis of past Council resolutions. According to the transition
plan agreed in Geneva on 30 June, “we, alongside Russia and China,” had
agreed on future steps. It was now clear the Russia merely wanted to
“win time for the Syrian regime to smash the opposition”, by advocating
only soft pressure through diplomatic contacts, and leaving the
responsibility for implementation to the leadership. The only thing it
deemed pressing was to wait.
However, he said, the
provisions adopted by the Council had been ignored by the Syrian regime,
which had not even started to implement the first of those
commitments. The Council had demanded that it cease the use of heavy
weapons; since then, the civilian population had been crushed by heavy
artillery and attack helicopters. The Secretary-General noted in his
latest report that, between the bombardments, the regime had sent
militias to cut the throats of the innocent. In response, he, along
with Mr. Annan, had called on the Council to ensure that its decisions
were implemented. That message had been echoed by the Secretary General
of the Arab League and 107 States in Paris on 6 July. But, that
simple message had just “come up against the rejection of both Russia
and China”.
“Our draft,” he said, had
included “but the threat of sanctions”, giving the regime 10 days to
abide by its commitments — “long enough to put an end to the use of
heavy weapons in civilian neighbourhoods and way too long when hundreds
of people were dying daily”. It was up to the Council to choose
sanctions when it was deemed necessary. It was wrong of Russia and
China to have “vetoed” the Council’s work towards a peaceful solution to
the crisis. It was not possible to “call for a political solution [ad]
infinitum”, and not grant Mr. Annan the tools he requested; that was to
undermine the Mission itself. This third veto meant that for Russia
and China there would be no consequences for Syria and that it could
continue to carry out its “horrible work” and that the legitimate
aspirations of the Syrian people would go unmet. History would prove
those countries wrong, and it would judge them. It was doing so now.
The resolution’s sponsors
had pressed it to a vote aware that the vetoes would be cast, because
they “could not be accomplices to false diplomatic action and
paralysis”, he said. That would show no responsibility and undermine
the credibility of this lofty chamber. He paid tribute to the men and
women who sought relief, adding “this double veto will not stop us”.
France would continue to assist Syria’s democratic transition and work
unstintingly to ensure that the regime’s violence was halted.
PETER WITTIG (Germany)
said that when the Syrian people had taken to the streets more than one
year ago, their legitimate demands had been met by deadly force and
increasing repression. From the start, the Council had warned against
spiralling violence. It, along with the Arab League, had called on
President Assad to embark on a process of credible political reform and
had laid out a plan for a peaceful political process. But, he had not
listened. The Council had thus sought action to stop the violence and
human rights abuses and prevent a worsening of the situation. It was
well known to all why those attempts had failed. More than 15,000
deaths later, Damascus was at war with the Syrian people. With each
passing day that the Assad regime escalated its violent repression, it
became more difficult to convince those Syrians not to lose hope for a
political solution. According to the International Committee of the Red
Cross (ICRC), the country was now in a civil war; the responsibility
lay with President Assad to stop it. But, he had failed to protect the
Syrian people and broken all his commitments.
As a first step in the
six-point plan, the Syrian Government had to stop using heavy weapons,
he said, adding it was President Assad himself who had made that
commitment. The Council supported those decisions and had sent
observers to Syria, despite the severe risks and reservations. But
hopes in those resolutions were soon shattered. Instead of implementing
the plan, instead of silencing the weapons, Mr. Assad had unleashed
tanks and helicopters. The Council could not continue business as
usual. Mr. Annan was clear in what he expected from both Damascus and
the Council: President Assad must immediately stop the use of heavy
weapons in populated areas, and the Council must insist on implementing
its decisions and send a strong signal that there would be consequences
for non-compliances. Today’s resolution would have done that.
Yes, he said, the text
would have threatened sanctions, and it would have stressed that those
shellings violated international humanitarian law and Council
resolutions, and hindered any chance for a political process. Ending
the shellings, however, would have opened up space for a political
transition. The goal was to achieve Council unity, not to set the stage
for military intervention or undermine Mr. Annan and the observer
Mission. It would not have been a silver bullet for peace, but it would
have provided a chance, maybe the last one, to break the vicious cycle
of violence. Today was a lost opportunity. “Together with our
partners, we have tried our utmost,” in the belief it was “our moral
responsibility”. While the days of the Assad regime “are numbered”, the
Syrian people were enduring unspeakable hardship. Germany would
continue to support those who shared the goals of peace and democracy.
One day, there would be a new Syria. The regime should consider its
future options, because one thing was certain: there would be change.
RAZA BASHIR TARAR (Pakistan)
said that violence in Syria was being attributed to both sides, but the
results were unacceptable. There was agreement that a Syrian-owned
political process was the only solution, not further militarization.
Mr. Annan’s six-point plan had been a unifying force in the Council, as
was the subsequent Mission to support it. A united approach was still
needed to support Mr. Annan’s efforts. The divisive issues of Chapter
VII should have been set aside for that purpose, and a more flexible
approach used. Pakistan, therefore, had no choice but to abstain from
the vote. He urged both sides to eschew violence, engage in dialogue
and proceed towards a political solution. The continuing presence of
UNSMIS was critical and should not have been linked with other issues.
He proposed extension of the Mission for a short period pending further
discussions.
HARDEEP SINGH PURI (India),
condemning and extending condolences for the attack yesterday on high
Syrian officials in Damascus, reiterated his support for the mission of
Mr. Annan and the support from that mission provided by UNSMIS. All
parties had failed to fulfil their obligations under Mr. Annan’s
six-point plan and must recommit themselves urgently to it. Emphasizing
the importance of a stable Syria and the complexity of the ground
realities, he stressed the importance of continuing the presence of
UNSMIS and addressing the crisis in a balanced and impartial manner. He
voted in favour today to support the implementation of the six-point
plan, but it would have been better if Council members had shown more
flexibility to gain consensus. In spite of the vote, it was essential
to extend the Mission’s mandate. He pledged to continue to work
tirelessly towards that end.
JOSE FILIPE MORAES CABRAL (Portugal)
expressed disappointment at the results of the vote, as the resolution
was meant to help stop the violence and violations of human rights
through united, sustained pressure on all sides, and on the Syrian
authorities in particular, with serious consequences for
non-compliance. Emphasizing the dire humanitarian situation, the
long-term lack of implementation of the six-point plan, the continued
shelling of the population, and the worsening of the situation in recent
days, he said that the text was meant to halt that spiral. The
imposition of sanctions would not have been automatic and would not have
allowed military intervention. He pledged to continue work with the
Council to support the goals of the Joint Envoy.
VITALY CHURKIN (Russian Federation)
said the sponsors of the “just-blocked” resolution were well aware that
it had no chance of adoption. The Russian Federation had explained
it could not accept a Chapter VII text to open the path to military
intervention and sanctions. Yet, for some reason, those Council members
had failed to exclude military intervention. Their calculation to use
the Council and the United Nations to further their plans of putting
their own pressures on sovereign States would not pass. Instead of
levelling insinuations against the Russian Federation, which
throughout the conflict had provided key support for the Annan mission,
those members had today made “unacceptable statements”. They could have
done something to promote dialogue with their Syrian counterparts,
rather than fan the flames of conflict, including of Syrian terrorist
groups, as they furthered their own “geopolitical designs”.
In fact, he said, those
Council members incited the crisis instead of, as they purported,
attempting to settle it in accordance with the 30 June Geneva outcome.
The sponsors of the just-failed draft had also attempted to fan the
flames of divide in the Council. Their resolution was biased, and the
sanctions levelled exclusively against Syria would run counter to the
Geneva document and fail to reflect the realities in the country today,
in particular following yesterday’s grave attack in Damascus. Council
members had refused to negotiate the Russian draft, which aimed to bring
the Council together, further Annan’s plan and extend the United
Nations Mission in Syria. Continued confrontation in the Council was
useless and counter-productive and he, therefore, would not submit his
draft to a vote. The Council should adopt a technical extension of the
Mission’s mandate for a specific time period. All responsible Council
members and Syrian parties should be guided by the Special Envoy’s
work.
GERT ROSENTHAL (Guatemala)
said he had supported the resolution just adopted because it offered
the best opportunity — perhaps the only one — to put an end to the
“crazed violence” in Syria and to initiate a Syrian-led political
transition. The impediment to consensus was related to the resistance
of some members to invoke the Charter’s Article 41, which contemplated
the possibility of coercive measures in the case of non-compliance with
Council decisions. That same Article excludes punitive measures, such
as the use of armed force, putting preventive diplomacy at the Council’s
disposal. The possible application of sanctions was “the least we
could do, given the sequence of broken commitments on the part of the
Government of Syria during the past months”.
He said he regretted the
resolution’s rejection, first, because the Syrian people suffered daily
the horrors of the spiralling violence and the barbaric acts could be
attributed to both sides. The main point was to curb the violence on
both sides, the key to which was Government action. He also regretted
that Mr. Annan’s work was seriously compromised by the failure to adopt
the text. Finally, he regretted the impact of today’s action on the
Council itself, and more generally, on the United Nations, whose
prestige suffered a new blow. The inability to achieve a unified
position “marks a serious step backwards”. The final irony was that
what the text sought to prevent — an expansion of the violence — would
perversely result in the opposite. He urged all members of the
international community to seek a solution that responded to the Syrian
people.
SUSAN RICE (United States)
noted that it was the third time in 10 months that two permanent
Council Members — Russia and China — had prevented the Council from
meeting its responsibility in the Syrian conflict. The first two vetoes
had been very destructive; this one was even more dangerous and
deplorable. The text demanded that all parties cease the violence. It
invoked Chapter VII to make more binding the implementation of the
six-point plan and the political transition plan agreed by the Action
Group in Geneva. The resolution threatened with sanctions the only
party in the conflict with heavy weapons — the Syrian regime — if it
continued to use those brutally against its own citizens and cities.
The resolution would not even impose sanctions at this stage, and
despite the paranoia, and, disingenuous claims to the contrary, it would
not authorize or even pave the way for foreign military intervention.
It would have provided political support to the United Nations Mission,
which might have given it a fighting chance. It was a shame the Council
had been unable to do so.
She said, undoubtedly, the
only way unarmed United Nations observers could ever deter violence was
if their report of Syrian violations of the Annan plan led the Council
to impose swift and meaningful consequences for non-compliance, as
demanded by the Special Envoy. When voting for UNSMIS’ establishment
three months ago, the United States was and remained deeply sceptical of
Syria’s pledge to comply. Indeed, week after week, the
Secretary-General, the Special Envoy, and the Head of UNSMIS told the
Council that the Assad regime continued to fire heavy weapons in
population centres, torture citizens, and maintain a horrific posture of
intimidation and detention. It employed tanks and helicopter gunships
and back militias that were terrorizing entire communities, including
perpetrating sexual assaults on women and children. Escalation of the
regime’s attacks against its own people was even more troubling, given
the large stockpiles of chemical weapons in the country. Those must
remain secure, and the regime would be held accountable for their use.
As the situation deteriorated, that was a possibility. Use of those
weapons against Syria’s own people should be “a concern for us all”.
The fault for the
unacceptable situation lay squarely with the “heinous Assad regime and
those Member States that refused to join the international community and
fellow Security Council members that refused to take firm action
against the regime”. Their position was at odds with those members that
had voted for the resolution, at odds with the Arab League and the 100
Group of Friends of Syria countries and people that had called for
Chapter VII Council action. It was also at odds with the aspirations of
the vast majority of the Syrian people, who “deserve so much better
from this Security Council”. The Security Council had failed utterly in
the most important task on its agenda this year, she declared, adding
“this is another dark day in Turtle Bay.”
DOCTOR MASHABANE (South Africa),
strongly condemning the violence and huge loss of life in Syria, said
it was urgent for both sides to stop the violence in all its forms and
implement the six-point plan of Mr. Annan, for whom he expressed strong
support. The highest priority was to end the suffering of civilians.
It was clear that the violence was being conducted by more than one
party, however. He was disappointed that the Council had not acted on
the extension of UNSMIS with the spirit of compromise, mutual respect
and with the Council’s greater responsibilities in mind. There was
consensus on many issues and consensus could have been reached, but
narrow interests were allowed to destroy unity of purpose. A strong
unified message was needed. Today’s text threatened actions only
against the Government, without providing consequences for other armed
groups for continuing their violence. Avowing that the Mission was a
critical part of the effort to end the crisis, he said that South
Africa stood ready to work in the Council to achieve an extension of its
mandate, including through a technical roll-over for a very short term.
MOHAMMED LOULICHKI (Morocco)
voted in favour of the resolution, because it was in line with the
recent decisions of the Arab League and because other resolutions
demanding a complete cessation of violence had not been complied with.
The text was consistent with the position of the Syria Action Group.
His support for the resolution was also due to his support for the work
of the Joint Special Envoy. The only loser today was the brotherly
Syrian people and the region to which it belonged. He had hoped that
every Council member would have joined the common effort and remained
united, building on previous resolutions. The parties in Syria would
not be able to quell the crisis on their own, it was clear, and for that
reason, the Arab League had invited the Council to take strict measures
within Chapter VII to help create conditions conducive for starting
dialogue. Those measures in no way included military intervention, but
instead supported the six-point plan and UNSMIS, to which Morocco had
contributed, in order to help find a peaceful resolution of the
conflict. He reiterated his firm intention to continue work to restore
unity in the Council under Charter principles, and help restore hope to
the people of Syria.
LI BAODONG (China)
expressed increasing concern over the violence in Syria and strongly
condemned the killing of civilians and the bomb attack in Damascus. He
said it was critical to push for an immediate cease-fire and a peaceful
solution. UNSMIS had provided an essential role. He supported the
Secretary-General’s proposal for extending its mandate and better
focusing its role. The draft resolution, however, was
counterproductive, as it had uneven content that put pressure on only
one party, which would only derail the issue from the track of political
settlement and undermine regional peace and stability. He strongly
supported Mr. Annan’s mediation efforts, along with the consensus on
implementation of his plan forged in Geneva recently by the Action
Group.
China, he said, had no
self-interest in the Syrian issue and reiterated that the crisis there
should be resolved by Syrians themselves. The purpose was safeguarding
the interests of the Syrian people, as well as the basic norms covering
international relations. The discussions on today’s text harmed the
unity of the Security Council, as the sponsoring countries took on a
“rigid and arrogant approach” and refused to make revisions. He said
that unfounded accusations were made against China. His country had
participated in discussions in a positive and constructive manner, with
the goal of implementing previous resolutions and the Annan six-point
plan. In contrast, a few countries had been eager to interfere in the
internal affairs of Syria, and those countries had set up obstacles in
extending the mandate of UNSMIS. One could not help but question their
support to UNSMIS and their sincerity in ending the crisis through a
Syrian-led political process. He urged them to support the extension of
UNSMIS, including through a technical roll over, as had been proposed
this morning.
Mr. OSORIO ( Colombia),
speaking in his national capacity, said the violent repression begun
last April had become more acute by the day. The world was appalled at
the dreadful human tragedy. The unusual levels of violence and flagrant
disrespect for human rights made it deplorable that the Syrian
Government had not taken the necessary measures to implement the
six-point plan or Council resolutions; nor had the opposition.
Colombia had voted in favour of the resolution because it believed it
sent clear messages to all parties in Syria on the need to apply the
Council’s resolutions and the Annan plan, as well as the Geneva
agreement. He deplored the fact that differences prevailed in the
Council, which had prevented it from finding “a political way out,
responding to the legitimate aspirations of all segments of Syrian
society”. He was not giving up on a political solution to the crisis
that would contribute to ending the violence, stopping all human rights
violations and finding ways for the Syrian people to build democratic
institutions.
Then, in his capacity as
Council President, he announced that, at the request of the sponsor of
draft resolution S/2012/538/Rev.2, the Council would not proceed to
action.
BASHAR JA’AFARI (Syria)
said the tensions of the Syrian people had intensified, mainly due to
what he had warned about for some time, namely the “suspicious
coincidence” between Council meetings and terrorist acts. That
situation had just been repeated yesterday morning in Damascus.
Regrettably, the Council had not condemned that terrorist act, but
gratefully, the Secretary-General and Mr. Annan had done so. The
absence of any condemnation by the Council could imply that the
international community’s consensus to combat terrorism was “mere
talk”. It could also mean that the Council’s talk of supporting a
peaceful solution in Syria was “but a slogan in order to gain time”.
He said Syria had
officially welcomed the Geneva outcome, especially the basic points
about sovereignty and territorial integrity, and putting an end in Syria
to human rights violations and to the actions of armed groups, as well
as protecting Syrians and launching a Syrian-led political process. The
Syrian people alone must decide their future “without foreign
intervention”. If there were no objections to the Geneva plan, then he
did not understand why the Council could not agree on a purely
procedural matter to extend UNSMIS’ mandate, alongside those
fundamentals agreed in Geneva. It had become clear to all that the
success of the Annan plan and of UNSMIS, in addition to the Syrian
Government’s support, required a sincere commitment by the international
community, especially those parties that had influence on the armed
groups and armed opposition.
Some circles with direct
interest in fanning the flames of the crisis, however, distorted the
facts and distorted the Syrian Government’s response to the crisis by
advancing the idea of a tyrannical regime killing its unarmed people, he
said. The crisis was complex and multidimensional, with internal and
external ramifications. For those who were misguided and carried out
destructive acts, “the road to return to their senses was still open”.
He said there was a terrorist group that had external support, which
killed civilians and military personnel — even before the Council had
devoted its attention to the situation. The Syrian State could not
counter their acts. Those who had closed their embassies in Damascus
did not know that armed groups had attacked electrical plants in Syria
three times.
He said that some
countries from the outset had adopted a balanced and constructive
position towards the crisis; others had interfered in a flagrant manner,
“beating the drums of threats of war”, providing arms and logistical
support to terrorist groups, and imposing 60 measures of illegal
sanctions against the Syrian people. “To those countries we say: if
you want to impose the laws of the jungle on others, and if you think
that is a logical course of action, allow that first in your own
countries.”
Finally, he said, media
reports of Syria’s intention to use chemical weapons “has no basis,
whatsoever”. All Syrians sought reconciliation and reconstruction,
rather than Chapter VII Council action and external intervention. The
Council’s “memory” was “full of examples of disaster left on people” to
whom those terms had applied. Anyone who believed that those who had
invaded Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya were interested in serving
Syria’s interests was deluded. Resolution of the crisis could only be
Syrian-led, inclusive of the aspirations of the Syrian people, and aimed
at establishing a democratic pluralist country where everyone enjoyed
equality before the law and where political and economic opportunities
were available to all. Syria was interested in building a country
strong enough to stand up to any aggression.
* *** *
For information media • not an official rec
No comments:
Post a Comment