0 $
2,500 $
5,000 $
3,267 $

UNSC In Stalemate on Idlib, With Competing Resolutions Both Blocked


UNSC In Stalemate on Idlib, With Competing Resolutions Both Blocked

Click to see full-size image

On September 19th, the UN Security Council rejected two separate draft resolutions on the situations in Syria and a truce in Idlib. The resolution that called for a truce in Idlib was blocked by Russia and China.

It said “All parties shall immediately cease hostilities to avoid a further deterioration of the already catastrophic humanitarian situation in Idlib Governorate, beginning at noon Damascus time on 21 September 2019.”

The reasoning behind the Russian and Chinese veto is that the resolution simply disregards the fact that Idlib is an area with a heavy presence of international terrorists.

Permanent Representative to the UN Vassily Nebenzia, who is also Council President for September 2019 said that if it was true that the “humanitarian troika” was guided exclusively by humanitarian objectives, then his delegation would support Russia and China’s draft resolution.

“Unfortunately, the goal of the text is to save international terrorists entrenched in Idlib from their final defeat.  Throughout the negotiations, the Russian Federation has had a difficult feeling about the text.  Improbable and unsubstantiated figures about mass movements of people are being thrown about, but no large-scale military operations are under way in Idlib, where the ceasefire announced on 31 August has been undermined by terrorists.

In taking its decisions, the Council cannot be guided by lies and misinformation, he said, calling it immoral to speculate about the lives of civilians held hostage by terrorists who have connections to Western colleagues on the Council.

From the outset, his delegation had warned the co‑sponsors that their resolution would to fail, yet they have put it to a vote.  He called on those delegations that want to see the situation resolved in Syria to reject the text.”

The vote failed, with 12 in favour to 2 against (China, Russian Federation), with 1 abstention (Equatorial Guinea), owing to the negative vote of a permanent Council member.

The “humanitarian troika” in question, from Nebenzia statement is Germany, Kuwait and Belgium.

Their statement was the following, given by Permanent German Representative to the UN Christoph Heusgen.

“The Council cannot stay silent and must act,” he said.  The three delegations, as co-penholders on the humanitarian situation in Syria, sought to negotiate the text in a transparent manner, engaging with all Council members in good faith.  The draft resolution is balanced, focused purely on the humanitarian situation while also acknowledging that counter-terrorism efforts must be undertaken in accordance with international humanitarian law.”

In comment of the resolution, the Syrian representative said “it was a “surreal farce” that Western countries had drafted a biased and political rather than humanitarian draft resolution.  They say that combating terrorism requires respect for international humanitarian law, but, yet, are silent about dealing with those States that produce terrorism, he said, adding that history would remember today’s meeting as an attempt to embarrass the Russian Federation during its presidency of the Council.  The three co-sponsors did not coordinate with Syria’s delegation on their text, and that agreements concluded in Astana and Sochi underscored the Syria’s right to fight terrorism on its territory.”

Most significantly, China backed Russia on the Idlib situation, saying that the “humanitarian situation” in Idlib was caused by international terrorist activity and that the one proposed by the “humanitarian troika” disregarded that.

China and Russia then proposed a revised resolution, which did, in fact, propose a humanitarian approach that takes into account “Syria’s sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity, listen to the views of its Government and seek a solution through political means, while also paying attention to post-war reconstruction and economic development.”

The alternative resolution was needed because, in Nebenzia’s words, Russia and Syria were striking the international terrorists and avoiding civilian casualties, and the truce would impede that.

“Armed combat against terrorists in Syria is almost over and humanitarian issues must not be used for alternative aims.”

The second resolution failed with only China and Russia voting in favor, and 9 voting against – Belgium, Dominican Republic, France, Germany, Kuwait, Peru, Poland, United Kingdom, United States. There were 4 abstentions – Côte d’Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Indonesia, South Africa.

In closing, going back to the Syrian Representative Bashar Ja’afar said the “humanitarian troika” and the other Western countries were keen to forward their political agenda behind a “surreal farce” of a humanitarian approach.

“However, the ink of their pen dries when it comes to war crimes, crimes committed by a United States-led coalition or an illegal foreign presence on Syria’s land.  They have also been silent for decades on the immunity provided to Israel’s occupying authorities.  While they say that combating terrorism necessitates respect for international humanitarian law, they are silent about dealing with those States producing terrorism.”

He recalled that Germany recently announced that there are 500 foreign terrorist fighters in the country and he asked how that country’s ambassador could neglect this information when presenting the draft resolution.

Regarding Kuwait, he presented an article and a poster as proof of Kuwait’s fundraising for fighters in Syria.  The penholders likewise have provided support to the fighters and participated in the systematic destruction of Syria’s vital infrastructure, affecting millions of people.

In response, the Kuwaiti representative Mansour Al-Otaibi said that Syria had one objective: “to attack Kuwait” and “portray the crisis in Syria as a terrorist one.”

Which it specifically is. But not according to the Western narrative.

Ja’afari said that he didn’t wish to point the finger at Kuwaiti terrorists killing Syrian civilians, cause there were terrorists from 100 countries there.

“I don’t understand why the Kuwaiti ambassador is so sensitive when there are terrorists from 100 countries present in Syria who are killing Syrian people,” he said, asserting that Syria has presented voluminous evidence on the presence of foreign terrorist fighters on its territory, and clarifying that there are both Syrian and foreign terrorists fighting against the Government.

The only conclusion of the discussions on the draft resolutions showed one thing: the Western narrative still considers Syrian President Bashar al-Assad as the “evil overlord” and his government as a tyrannical regime.

The terrorists are a “moderate opposition” that cares deeply for the local population, but “accidental” beheadings and civilian bombings simply “happen.”

After all, one of the more “reputable” MSM outlets had a following “non-biased report” on Bashar al-Assad’s impending victory in the fight against the terrorists:

“Against all odds, the monster has won. But Bashar al-Assad has nothing good to offer the Syrian people.”

There’s also a harrowing video that does well in misrepresenting the truth and assuming that unsubstantiated claims are fact.

Try The Economist for 12 weeks

Against all odds, the monster has won. But Bashar al-Assad has nothing good to offer the Syrian people. Read about this, and more, when you subscribe to The Economist

Posted by The Economist on Friday, September 6, 2019

In conclusion, it is becoming more and more apparent that despite each country in the Astana format following its own agenda, they all share the wish to rebuild Syria and cleanse it of terrorist presence.

Very little is to be expected by a UNSC in a stranglehold of a Washington-led agenda that refuses to acknowledge the reality of events.




Do you like this content? Consider helping us!