| New York Times | - |
UNITED
NATIONS - In a rare show of unity among world powers, the United
Nations Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution on Saturday
ordering the warring parties in Syria to stop blocking the delivery of humanitarian aid, though without the ...
UNITED NATIONS — In a rare show of unity among world powers, the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution on Saturday ordering the warring parties in Syria to stop blocking the delivery of humanitarian aid, though without the immediate prospect of punishment for those who disobey.
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 six million refugees. It calls on the Syrian
government to allow relief agencies to enter the country, 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 al-Assad.
It
also calls on the United Nations secretary general to submit progress
reports, and while it does not threaten sanctions, 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.
Document: Resolution From the United Nations Security Council on Syria
Before
the vote, Council diplomats said it was clear that there would be no
chance of approval from Russia, Syria’s strongest ally, if the measure
contained any language on sanctions. And 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 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,
Mr. Churkin made a point of saying 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 diplomat said Russia’s vote could be a sign of
its “uneasiness” over the government’s unwillingness to make aid
delivery easier.
The
American ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, emphasized
that Mr. Churkin had joined in the condemnation of the 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 it preferred to let the warring
parties 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.
In
a nod to Russian demands, the resolution “strongly” condemns the
“increased terrorist attacks resulting in numerous casualties and
destruction carried out by organizations and individuals associated with
Al Qaeda, 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.”
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 vote but doubted 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, “Humanitarian aid for Syrian cannot be achieved unless
it is accompanied by an end to terrorism.”
The
most intense negotiations, diplomats said in interviews on Saturday,
were over language on aerial bombardments, particularly by barrel bombs,
which was a priority for 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 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.”
Jan
Egeland, the former United Nations 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.”
end quote from:
No comments:
Post a Comment