Statement by Mr. Vladimir Safronkov, Deputy Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations, at the Security Council on the Middle East
We are grateful to Mr. O’Brien for his briefing. We highly value the work being done conscientiously by humanitarian workers in fulfilment of their mandate.
As a result of the memorandum of understanding concluded in Astana on 4 May on the de-escalation zones, the intensity of the armed clashes in Syria has significantly diminished. This is a fact that has been acknowledged by many within Syria and outside. To assert the contrary is to intentionally undermine the achievements of the Astana process, which is bearing tangible results and is providing impetus in the political negotiations in Geneva. We intend to pursue the Astana process, and we are grateful to the leadership of Kazakhstan for the political and organizational assistance it has offered.
At the same time, we condemn the renewed mortar shelling of the Russian embassy in Damascus on 22 May, which was undertaken from the terrorist-controlled Jobar region. It is unfortunate that our Western partners had nothing to say about this today. We would kindly like to ask our partners to work with the people they sponsor to make sure that they stop targeting Russian diplomats.
We have not failed to notice the fact that the humanitarian nature of the reports is being diluted. Instead of an objective analysis of the humanitarian situation, we are seeing calls for transferring the Syria matter to the International Criminal Court and the need for a discussion of the problem of assisting a very questionable investigator mechanism. The reports should paint a broader picture of the work that helps to bring a peaceful life back. For example, something should be said about demining, which is part of a humanitarian action plan, and generally about the efforts being made to normalize the situation in the country. Also worth mentioning is the 2016 report of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) on Syria, which very clearly sets forth the country’s needs in terms of making progress in its reconstruction and describes how the United Nations can help and is helping. Russia is one of the leading donors to UNDP projects in Syria.
The approaches to the humanitarian situation in Syria display a very serious methodological flaw. In order to eliminate this flaw, one has to accept that the issue of humanitarian assistance to Syria cannot be reduced to the issue of blockages and hard-to-reach regions. The reality is that most of the people who need assistance live in areas that are controlled by the Government. Special attention must be paid to regions that have been liberated from fighters, in particular those settlements where local truce agreements have been reached. We cannot share the negative assessment of this kind of practice. Those who criticize the practice should not forget that as result of our efforts on local truces, we have managed to save tens of thousands of human lives. Furthermore, peaceful inhabitants are returning to those regions.
The agenda is now focused on de-mining and on ensuring that the infrastructure functions normally and that social services and facilities are in place and available. In order to improve the quality and volume of humanitarian access, normal working contact with Syrian authorities at various levels is needed, as acknowledged by many United Nations personnel. We have been very active to that end. However, Russia’s capacity in this area is not unlimited, especially since as can be seen in today’s meeting, we are not exactly supported by everyone here. Others need to establish normal working contacts with the Syrian Government. We think that a special role could be played here by the humanitarian troika of the Security Council since it decided to work on this difficult matter.
The description of the incident that took place in Khan Shaykhun cannot withstand scrutiny. The main problem today is that neither the Technical Secretariat of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons nor the Joint Investigative Mechanism have taken the steps necessary to carry out their mandate, including by sending specialists to Khan Shaykoun and the Shairat air base, even though we raised the issue with them. Damascus is ready to work with them but, despite the fact that it has been brought up, the Secretary-General’s report (S/2017/445) does not say a word about the issue.
On another note, the report says that the last route into eastern Ghouta was closed in late April, but we were told long ago that this region had been completely blocked. The difficulties with delivering supplies to Damascus suburbs have been intentionally exaggerated, following the direction of fighters associated with terrorist groups and non-governmental organizations that are at their beck and call, including the infamous White Helmets, in order to exert additional pressure on the authorities in Damascus.
But the activities carried out by the White Helmets are very well known to the United Nations and in the region. It turns out, for example, that the the hospitals and clinics that many non-governmental organizations have claimed to have been destroyed are intact and working. The Al-Wafidin corridor has allowed for the provision of food supplies, which has caused the prices for foodstuffs at local markets to drop considerably. It is the constant clashes among illegal groups that are hindering humanitarian activity, inflicting suffering on innocent people.
How long will we have to wait before those who support and train the Syrian armed opposition can knock some sense into those people? We cannot help but be worried by the fact that we are seeing a rising number of victims among civilians in the areas controlled by the United States-led opposition. If they promote fairness and justice, why did they fail to mention that?
We have pointed out the illegal nature of these operations on many occasions. They violate the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria, which we have strongly emphasized in many Security Council resolutions. We cannot agree with the approach of some of our partners to humanitarian situations in hot spots of the Middle East. One set of ideas is applied when considering Syria, a completely different set of ideas when it comes to Iraq, and yet a third set for Yemen. What does this mean? Does it mean that different kinds of people live in Middle East? Are there three different classes of citizens living there? Let us at least be honest.
I must state in conclusion that regardless of the tenor of our meetings, whether it is an acute polemic or legendary diplomatic politeness, our Western partners exploit these public meetings to make unjustified accusations against us, which verges on insulting. The only question we hear is: What should Russia do about Syria? What we are doing is obvious, overt and known to all. We constantly inform the Council about what we are doing. Why do our colleagues not report to the Security Council about what their countries are doing to bring a political settlement closer?
We call once again on Council members to refrain from the kind of fruitless and inappropriate rhetoric whose rules Council members have flouted when flinging unacceptable provocations on us and other countries. We propose instead that we concentrate on making specific contributions to ending the war in Syria and assisting in its reconstruction. We stand ready to work together there.
