Statement by Ambassador Vassily A. Nebenzia, Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations, at the Security Council meeting on Syria
We thank Special Envoy Staffan de Mistura for his briefing. It is not yet time to bid him farewell, and we will postpone that for now, because he has promised to work on this matter up to the last minute.
Recently in Syria we have seen a trend towards stabilization associated with the liberation of a greater part of the country’s territory from the terrorist presence At this stage, Syrians need international support in re-establishing an economy that has been destroyed by the war.
The citizens of Syria who are endeavouring to return to their homeland should be getting genuine support from the specialized international agencies. We strongly urge our partners to be guided on these issues by the interests of ordinary Syrians and to refrain from artificially tying them to political progress. Otherwise, as with the unilateral sanctions that end up burdening ordinary citizens, it does not match their publicly trumpeted humanitarian slogans. Judging from what we have heard today, however, our urgings are not likely to find a response from our so-called humanitarians.
Russia, Iran and Turkey are the country guarantors of the Astana process and are continuing their close joint work in the interests of a Syrian settlement. We in this Chamber never tire of asking questions of those who tell us haughtily what we have done wrong and what we should do. But what have those here been doing for a Syrian settlement? We know what they discuss in their so-called small group, and the documents that result from their meetings. They have no relation to the Syrian settlement. They are a collection of ultimatums and conditions. We suggest that the small-country group publish the memorandums that they adopt in their meetings and make them accessible to a broad public.
We do not want to do it for them. Then we can discuss with them who is trying to launch a Syrianowned political process and who is dictating to Syrians what their future should be. The high-level agreement between Russia and Turkey on temporary measures for stabilizing Idlib governorate has had a palpable effect on the situation that is much appreciated by many of those involved — but not all. It seems that some of our partners are never satisfied. Things before the memorandum were bad, and things after the memorandum are also bad. According to what we have heard today, the memorandum would barely have happened if it hadn’t been for the efforts of the so-called small group.
I want to let the Council know that the memorandum is being implemented in full, and our Turkish colleagues are working very hard to that end. A number of opposition groups have announced their support for the Sochi memorandum. More than 1,000 militants have left the demilitarized zone. A significant quantity of heavy military equipment has been removed, although there are reports that some groups are trying to hide some of it in the mountains. The situation is not without difficulties, for which the most radical rebel cells, particularly Jabhat Al-Nusra, are to blame. They are trying to undermine the implementation of the memorandum by shelling towns and villages bordering the de-escalation zone, including the western outskirts of Aleppo. We assume that extreme measures will be applied to incorrigible terrorists.
Those who are ready to break with the radicals are being given a good, indeed a unique chance to return to normal society, and they should make that choice as soon as possible. All international players must respect Syria’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity. Neither Idlib nor any other part of the country can be seen as some sort of separate entity with special arrangements. Unfortunately, not everyone is complying with those fundamental principles of the Charter of the United Nations. The United States representative asked about the motives of the Russian presence and activity in Syria. My answer is that Russia is in Syria at the invitation of its legitimate Government.
Our aim is to assist Syria in combating international terrorism. We have no other goals or motives. If I may, I will ask him in return what the basis is for the United States presence in Syria and what its motives are. Are they to combat terrorism, or to create quasi-State entities on the territory of a sovereign country and a springboard for some sort of future action in the region? There are military bases being built and expanded in Syria, including the notorious Al-Tanf, around which a real terrorist breeding ground has formed. The demographic makeup of north-eastern Syria on the left bank of the Euphrates is being violently reconfigured.
The fight against the remaining isolated centres of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) is getting nowhere, as if the task of finally defeating the terrorists was not an issue. Now and then the terrorists take over new territories, as is happening in the area of Hajin. From time to time militants are transported somewhere. We do not know what is happening in the areas controlled by the so-called coalition where ISIL members are being held. Are they kept in improvised prisons, prosecuted, returned to their countries of origin? This uncertainty confirms our long-standing suspicions that countering terrorism is only a pretext for maintaining the coalition’s military presence in Syria. As our Syrian colleagues have informed the Security Council, civilians are being killed as a result of the so-called coalition’s air strikes on residential areas.
We are very concerned about the reports of the use of phosphorous munitions during those bombings, which should be thoroughly investigated. In the territories under the control of the coalition and its local allies, puppet self-governing bodies are being created independently of the authorities in Damascus. What is that if not a blatant violation of Syrian sovereignty through the country’s forcible dismemberment? These are neocolonial policies, plain and simple. We should not omit to mention the ugly story of the fake White Helmet rescuers associated with terrorist organizations. It is they who are some of the main actors in the militants’ toxic-substance provocations, which Damascus is then purposely accused of perpetrating. Some of them have been brought out of Syria, but not all of their Western patrons are in a hurry to investigate their clients after analysing their personal affairs.
The White Helmets represent a threat to the security of the States of the region, which is why we are asking their patrons to take them away and to hurry up about it. All of them. We wish them luck integrating them into democratic society. In the meantime, we are pleased to see Damascus and other Middle Eastern capitals finding ways to normalize relations, starting with the most ordinary kind, the human contacts and the trade that have maintained regional ties for thousands of years. The Nasib crossing on Syria’s border with Jordan opened just a few days ago. And with the assistance of Russian specialists, work has begun again on the Quneitra crossing after a years-long interruption.
There is mutual interest in returning the cross-border interaction between Syria and Iraq to pre-conflict levels. That is a natural process in the interests of the residents of the region, and it would be criminal to interfere with it. Increased attention is currently focused on forming a constitutional committee on the basis of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress held in Sochi in January. If we are to establish a viable body, which we hope everyone is genuinely interested in, its working parameters require the consent of the Syrian parties.
Like other partners, we want to see the committee established as soon as possible, but in this case it will be counterproductive to pursue artificial deadlines, with artificial terms that are artificially introduced. I would like to know why we are not setting deadlines for resolving other crises, such as the Palestinian-Israeli settlement, Yemen or Libya. There, too, let us loudly and fervently demand immediate settlements and set deadlines that do not accord with the interests of the parties or the situations that have evolved. If a process is to be credible, all the parties must agree, and that takes time. So we have to be patient. We simply have to respect the partners and not demand that they agree to what suits us rather than the parties directly involved in negotiations.
We ask our colleagues from the so-called small group, many of whose participants have not proven themselves in the area of the Syrian settlement, to refrain from unwarranted ultimatums and from putting pressure on the United Nations mediation efforts. While we are open to dialogue, we wonder whether countries that refuse even to talk to the legitimate Syrian Government can play a positive role in supporting the political process.
Mr. De Mistura is well aware that Russia has consistently supported the United Nations efforts for an intra-Syrian settlement and has repeatedly helped it to emerge from what were seemingly hopeless impasses. We have been convinced more than once of his ability to make informed decisions based on his rich diplomatic experience.
We hope that his visit to Damascus will be successful. However, we will not stop repeating that for more active progress towards peace in Syria we need to unite the constructive efforts of all the international and regional players with influence and to refrain from confrontation and the execution of geopolitically destructive projects.
