Statement by Chargé d'Affaires of the Russian Federation Dmitry Polyanskiy at UNGA meeting on the use of the veto on Syria
Mr.President,
Before I start, I would like to express my surprise and disappointment at your biased remarks. I do not recall you making such remarks last year before we began our discussion. I regret that you have chosen to sacrifice the principle of neutrality, which is at the core of your mandate, to mercenary Western interests. This raises our huge disappointment.
Colleagues,
For the second year in a row, the General Assembly meeting held under resolution 76/262 on the use of the veto in the UN Security Council is dedicated to a discussion of the so-called cross-border humanitarian aid mechanism for Syria (CBM). I have good news for you. This time there is every reason to believe that we will not meet again on this issue in the context of the said resolution. Because from now on, all UN cross-border operations in Syria will be carried out not on the basis of a mandate issued by the Security Council, but, as it should be, in accordance with the provisions of UNGA resolution 46/182, i.e. upon authorization by and in close coordination with the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic, respecting its sovereignty and territorial integrity. This is our great common achievement, and I do congratulate you on this.
Getting back to July 11 when Security Council voted on the draft resolution that had been put forward by former penholdres of the Syrian humanitarian file, it should be noted that, just as one year before, we were dealing with a conscious attempt by our Western opponents to force us to veto. Had there been some true willingness, the Council would have been able to agree on an acceptable-to-all draft, but our Swiss colleagues, who actually monopolized the penholdership of the resolution, opted for outright blackmail instead of diplomatic efforts and negotiations. They arrogantly rejected the absolutely legitimate demands of Syria, though it was for Syria’s sake that the resolution was being elaborated in the first place. That was particularly necessary given the fact that the previous such resolution, UNSCR 2672, actually had not been implemented. It was essential to strengthen the "language" to ensure unhindered and sustainable access to all parts of the country across the lines of contact, restore civilian infrastructure (water and electricity facilities, schools, hospitals, housing), implement sustainable development projects, and provide for demining, which should, among other things, help to create conditions for the realization of the fundamental right of refugees and IDPs to return to their places of permanent residence.
There is still a humanitarian imperative as regards Syria, which becomes even more urgent against the backdrop of the devastating effects of the 2023 earthquake and the COVID-19 pandemic. I am talking about the need to lift the illegal unilateral US and EU sanctions that block humanitarian assistance and are a form of collective punishment for millions of ordinary Syrians.
However, the penholders ignored virtually every element, which Russia, on behalf of Syria, proposed to include in the draft humanitarian resolution. The United States and its allies, in whose interests our Swiss colleagues were acting, were primarily concerned about the term of renewal of the CBM and were not prepared to improve the mechanism in any way. After all, their goal is not to help the Syrian people, but to maintain a lever of pressure on the Syrian Government. They issued a de facto ultimatum demanding an extension of the CBM, first for 12 months and then for 9 months which they presented as a compromise. At the same time, the truly humanitarian language that we had proposed was carefully erased from the text of the Western draft resolution. In other words, instead of fixing the resolution that did not work, we were offered to do nothing about it and besides, to lose the opportunity to change anything in the operation of the CBM after 6 months. Of course, we could not agree to that. As I have already said, our Swiss colleagues did not want to seek a compromise, despite the appeals and efforts of colleagues from Brazil, China, the United Arab Emirates, Mozambique, Gabon, and Ghana, to whom we are very grateful.
Colleagues,
We must bear in mind that Syria was the only country in the world where a cross-border mechanism for the delivery of humanitarian aid had been authorized by the UN Security Council rather than the legitimate government. And if there were objective grounds for this in 2014, none are left today. All this time, Western countries have been solely concerned about the supply of humanitarian aid to the Idlib enclave, which is under the control of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, which UNSC lists as a terrorist group. It was for the sake of those terrorists that we were offered to turn a blind eye to the fact that the cross-line mechanism provided for in resolution 2672 never really worked. That’s because cutthroats from HTS could not profiteer from it as effectively as they did from the CBM.
We welcome the sovereign decision of Damascus to allow the United Nations to use the Bab Al-Hawa crossing point for cross-border deliveries of aid to the population of Idlib from Turkey for half a year. We believe that the responsibility for the normalization of the work of this channel, as well as its preservation, rests entirely with the United Nations Office for Humanitarian Affairs. Attempts on anyone's part to influence the United Nations’ bilateral dialogue with Damascus in this connection will be regarded as interference in Syria's internal affairs.
This move by Damascus follows a similar decision taken in February in the aftermath of the devastating earthquake. The Syrian Government, guided by the objective of providing assistance to all those in need within its territory, voluntarily opened two additional border crossings – Bab Al-Salam and Al-Rai – to deliver aid to the affected population. Thus, Damascus confirmed that aid to Syrians can and should be provided in accordance with generally accepted humanitarian principles. And the need to maintain the CBM that was established in 2014 as a temporary and emergency measure, has finally ended.
Let me stress that there are no obstacles to providing humanitarian aid to Syria now. And this is a "moment of truth" for the donors: either they really help the Syrians, or they continue blackmailing them by putting forward new and new political demands.
Colleagues,
Today you will hear in this Chamber a lot of unpleasant things about Russia and Syria from our Western colleagues. They will allege that our veto jeopardizes the lives of millions of Syrians. These lies will be repeated in the West for a long time, while the fact will likely be ignored that the UN and the international community have every opportunity to help the Syrians. But from now on they will have to work closely with the legitimate, internationally recognized Syrian authorities. And it is exactly what the West does not want to do. Changes are taking place in the world, and realization of this fact makes our Western colleagues wince. And, of course, we will hear today allegations that Russia does not help Syria, whereas Western donors do. We all know who they are actually helping and to what extent the UN humanitarian appeal on Syria has been funded. It is also widely known how much Russia is doing for Syria bilaterally. So I hope that hypocritical speculations will not mislead anyone today.
Colleagues,
Russia has never hesitated and will never hesitate to use the veto right not only to protect our interests and those of our allies, but also in the interests of those of our UN partners who are not afraid to pursue an independent policy and resist the dictate and blackmail of Western countries, otherwise the Security Council will turn into a "NATO caucus". That is exactly what we did in defending the interests of our Syrian partners. And we do not regret this decision.
Thank you.
