Highlights: Situation in Syria

AS DELIVERED

Hi, everybody. I’ve just come from the Security Council consultations on the situation in Syria, where Special Envoy de Mistura was the briefer, by video conference. He expressed his continued frustration with insufficient humanitarian access, the serious dangers to the cessation of hostilities, and the need for real progress on the political talks.

The United States, of course, shares these frustrations and concerns. On the cessation of hostilities, it is clear that violence has increased in the past month and is nearing pre-cessation-of-hostilities levels. It is also clear that the dangers to the cessation are largely being driven by the Syrian regime and its allies and attacks on civilians.

Russia has a special responsibility to press the Assad regime to abide by the cessation of hostilities and end its bombardment and siege of innocent Syrian civilians. Last week in Vienna, Russia signed on to a joint statement highlighting the regime’s commitment to cease using indiscriminate force, intensifying efforts to get all parties to reduce violence, and committing to work with the Syrian regime to minimize air operations over areas predominantly inhabited by civilians. Which, of course, are the very areas that have been struck of late.

Further, Russia committed in the joint statement to press the parties to ensure delivery of humanitarian assistance. Meanwhile, large areas of Syria remain besieged, in spite of UN efforts to deliver aid. One gross example of this occurred on May 12 – as you all know – in the town of Darayya, which has not been reached with humanitarian aid since November 2012. That day, the Syrian central government – at the highest levels – intentionally decided to block aid and they continue to deny food and basic medical supplies to more than 4,000 civilians. Despite the Council and the ISSG raising Darayya again and again in nearly every single session for the last two months, the regime continues to ignore the international community and it persists in this totally inhumane policy.

In response, the ISSG, as you know, took bold action and called on the World Food Program to immediately plan for a program for air drops to all areas in need, if the UN is denied access. This would start on June 1. This is more expensive, it would be less efficient, and land access is the far preferable, desired way to deliver relief. Using a less efficient, more expensive means like airdrops should not be necessary: access to humanitarian aid should be non-negotiable. This is just a man-made problem and it requires a pen stroke for the political leadership in Damascus to actually ensure that people in desperate need get reached. While a new “regime of silence” went into effect in Darayya on May 24, we continue to hear reports of offensive military action being taken by the regime. I remind everybody that, apart from any arrangements for periods of “silence,” the cessation of hostilities is supposed to be nationwide, and without time limits. That was the original agreement.

The limited progress we have made together this year is imperiled by the actions of a regime that seems intent on ignoring the cessation of hostilities and often ignoring desperate appeals for humanitarian access. We cannot allow this to happen. We cannot allow the cessation of hostilities to fall apart. We must find a way to reach civilians in need.

We remain thoroughly committed to the political transition outlined in Resolution 2254. As we’ve long said, political negotiation is the only way to end this war. But in order to facilitate that process, unimpeded humanitarian access and respect for the cessation of hostilities in full are essential. Those with influence over the primary perpetrators – the Assad regime – must do their part to give the political talks a chance to succeed.

Before I close, I just also want to take the opportunity to condemn ISIL and Nusra violence in Syria in the strongest terms. Whether it is the regime, ISIL, or Nusra, we must all condemn indiscriminate attacks on civilians and terrorism. I believe that the Council made this clear on Tuesday in our press statement condemning the attacks in Tartous/Jableh and in the same statement condemning indiscriminate attacks on civilians.

With that, I’ll take your questions.

QUESTION: James Bayes from Al Jazeera. June the 1st is fast approaching. You know, Ambassador, that the Syrian government control the airspace, so, in effect, they need to give permission to WFP to do the air drops. What happens if the Syrian government don’t allow air drops?

AMBASSADOR POWER: Well we all have a responsibility to use every last minute between now and the June 1 deadline to secure land access – it’s easy. In some of the communities that have not been reached, you’re talking about a matter of a few kilometers. That’s just stubborn political opposition and a sense of impunity on the part of the regime that causes them to deny access. So priority one is pushing to secure what we’ve been seeking to secure for many, many months and for some – in the case of Darayya – actually for several years. At the same time, WFP is meeting with the humanitarian experts. They, again, are the first to say that this is a last resort, that this is not desired, that it’s not efficient. But they are coming up with proposals as to how it would be done if it becomes necessary to do.

I think it is very significant that all of the countries of the ISSG signed on to that commitment. So, I think, while we don’t want to talk about hypotheticals, we recognize that June 1 is closing in upon us and it is imperative that those same members of the ISSG who signed onto the statement, then on the back end are prepared to bring the fruits of that statement to life if that is what’s required. So those are the kinds of discussions that are occurring. We have a humanitarian task force, as you know, that is jointly chaired by the United States and Russia – that is a place where ISSG members will pore over these proposals. And we may meet again, in all likelihood, next week, to assess what progress has been made against the standard of securing the access that the ISSG demanded. Thank you.

QUESTION: Thank you, Madam Ambassador. With the big picture that you’re talking about in Syria, there was an uproar in Lebanon regarding the report of the Secretary-General on refugees and migrants that calls, in one of the paragraphs, to resettle the refugees in the countries if they’re not able to go back to their countries. And we have in Lebanon, as you well know, millions of refugees – Syrians and Palestinians. Do you think that Lebanon is a special case and should be excluded or treated differently when it comes to solve this tragedy – humanitarian tragedy – in the world?

AMBASSADOR POWER: Well let me start by saying that Lebanon has shouldered a tremendous burden. And it isn’t just the Lebanese government that has contributed so much but also so many Lebanese families that have opened their doors, and their hearts, and their kitchens to Syrians who have come across the border – as you say – on the heels of having, over the decades, welcomed also so many Palestinians. So we’re incredibly grateful to Lebanon for all of the steps that they have taken. I think it’s very important to note that the international obligations in the conventions are not ones that have exceptions for particular circumstances – I mean there’s a reason we have international norms and international standards to try to discipline the actions of all countries, including my own.

So I think part of the reason that President Obama has decided to host this refugee summit at his last UN General Assembly – on the first day of the General Assembly – is to look at how the burden of refugee care and resettlement can be more equitably spread around the world. Whether it’s Lebanon, or Turkey, or Jordan – who have borne the brunt of sheltering the Syrian population in the neighborhood – or now countries like Italy, who are the recipients, or have in recent days, through their patrols, managed to save hundreds of people who are fleeing desperate conditions in Africa, the question of how refugees can be resettled, whether in the long-term, in a permanent manner – which I think is what you’re talking about – or just until conflicts or underlying circumstances can be addressed.

This is precisely why President Obama, again, has decided to chair this summit. It’s why some of what came out of the World Humanitarian Summit is very important in terms of the relief-to-development continuum. Because countries like Lebanon, who are lending a helping hand in an emergency, also have acute development needs that are exacerbated by the inflow of refugees. And that’s something that it’s fair to say the international humanitarian system doesn’t take full account of.

QUESTION: Thanks, Ambassador. In light of what you heard today and your own conversations with allies, what do you say to critics who think that the U.S.-Russian relationship with the ISSG has ceased to be productive? And then, on another issue, today the NGO committee rejected the application of the Committee to Protect Journalists for consultative status. Are you planning to bring this to ECOSOC in an attempt to overturn that?

AMBASSADOR POWER: So I think people look at the situation on the ground in Syria and they bring understandable impatience and frustration. And you know, what I hear in this room is a real appreciation for the effort that the United States and Russia are making as the co-chairs of the ISSG. I mean, this is a group now that has more than 20 countries, plus the UN, the EU, the Arab League, the OIC – that venue for that kind of cross-regional group which also includes people who have been on very different sides of this conflict, is an important umbrella insofar as when the ISSG agrees to agrees to the kind of statement that it agreed to on airdrops, or on the indiscriminate use of force, we, as ISSG members, have every expectation that all members of that group are going to use whatever leverage that they have over whatever party they have the most leverage with to try to bring those words to life.

So people are frustrated by the results on the ground. I think people acknowledge that lives have been saved by virtue of the cessation of hostilities. There are large parts of the country that have been relatively peaceful, but our emphasis is rightly on those that are not. And even though we’ve secured these days of silence for Ghouta and Darayya, those days of silence need to be implemented and people in those communities need to be saved. But we also need the days of silence to be applied to Aleppo and to Latakia, and that is agreement that we have not yet secured. I say this, on the heels of my earlier point, which is that we shouldn’t need these piecemeal days of silence for different communities in Syria because the cessation of hostilities applies across the country.

So the impatience is real, but from our standpoint, we don’t think the right answer is, “OK, let’s give up on a country that has significant influence over a regime that has proven itself impervious to international norms, and has been acting as one of the most repressive actors on planet Earth over the last five years.” We think the answer is to continue to press Russia, and Iran for that matter, to use the influence that they have established – influence that is only expanded since Russia intervened militarily in the conflict – to ensure that Syria lives by the UN Security Council resolutions that we have passed here together, whether on humanitarian access or on the six-month timeline regarding political transition. And so far, we are not seeing the results that we seek, but there is no work-around for the fact that we need those countries who have backed the regime to harness that leverage to secure delivery again on the norms and the standards and the demands that we have made collectively.

So that’s the route that we’re going to continue to pursue, in part, again, because of our core belief that there is no military solution. So to revert to that situation where it’s just a free-for-all where people are just doing what the regime is doing – which is pursuing offensive operations and hoping that things are going to get better that way – is almost impossible to envisage a scenario where anything good would come out of the collapse of the cessation of hostilities.

On your CPJ question, we are extremely disappointed by today’s vote. It is increasingly clear that the NGO Committee acts more and more like an “anti-NGO Committee.” The fact that so many countries in the UN came together and rallied around and celebrated the creation of the Sustainable Development Goals, and then many of those same countries who supported the Sustainable Development Goals, which acknowledge the critical importance of governance, and civil society, and checks and balances, but that those same countries turn around and then try to keep an organization like the CPJ away from the UN, away from the accreditation that is so basic to functioning here, is outrageous.

And I want to say about the CPJ that, as a U.S. official, sometimes reading CPJ reports isn’t the most fun way to spend an evening. This is an organization that is critical of the United States, it’s critical of Member States. We feel we are better off for engaging with the criticisms, learning from some of them, and we believe that the UN community which is, in part, predicated on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – one of this organization’s founding documents from 1948, which has in it Article 19, the Freedom of the Press – that for one of the organizations that is a guardian of the freedom of the press to be here legitimated, accredited, is pretty basic. So it’s the rejection of CPJ’s accreditation is part of a larger pattern. CPJ had been deferred six times prior to today – prior to today’s vote. Countries defer by asking questions. Even when those questions are answered, more questions are asked again – it’s just a device, a way of ensuring that those accreditations are not forthcoming. So the vote is important because countries have to decide which side are they on. Are they on the side of free expression and organizations try to advance that cause? Or are they hostile to Article 19? And I think if you look at the list of countries who voted “no,” one learns a few things.

To your specific question, we do intend to bring it to a vote in ECOSOC. And we look forward to a lively debate between now and then.

QUESTION: Madam Ambassador, yesterday from a Russian prison was released a Ukrainian pilot, Nadiya Savchenko, which was kept there for almost two years. How will you comment on this? Will the U.S. seek release from prison of the rest of the Ukrainian prisoners, which Russian holds illegally? Thanks.

AMBASSADOR POWER: Thank you. I think, after a very difficult few years in Ukraine, yesterday’s arrival of Nadiya Savchenko back to her home and to her mother and her family – those were happy images, that was a happy day. And I can only imagine what she has gone through, being subjected for 708 days to a farcical set of legal proceedings, extremely difficult prison conditions. We’ve all seen her physical state deteriorate over the months that she has been imprisoned, and I express my thanks to all countries that championed her cause and joined Ukraine in trying to right this horrific injustice – bizarre sort of Soviet-style maneuver to kidnap somebody on the territory of a sovereign country, and then ship them back. Again, the whole process was farcical.

We, yesterday, did use the occasion to highlight the fates of other Ukrainians who have been similarly unjustly detained and who may be less well known. We will continue to do so. As you know, part of the Minsk agreements are provisions that involve the return of all detainees, and so we are actively pushing for the full implementation of the Minsk agreements for the release of those detainees that should never have been abducted in the first place. And of course, the full implementation will mean the return of the Ukrainian border to Ukraine’s sovereign control.

We, as the Obama Administration, we are aware of course that we will be handing over to other political leadership in the United States in January of next year, and thus, for us, this issue of Minsk implementation becomes ever more urgent. Because we, again, stand in support of Ukraine and really want to use the time that we have to try to use whatever leverage we have to bring about that implementation not least so that all those others who have been unjustly detained will be reunited with their families like Nadiya was yesterday.

Source: U.S. Department of State

By

Robert Wiilliams

Editor in Chief