In These New Times

The following countries voted against:  Belarus, Bolivia, China, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Iran, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Russian Federation, Syria, Venezuela, Zimbabwe.

United Nations

3rd August, 2012

JORGE VALERO BRICEÑO (Venezuela) said that the draft resolution was an intervention in the internal affairs of a sovereign and independent State.  It proposed the establishment of protection mechanism against a sovereign country.  The draft lacked objectivity.  It described a long list of trivial human rights violations attributed to the Syrian Government, but minimized or concealed the human rights crimes committed by terrorist groups and the armed opposition.  It ignored the political and constitutional reforms promoted by the Syrian Government, aimed at reaching an inclusive, democratic and peaceful national agreement.  Every sovereign State had the right to defend its national sovereignty and to protect public and private property.  That right must not be denied or infringed upon.

He said the Syrian Government did not face a democratic opposition that used peaceful and constitutional means for achieving its purposes.  Instead, it was an opposition that practiced or supported terrorism and which survived, owing to foreign support.  That armed opposition refused to participate in a democratic and pluralistic dialogue.  The only viable option to end the armed violence in Syria was through a sincere and inclusive political dialogue.  Venezuela supported the position taken by the Russian Federation, China and other countries that defended the principles of sovereignty, self-determination and territorial integrity, which were enshrined in the United Nations Charter.  It was commendable that they opposed foreign intervention and that they advocated a Syrian-led solution.

Speaking next, the representative of Cuba said his delegation would vote against the draft because it would only lead to increased instability and violence.  The text was biased and could even pave the way for foreign intervention, “something for which we have baleful memories in the recent past”.  The text was an example of the prevailing view of Washington and other NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) capitals.  That view was being promulgated by the media in those capitals, whose reckless and one-sided reporting was only adding to the problem.  The true aim of the draft was not to assist the Syrian people towards a political solution; it was politically motivated and must be recognized as such.

The representative of South Africa said that his delegation deplored the violence and loss of life in Syria, “which is fast spiralling out of control”.  The actions by both sides, especially the use of heavy weapons, were shocking and should be deplored by all.  South Africa appreciated the support of regional actors, the United Nations and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) to address the humanitarian situation.  He reminded the Assembly that IFRC had recently classified the situation as a “civil war”.  All sides had obligations under international law.  There could be no military solution, and, ultimately, the parties in Syria would have to negotiate a settlement.  The only question was whether they did so now or after a protracted and bloody civil war.

That was why, he said, his country had been disappointed that the Security Council had been unable to apply pressure on both sides to seek a peaceful political solution.  He supported the Assembly’s decision to adopt a text, but the current one should have been more balanced.  Indeed, an unbalanced text could be viewed as the Assembly’s expressed support for one side over the other.  The resolution should call strongly on the opposition to pursue a political solution and cease all violence.  Despite its misgivings on some aspects of the text, South Africa believed it was necessary for the United Nations to take action.

Bolivia’s representative said that his delegation would vote against the resolution.  The people of Syria were “trapped between two sides”, and the United Nations was duty-bound to help deal with the painful humanitarian crisis.  It was no longer a regional matter.  Yet, while the United Nations must act, such action had limits under its Charter.  Indeed, Charter principles proscribed intervention in the territorial integrity of States.  The resolution, if adopted, would not contribute to a solution; on the contrary, it would make matters worse.

Indeed, the aim of the text was not to assist the Syrian population, but to “defeat Damascus”.  “Anybody who doesn’t believe that needs only read it,” he said, explaining that, on at least on 14 occasions, it condemned the Syrian authorities of the worst international crimes, while making only a passing mention of the opposition’s action.  Neither did the draft mention the activities of outside terrorists and other armed groups working to destabilize Syria.  And while it set out a very detailed description of what type of democratic Government the people of Syria should strive to achieve, it did not recall what had happened in Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein.  He regretted that the draft had been rushed “hurriedly” to the Assembly after the Security Council had failed to act and after only the briefest of consultations among the Organization’s wider membership.

The representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea stressed the very negative impact the situation in Syria was having in the Middle East region and he expressed his deepest concern over it.  The Syria issue must be addressed evenly and peacefully, and sovereignty must be fully respected, in line with the Charter.  Syria was a full-fledged United Nations Member State.  The Syrian Government and been democratically elected, and the principle of non-interference should be respected.  The impact of interference in State affairs in many instances had been disastrous.  If one shifted the focus from Syria to neighbouring countries, one could see that military interference had led to violence and the killing of innocent civilians.  That was evident in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The United States talked a lot about protection of civilians, but one must look at what that country was doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The United States only wanted regime change in Syria.

He said the conflict could only be resolved through political dialogue and peaceful means.  Only the Syrian people knew what was in their best interests.  Outside interference could not resolve the problem.  It was hypocritical for the United States to talk about protection of civilians.

CAMILLO GONSALVES (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines) said that the small but vibrant Syrian and Lebanese community within his country was also directly and often personally affected by the spiralling violence and atrocities in Syria, particularly as the war had moved to the major cities of Damascus and Aleppo.  Today’s resolution had many positive elements, which his country enthusiastically supported.  Saint Vincent and the Grenadines shared the resolution’s concern for the civilian victims of the war, particularly the innocent women and children who had been killed or victimized by the warring parties.  However, other aspects of the resolution gave his country pause and made it question whether a laudable desire to speak and act on that matter had caused the international community to overlook many of the indisputable facts on the ground, as well as many of the principles that undergird the Organization.

He said Saint Vincent and the Grenadines was primarily concerned about the obvious omissions from the text, which were not only unbalanced, but, in a far more troubling implication than silence, suggested consent or endorsement of certain actions and actors.  It was a documented fact, for example, that elements of the opposition forces had assassinated members of the Syrian Government, either individually or through the use of crude bombs, which also murdered innocent civilians.  Surely, the international community could not catalogue the violations of the Syrian authorities while turning a blind eye to the type of despicable terrorism, which it condemned in every other context and nation.  The international community was also aware of the indisputable presence and activity of Al-Qaida and other extremists in Syria and their role in some anti-Government activity.

The representative of Iran said the text ran contrary to all global efforts to peacefully resolve the conflict and it violated the Charter principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of States.  It was a malicious desire of certain countries to topple the Syrian regime.  Only the Syrian people should decide their fate.  Military intervention by outside forces and weapons and communications equipment sent to the rebels exacerbated the situation and deepened the insecurity and political crisis, with negative consequences for the entire region.  In recent months, the attacks had become more deadly, and in the past few days, armed attacks in Aleppo had led to many deaths.  Yet, the draft failed to hold to account armed groups led by Al-Qaida, and it failed to condemn acts of terrorism.  It was clear who was behind arming the rebels.  Regrettably, some of those were sponsors of the draft, which imposed sanctions on Syria while people were in dire need of basic aid.  That was “collective punishment”.

He said he regretted Mr. Annan’s resignation.  After the recent meeting of the Security Council, some of its permanent members had rushed to announce that the Special Envoy’s mission was dead and that they would pursue their own direct action to address the conflict.  Such an approach was blatant interference in Syria’s internal affairs.  He expressed hope that Mr. Annan’s replacement would act along the same lines as Mr. Annan.  He was meanwhile concerned about the regional consequences of the conflict.  He encouraged political parties to engage in political dialogue with the Syrian Government, and he reiterated Iran’s readiness to hold talks between the Syrian Government and opposition parties.  Syria had historically played an essential role in the Middle East.  Everyone must work together in a practical way to end the conflict.  The text was unbalanced, one-sided and it did not reflect reality.  Therefore, Iran would vote against it.