Rare Books and Special Collections Digital Library
Not a member yet
439532 research outputs found
Sort by
Implementation Of Security Council Resolutions
No full textImplementation Of Security Council Resolutions 2139 (2014), 2165 (2014), 2191 (2014), 2258 (2015), 2332 (2016) And 2393 (2017) : Report Of The Secretary-genera
Statement Attributable To The Spokesman For The Secretary-general On Allegations Of The Use Of Chemical Weapons In The Syrian Arab Republic
No full textStatement Attributable To The Spokesman For The Secretary-general On Allegations Of The Use Of Chemical Weapons In The Syrian Arab Republic Stéphane Dujarric, Spokesman For The Secretary-genera
Statement Attributable To The Spokesman For The Secretary-general On The Syrian Arab Republic
No full textStatement Attributable To The Spokesman For The Secretary-general On The Syrian Arab Republi
Statement Attributable To The Spokesman For The Secretary-general On Eastern Ghouta In The Syrian Arab Republic
No full textStatement Attributable To The Spokesman For The Secretary-general On Eastern Ghouta In The Syrian Arab Republi
Joint Statement By Iran, Russia And Turkey On The International Meeting On Syria In Astana
No full textJoint Statement By Iran, Russia And Turkey On The International Meeting On Syria In Astan
Full Text Of The New Syrian Draft Constitution
No full textFull Text Of The New Syrian Draft Constitutio
Security Council, 73rd Year: 8209th Meeting, Monday, 19 March 2018, New York
No full textThe Situation In The Middle East Report Of The Secretary-General On The Implementation Of Security Council Resolutions 2139 (2014), 2165 (2014), 2191 (2014), 2258 (2015), 2332 (2016) And 2393 (2017)United Nations S/PV.8209
Security Council
Seventy-third year
8209th meeting
Monday, 19 March 2018, 3.20 p.m.
New York
Provisional
President: Mr. Van Oosterom . (Netherlands)
Members: Bolivia (Plurinational State of). . Mr. Inchauste Jordán
China. . Mr. Shen Bo
Côte d’Ivoire. . Mr. Tanoh-Boutchoue
Equatorial Guinea. . Mr. Ndong Mba
Ethiopia. . Mr. Alemu
France. . Mr. Delattre
Kazakhstan. . Mr. Tumysh
Kuwait. . Mr. Alotaibi
Peru. . Mr. Meza-Cuadra
Poland. . Ms. Wronecka
Russian Federation. . Mr. Kuzmin
Sweden . Mr. Skoog
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland . Mr. Allen
United States of America. . Ms. Eckels-Currie
Provisional agenda
The situation in the Middle East
This record contains the text of speeches delivered in English and of the translation of
speeches delivered in other languages. The final text will be printed in the Official Records
of the Security Council. Corrections should be submitted to the original languages only. They
should be incorporated in a copy of the record and sent under the signature of a member
of the delegation concerned to the Chief of the Verbatim Reporting Service, room U-0506
([email protected]). Corrected records will be reissued electronically on the Official
Document System of the United Nations (http://documents.un.org).
18-07515 (E)
*1807515*
S/PV.8209 The situation in the Middle East 19/03/2018
2/3 18-07515
The meeting was called to order at 3.20 p.m.
Adoption of the agenda
The President: The representative of the Russian
Federation has asked for the floor.
Mr. Kuzmin (Russian Federation) (spoke in
Russian): As far as I know, today’s meeting was not
scheduled in the Security Council’s agreed programme
of work for this month. Our delegation would be
extremely grateful to you, Mr. President, if you could
explain what exactly we are supposed to discuss at
today’s meeting and whom the Council plans to invite
as briefers.
The President: The representative of France has
asked for the floor.
Mr. Delattre (France) (spoke in French): France
and six other Council members asked for this briefing
to be held for both functional and substantive reasons.
With regard to the functional reasons, in order to act, the
Council should have at its disposal all the information
it needs to understand the crises it considers, including
information on human rights. That is particularly the
case with Syria, where, as we all know, the human rights
dimension has been inextricably linked to the dynamics
of the conflict from the outset. There have been other
briefings by the High Commissioner for Human Rights
on situations on the Council’s agenda. Syria should not
and cannot be an exception.
That brings me to the basic reason for our collective
request. Our last such briefing on Syria, by then-High
Commissioner Navi Pillay, was in 2014. Human rights
are a fundamental aspect of the crisis that the Council
has not dealt with since then, even though violations
of human rights are at the heart of the conflict and its
intensification, to the detriment of international peace
and security. The briefing we decided to call for will
therefore complement those that have been devoted
to the humanitarian, chemical and political situations
in Syria. If we do not have an understanding of the
human rights dimension of the conflict in Syria and the
potential solution to it, we are simply being unrealistic
and in denial. Who could understand it? The regime,
along with other parties, especially Da’esh, has violated
people’s rights not just as a consequence of the fighting
but by using such violations as a chosen, deliberate
weapon and instrument of control over territories
and populations.
Lastly, human rights are inseparable from a
political settlement of the conflict. If the Council
wishes to commit in good faith to ensuring that the
same atrocities are not repeated, it must contribute to a
political solution based on a Syrian society that offers
inclusion for all its sectors, as well as institutions that
respect the fundamental rights and freedoms of all
Syrians. For all those reasons and others, France has
called for this meeting and urges all members of the
Council to express their willingness for it to be held.
The President: The representative of the
Russian Federation has asked for the floor to make a
further statement.
Mr. Kuzmin (Russian Federation) (spoke in
Russian): The Russian Federation is opposed to holding
today’s meeting, as we immediately informed our
colleagues on Friday, 16 March. We see no justification
for such a meeting, since human rights is not a subject
on the Security Council’s agenda. That is what the
Human Rights Council deals with in its work in
Geneva. The mere presence of Mr. Ra’ad Hussein in
New York is not a convincing reason for him to brief
the Security Council.
However, as I understand it, the French delegation,
along with a number of others, has already explained
the real reasons behind today’s meeting. They want to
hear about how the Syrian regime, as they refer to it,
is violating the rights of its own people. I note once
again that their subject is that infamous regime, rather
than the extremists whom they openly support and who
have been terrorizing the people of Syria for eight years
now. That only confirms our fears about the deeply
politicized nature of this initiative, which has nothing
to do with concern for the Syrians.
We would also like to ask the Secretariat to explain
the reason for circulating to delegations a note on
human rights in Syria from the Office of the United
Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, despite
the fact that we did not request that information. The
United Nations system is not organized so that any
United Nations body can send the Security Council any
information it feels like. We believe that the Secretariat
blindly obeyed the delegations that decided to hold this
briefing, in violation of the division of labour among
the main organs of our Organization, as enshrined in
the Charter of the United Nations. In the circumstances,
we believe it essential to cancel the meeting and we are
19/03/2018 The situation in the Middle East S/PV.8209
18-07515 3/3
therefore obliged to ask the President to put the issue to
a procedural vote.
The President: In view of the request of the Russian
Federation and the comments made by members of
the Council, I intend to put the provisional agenda to
the vote.
I now give the floor to those members of the Council
who wish to make statements before the voting.
Mr. Kuzmin (Russian Federation) (spoke in
Russian): I would just like to explain that the item
on our agenda, “The situation in the Middle East”,
is an existing agenda item and that of course we are
not against it per se. What we are against is holding
today’s meeting in the format that has been proposed.
Therefore, I would ask the President to formulate the
question to reflect the fact this is a procedural vote.
Ms. Eckels-Currie (United States of America):
The United States strongly supports the holding of
today’s meeting and urges all Council members to
support the procedural vote in favour of proceeding
as planned today. The Russian Federation’s continued
efforts to obstruct the Council’s work and its attention
to grave and systemic human rights violations by
the Russian Federation’s allies are appalling, and the
Council should not allow them to stand.
Mr. Shen Bo (China) (spoke in Chinese): The
Charter of the United Nations clearly outlines the
functions of and divisions of labour among all the main
organs of the United Nations. The primary role of the
Security Council is to maintain international peace and
security, not to consider human rights issues. Pushing
the Security Council into discussing human rights
issues erodes the functions of other United Nations
organs and will not help us to find an effective solution
to the issue. China opposes holding deliberations in the
Security Council on such issues, and in particular on
questions of human rights in Syria.
The President: I would like to ask the representative
of the Russian Federation to clarify what he wants to be
put to a vote, if he wants a procedural vote.
Mr. Kuzmin (Russian Federation) (spoke in
Russian): We propose voting on whether the meeting
should be held today or not. Obviously, we assume that
the issue that should be put to the vote is whether today’s
meeting should be held in principle. We have not yet
adopted the agenda for today’s meeting. If we had, the
meeting would take place. But that has not happened.
The President: The Council is ready to proceed to
the vote on the provisional agenda for today’s meeting.
I shall put the provisional agenda to the vote now.
A vote was taken by show of hands.
In favour:
France, Kuwait, Netherlands, Peru, Poland,
Sweden, United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, United States of America
Against:
Bolivia (Plurinational State of), China, Kazakhstan,
Russian Federation
Abstaining:
Côte d’Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia
The President: The provisional agenda received 8
votes in favour, 4 votes against and 3 abstentions. The
provisional agenda has not been adopted, having failed
to obtain the required number of votes.
The meeting rose at 3.35 p.m
Questions Remain Over Syria’s Chemical Weapons Programme, Security Council Hears, As Speakers Call For Agreement On Suitable Accountability Mechanism
No full textSecurity Council
8221st Meeting5/21/2018 Questions Remain over Syria’s Chemical Weapons Programme, Security Council Hears, as Speakers Call for Agreement on Suitable Ac…
https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/sc13276.doc.htm 1/5
MEETINGS COVERAGE
Questions Remain over Syria’s Chemical Weapons Programme, Security Council Hears, as
Speakers Call for Agreement on Suitable Accountability Mechanism
After more than four years of work, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) was still unable to
verify that Syria’s initial declaration on its chemical weapons programme was accurate, delegates told the Security Council
today, underlining that questions remained about the use of such weapons in that country.
Discussions between the OPCW Technical Secretariat and the Syrian Government were continuing, although they had not
led to the resolution of any of the remaining issues regarding the completeness and accuracy of Syria’s initial declaration,
said Thomas Markram, Director and Deputy to the High Representative for Disarmament Aairs.
Stressing that resolving those outstanding issues would allow for shared condence in Syria’s declaration across the
international community, he emphasized: “The persistent allegations of the use of chemical weapons in Syria underscore
the need to identify solutions and reach agreement on an appropriate accountability mechanism.”
The OPCW Fact-Finding Mission was continuing its work and was currently in Damascus looking into allegations of the use of
chemical weapons that were brought to the attention of the OPCW Director-General by the Government, said Mr. Markram.
The next report of the Fact-Finding Mission would be submitted when it considered that it had sucient information and
was in a position to draw a conclusion.
In the meantime, the Syrian Government had continued eorts to destroy the two remaining chemical weapons production
facilities in the country, he said, adding that destruction of those facilities was expected to be complete within two to three
months from the start date and would be veried by OPCW.
Expressing concern that OPCW was still unable to verify Syria’s initial declaration on its chemical weapons programme, the
representative of Sweden noted there were still a number of serious outstanding issues that had yet to be resolved.
Specically, the Director-General last month reported that the initial 5 outstanding questions had grown to 22, including the
case of the Syrian Scientic Studies and Research Centre.
Emphasizing that sarin and chlorine stocks did indeed exist in Syria, France’s representative said that the country had either
deceived the Council or pursued a clandestine chemical weapons programme. Given those two options, France called on
Syria to respond to all unanswered questions, “and there are many of them”. The Damascus-based regime’s responsibility
for the use of chemical weapons had been publicly and unambiguously established by the Joint Investigative Mechanism and
any attempt to discredit its clear conclusion could not change that reality, he said, stressing that impunity for those who
used chemical weapons was not an option.
The speaker for the United States said a few years ago, a single chemical weapons attack would have united the Council in
shock and anger, but now there was a regime that used them “practically every other week”. Letting one regime o the hook
emboldened others, she said, adding that the world was rapidly sliding back to a time when people lived in fear of
colourless, shapeless gas leaving them gasping for air. Her country refused to believe that the Council could not come
together once again on chemical weapons, despite dierences between its members.
Echoing those concerns, the United Kingdom’s representative noted that, in the absence of the Joint Investigative
Mechanism, there was no proper channel to ensure accountability. Substantive gaps, inconsistencies and discrepancies in
Syria’s declaration remained and the seriousness of the situation had increased over time. Turning to the recent poisoning
in the town of Salisbury in her country, she said no explanation had been provided as to how a military-grade nerve agent
had come to be used to sicken two people. There should be no more victims of chemical weapons attacks, whether they
took place in the war zones of Syria or in an English town, she stressed.
The representative of the Russian Federation said that the conclusions of the Joint Investigative Mechanism were nothing
more than a pre-ordained, pre‑programmed result aimed at accusing the Syrian authorities. The Russian Federation was
unable to support extension of the Mechanism’s mandate in an unchanged form, he said, highlighting that his delegation
had proposed a specic alternative and circulated a draft resolution which was currently “in blue”.
Syria’s representative said that his Government had fullled its commitments under the Chemical Weapons Convention and
Council resolution 2118 (2013). It had eliminated its chemical weapons programme in record time, which was a rst in the
history of OPCW, he stressed, and the Joint Investigative Mechanism had conrmed that fact in its June 2014 report. The
5/21/2018 Questions Remain over Syria’s Chemical Weapons Programme, Security Council Hears, as Speakers Call for Agreement on Suitable Ac…
https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/sc13276.doc.htm 2/5
Syrian Army did not use chemical weapons nor did it possess them, rather they had been used against civilians by Islamic
State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL/Da’esh), Nusrah Front and other associated entities.
Also speaking today were the representatives of the Netherlands, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Ethiopia, China, Bolivia, Côte d’Ivoire,
Poland, Equatorial Guinea and Peru.
The meeting began at 10:03 a.m. and ended at 11:47 a.m.
Brieng
THOMAS MARKRAM, Director and Deputy to the High Representative for Disarmament Aairs, said that the Syrian
Government had continued eorts to destroy the two remaining chemical weapons production facilities in the country.
Destruction of those facilities was expected to be complete within two to three months from the start date and would be
veried by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), he said, stressing that the long-awaited and
veried destruction of the two facilities was an essential step towards the full implementation of Security Council
resolution 2118 (2013). Discussions between the OPCW Technical Secretariat and the Syrian Government were continuing,
although they had not led to the resolution of any of the remaining issues. “The OPCW Technical Secretariat continues to be
unable to conrm the completeness and accuracy of Syria’s declaration,” he said, underscoring that resolving those
outstanding issues would permit shared condence in Syria’s declaration within the international community.
The OPCW Fact-Finding Mission was continuing its work and was currently in Damascus looking into allegations of the use of
chemical weapons that were brought to the attention of the OPCW Director-General by the Government, he said. The next
report of the Fact-Finding Mission would be submitted when it considered that it had sucient information and was in a
position to draw a conclusion, although those conclusions would not entail attribution of responsibility in those cases where
the use of chemical weapons was determined. “The persistent allegations of the use of chemical weapons in Syria
underscore the need to identify solutions and reach agreement on an appropriate accountability mechanism,” he
emphasized, adding that the Secretary-General and the High Representative for Disarmament Aairs had repeatedly
underlined the need to avoid impunity and ensure that those responsible for the use of chemical weapons were identied
and held responsible.
Statements
NIKKI R. HALEY (United States) said the Council often talked about chemical weapons, but she worried that sometimes it lost
sight of the human side of chemical weapons attacks. A century had lapsed between the rst use of chemical weapons in
the First World War and the chemical weapons attack in Khan Shaykun one year ago today, and in that time, several
international instruments sought to prohibit such weapons. The international community dared to believe that once day
chemical weapons would be relegated to the history books. Then came Syria, where shared disgust led the Council to adopt
resolution 2118 (2013) requiring the scheduled destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons, followed in 2015 by the creation of
the Joint Investigative Mechanism on Chemical Weapons Use in Syria. The United Nations found that the Assad regime, as
well as Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL/Da’esh), had been responsible for the use of chemical weapons, and the
Council dared to believe that consensus over the use of such weapons would hold. “But, we know what happened next,” she
said. The Assad regime continued to use chemical weapons, with one Council member shielding that regime from the
consequences.
The world today was a more dangerous place, with the Assad regime dropping chlorine bombs on men, women and
children, she said. A few years ago, a single chemical weapons attack would have united the Council in shock and anger, but
now there was a regime that used them “practically every other week”. Letting one regime o the hook emboldened others,
she said, adding that the world was rapidly sliding back to a time when people lived in fear of colourless, shapeless gas
leaving them gasping for air. Even as the Council remained deadlocked, some had stood up to demand accountability, with
the General Assembly approving an impartial mechanism to investigate serious crimes in Syria and France establishing a
partnership against impunity for the use of chemical weapons. At the same time, people in Syria were facing the terrifying
reality of such heinous weapons. She invited Marmoun Morad, a Syrian physician who treated victims of the Khan Shaykun
attack, present in the Council chamber this morning, to stand up, and saluted him for his courage and determination. He
was present today to be an inspiration for all Council members, she said, adding that, if Mr. Morad was not going to stop
treating victims of chemical weapons attacks, then the Council must not stop working to eliminate such weapons and to hold
to account anyone, anywhere who used them. Concluding, she said her country refused to believe that the Council could
not come together once again on chemical weapons, despite any dierences between its members.
KAREL JAN GUSTAAF VAN OOSTEROM (Netherlands) recalled that Syria joined the Chemical Weapons Convention almost ve
years ago, having promised to destroy and abandon its chemical weapons programme; yet month after month there was
news that the Syrian regime’s declaration could not be considered complete or accurate. One year ago, the Assad regime
carried out the heinous 4 April 2017 chemical attack against Khan Shaykhun that resulted in the deaths of about
100 innocent Syrian civilians, including many children. The use of chemical weapons should never go unpunished, he
stressed. The Council must act upon the conclusions of the Joint Investigative Mechanism and the outcomes of the OPCW
Fact-Finding Mission. Further, the Council must intensify its eorts to achieve a mechanism that could continue the
meticulous work of the Joint Investigative Mechanism.
5/21/2018 Questions Remain over Syria’s Chemical Weapons Programme, Security Council Hears, as Speakers Call for Agreement on Suitable Ac…
https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/sc13276.doc.htm 3/5
KAREN PIERCE (United Kingdom) recalled that the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission had concluded that sarin had been used at
Khan Shaykhun and the Joint Investigative Mechanism had concluded that the Syrian regime was responsible for that attack.
After more than four years of work, OPCW had yet to verify that Syria’s declaration was accurate. Gaps, inconsistencies and
discrepancies remained which were not trivial points of minor detail — they were substantive and the seriousness of the
situation had increased over time. There could be no impunity, she said, pointing out that, in the absence of the Joint
Investigative Mechanism, there was no proper mechanism to ensure accountability. There was still no explanation provided
as to how a military-grade nerve agent had come to be used in the poisoning in Salisbury. There should be no more victims
of chemical weapons attacks; whether they took place in the war zones of Syria or in an English town.
KAIRAT UMAROV (Kazakhstan) said that the use of chemical weapons was absolutely unacceptable under any
circumstances. His delegation was pleased that during the reporting period there had been some progress towards the
destruction of the remaining two chemical weapons production facilities in Syria, although, at the same time, he expressed
concern about the lack of progress in clarifying all outstanding issues regarding the Government’s initial declaration. The
Council had not yet restored its investigative potential, he noted, stressing the need for every eort to be made to nd
common ground on the issue. It was extremely important and necessary to overcome all dierences among Council
members that prevented the complete elimination of the threat of the use of chemical weapons in Syria.
FRANÇOIS DELATTRE (France) said the responsibility of the Damascus-based regime for the use of chemical weapons had
been publicly and unambiguously established by the Joint Investigative Mechanism. Any attempt to discredit and to cast into
oblivion the clear conclusion of the Joint Investigative Mechanism could not change that reality. Emphasizing that sarin and
chlorine stocks did, indeed, exist in Syria, he said that country had either deceived the Council or pursued a clandestine
chemical weapons programme. Given those two options, France called on Syria to respond to all unanswered questions,
“and there are many of them”. Reiterating his country’s full support for OPCW, he said the use of chemical weapons was a
moral oense that undermined the fundamental standards of international law, as well as the credibility of the non-proliferation
regime. A taboo had been broken in Syria, as in Salisbury and elsewhere. He went on to emphasize that
impunity for those who used chemical weapons was not an option. Their use against civilians was a war crime and a crime
against humanity, and perpetrators must be held to account. If there was an area in which the Council’s credibility was at
stake, it was chemical weapons, he said, delivering an urgent appeal for Council members to overcome their political
dierences and put an end to the use of chemical weapons in Syria. That much was owed to civilians, who were the main
victims of such weapons, and to the international non-proliferation regime.
MANSOUR AYYAD SH. A. ALOTAIBI (Kuwait) said that, due to divisions within the Council, the justice he had hoped for in the
Khan Shaykun incident had “vanished into thin air”. The continued use of chemical weapons in Syria four years after the
adoption of resolution 2118 (2013) was unacceptable. His delegation backed any mechanism that could achieve consensus
in the Council and hold those responsible for committing such crimes to account, according to the principles outlined in
resolution 2118 (2013). Indeed, the draft resolution tabled by the United States contained such elements. As such, he called
on Member States to use that draft as the basis for future negotiations on any such mechanism. Stressing the importance
of bringing perpetrators of chemical crimes to justice, he expressed support for the work of Joint Investigative Mechanism in
assisting in the investigation and prosecution of such crimes in Syria and looked forward to hearing the results of its rst
report, which would be discussed on 17 April in the General Assembly.
TEKEDA ALEMU (Ethiopia) expressed concern for the “barbaric” chemical attack in Khan Shaykun one year ago and called for
those responsible to be held accountable. Without a unied response from the Council, damage to the chemical weapons
disarmament and non-proliferation regime could not be repaired. He expressed hope that the Syrian Government — with
the support of OPCW — would eliminate its two remaining stationary above-ground facilities. In that connection, he
reiterated the importance of continued communication between OPCW and the Syrian Government with the ultimate
objective of addressing remaining gaps and inconsistencies. Meanwhile, it was imperative that the investigative work of the
OPCW’s Fact-Finding Mission continued on all allegations of chemical weapons use. Nevertheless, the Council had to
address the current institutional gap by creating an independent, impartial and professional investigative mechanism that
could identify all State and non-State actors responsible for such crimes.
WU HAITAO (China) said that his delegation was greatly concerned by the use of chemical weapons against civilians in Syria
and rmly opposed the use of such weapons under any circumstances. Recent incidents of suspected use of toxic chemicals
were deeply concerning, and in that regard, establishing a new investigative mechanism to nd out the truth and prevent
the recurrent use of such weapons was of vital importance. All parties should continue to insist that the Security Council
and OPCW should be the main channels for addressing the use of chemical weapons. He hoped that the Syrian Government
would continue to cooperate with OPCW on the resolution of the initial declaration and properly resolve the outstanding
issues. Political settlement was the only way to resolve the Syria issue, and in that context, the international community
should support the next round of Geneva talks.
JUAN MARCELO ZAMBRANA TORRELIO (Bolivia) expressed concern about the latest reports of alleged uses of chemical
weapons in Syria and believed that there could be no justication for the use of such weapons, irrespective of the
circumstances. His delegation strongly supported the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission and called on all parties to ensure an
investigation could be carried out in a transparent and eective manner. However, there was still the need for a mechanism
5/21/2018 Questions Remain over Syria’s Chemical Weapons Programme, Security Council Hears, as Speakers Call for Agreement on Suitable Ac…
https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/sc13276.doc.htm 4/5
to identify the perpetrators so they could stand trial before the competent bodies. The Security Council must not be
politicized or exploited on that issue, he said, calling on the parties to seek greater dialogue to create an investigative
mechanism. The only way to resolve the conict was through a political process led by the Syrian people.
CARL SKAU (Sweden) said the failure to agree on a new, independent and impartial attributive mechanism for chemical
weapons use in Syria cast a particularly dark shadow on the Council. He condemned the continued and repeated use of
chemical weapons in Syria, which constituted a serious violation of international law and a threat to international peace and
security. Regarding the implementation of resolution 2118 (2013), he expressed concern that OPCW was still unable to
conrm whether Syria’s initial declaration on its chemical weapons programme was accurate and complete. Indeed, there
were still a number of serious outstanding issues. More specically, the Director-General last month reported that the initial
5 outstanding questions had grown to 22, including the case of the Syrian Scientic Studies and Research Centre. He went
on to express deep regret that the Council had failed to agree on an extension of the Joint Investigative Mechanism, which
was essential to protect the international disarmament and non‑proliferation regime and ensure accountability.
BERNARD TANOH-BOUTCHOUE (Côte d’Ivoire) said cooperation among the Syrian Government, OPCW and the United
Nations Oce for Project Services (UNOPS) aimed at the destruction of remaining chemical weapons production units was
encouraging. He also thanked those States which had contributed to the Syria Trust Fund for the Destruction of Chemical
Weapons. However, major challenges persisted, he said, urging Syria to continue its cooperation with OPCW to address
outstanding issues, including the destruction of remaining chemical weapons facilities. Any use of chemical weapons was a
breach of the Chemical Weapons Convention and a violation of hard-won international standards banning such weapons.
He encouraged OPCW, the Fact-Finding Mission and the Syrian Government to continue their cooperation, and called for a
political settlement to the Syrian conict.
PAWEL RADOMSKI (Poland) said his delegation had taken note with utmost concern that the OPCW Technical Secretariat had
been unable to conrm whether declarations submitted by Syria were accurate and complete. Once again, Poland joined
the Secretary-General in calling on Syria to extend its fullest cooperation with the declaration assessment team. A clear
message must be sent that the use of chemical weapons by anyone would not be tolerated, and the international
community must be empowered to address each and every chemical weapons attack and to hold perpetrators accountable.
Poland believed that the United States draft resolution was a good basis for further discussion on investigating the use of
chemical weapons. He emphasized that the credibility of the non-proliferation regime, as well as collective security were at
stake. Poland also hoped that those responsible for the reckless act in Salisbury would soon be held accountable.
ANATOLIO NDONG MBA (Equatorial Guinea) said the use of chemical weapons posed a clear threat to international peace
and security. The diverg
Security Council, 73rd Year: 8260th Meeting, Wednesday, 16 May 2018, New York
No full textThe Situation In The Middle East This Record Contains The Text Of Speeches Delivered In English And Of The Translation Of Speeches Delivered In Other Languages.United Nations S/PV.8260
Security Council
Seventy-third year
8260th meeting
Wednesday, 16 May 2018, 10 a.m.
New York
Provisional
President: Ms. Wronecka. . (Poland)
Members: Bolivia (Plurinational State of). . Mr. Inchauste Jordán
China. . Mr. Ma Zhaoxu
Côte d’Ivoire. . Mr. Djédjé
Equatorial Guinea. . M. Ndong Mba
Ethiopia. . Mr. Alemu
France. . Mr. Delattre
Kazakhstan. . Mr. Umarov
Kuwait. . Mr. Alotaibi
Netherlands. . Mr. Van Oosterom
Peru. . Mr. Meza-Cuadra
Russian Federation. . Mr. Polyanskiy
Sweden . Mr. Skoog
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland . Ms. Pierce
United States of America. . Ms. Eckels-Currie
Agenda
The situation in the Middle East
This record contains the text of speeches delivered in English and of the translation of
speeches delivered in other languages. The final text will be printed in the Official Records
of the Security Council. Corrections should be submitted to the original languages only. They
should be incorporated in a copy of the record and sent under the signature of a member
of the delegation concerned to the Chief of the Verbatim Reporting Service, room U-0506
([email protected]). Corrected records will be reissued electronically on the Official
Document System of the United Nations (http://documents.un.org).
18-14999 (E)
*1814999*
S/PV.8260 The situation in the Middle East 16/05/2018
2/12 18-14999
The meeting was called to order at 10.15 a.m.
Adoption of the agenda
The agenda was adopted.
The situation in the Middle East
The President: In accordance with rule 39 of
the Council’s provisional rules of procedure, I invite
Mr. Staffan de Mistura, Special Envoy of the Secretary-
General for Syria, to participate in this meeting.
Mr. De Mistura is joining today’s meeting via
video-teleconference from Geneva.
The Security Council will now begin its
consideration of the item on its agenda.
I give the floor to Mr. De Mistura.
Mr. De Mistura: When I last briefed the Security
Council on 9 April, it was at an emergency meeting (see
S/PV.8225). On that occasion, I warned of the threats
to regional and international peace and security arising
from developments in or related to Syria. I know that
today it is not an emergency meeting. However, the
circumstances of an emergency very much remain. I
do not need to remind members that tensions are high
and regional and international confrontations have
occurred several times. Allow me to highlight some
recent events since 9 April.
On 13 April, the United States, France and the
United Kingdom conducted missile strikes in response
to the allegations of the use of chemical weapons in
eastern Ghouta. Those countries say that the strikes
targeted three research and production facilities near
Damascus and Homs.
On 29 April, strikes were reported on Syrian
Government military facilities in Hamah and Aleppo.
Some media outlets attributed those strikes to Israel,
alleging that those killed included Iranian personnel.
Neither Israel nor Iran responded to those claims.
On 8 May, strikes were reported just south of
Damascus. Syrian State media attributed those strikes
to Israel. Israel did not confirm that claim. Israel then
said that it had detected “irregular Iranian activity” in
the occupied Golan, which it put on high alert.
Between 9 and 10 May, Israel carried out dozens
of strikes against presumed Iranian and Syrian
Government military targets across southern Syria.
The Israeli authorities claim that they were responding
to Iranian forces firing rockets from Syrian territory
at Israeli military targets in the occupied Syrian
Golan. Iran condemned the Israeli strikes and denied
those claims.
We are not is a position to independently verify
every aspect of those incidents. However, even an
incomplete picture shows the troubling trajectory
of the increasingly frequent and ever more intense
international confrontations over Syria, unprecedented
since 1973.
As the Security Council knows, the Secretary-
General has followed those developments with great
concern and called for restraint by all parties in order
to avoid any acts that could escalate the situation
and worsen the suffering of the Syrian people. The
Secretary-General stressed that the United Nations
has a
“duty to remind Member States that there is
an obligation, particularly when dealing with
matters of peace and security, to act consistently
with the Charter of the United Nations, and with
international law in general.” (S/PV.8233, p. 2)
On the issue of chemical weapons, let me again echo
the Secretary-General’s call for the Security Council to
“agree on a dedicated mechanism for ensuring
effective accountability for the use of chemical
weapons in Syria” (ibid.).
As the Council well knows, as of now, we await the
results of the ongoing investigation by the Fact-finding
Mission of the Organization for the Prohibition of
Chemical Weapons following its visit to Douma, with
a report to be issued to States parties to the Chemical
Weapons Convention.
However, we have also seen worrying developments
elsewhere in Syria. Evacuations from eastern Ghouta
were similarly repeated in the eastern Qalamoun area,
southern Damascus and northern rural Homs.
First, on the military escalation, the pattern has
been one of incoming air strikes and artillery and
outgoing mortars and rockets towards Damascus. Then
there was a negotiation, followed by an agreement
for the evacuation of those civilians and fighters
unwilling to remain under Syrian Government
control or Russian Federation protection guarantees.
We have also seen similar evacuation agreements
16/05/2018 The situation in the Middle East S/PV.8260
18-14999 3/12
being discussed in Idlib province but in a completely different format — the reverse format. This time we are talking about civilians and fighters in Government-controlled areas, namely, Kafraya and Fo’ah, while considering evacuations — beginning with medical evacuations — following the three-year siege and intermittent attacks from armed groups surrounding that area.Let me share with the Council a recurrent concern that I know that all members have. If civilians and fighters are simply funnelled into northern Syria — mostly into Idlib — then that might only postpone another conflict affecting many additional people, which I will discuss later. Therefore, it is important to keep close watch on future developments in Idlib province. Meanwhile, civilians continue to pay a terrible price. To be precise, 110,000 people have been evacuated to north-western Syria and Operation Euphrates Shield areas in the past two months. Many of them are reportedly traumatized and in urgent need of assistance and protection. Humanitarian partners are overwhelmed and stretched quite thin by the scale of those evacuations, but continue to do their utmost to respond to the growing needs, with the Council’s assistance.Returning to the topic of Idlib, if a Ghouta scenario were to play out there, the situation could be six times worse, affecting 2.3 million people, half of whom are already internally displaced and would have nowhere else to go. But that is not purely a question of the Syrians’ suffering. We fear that any substantial escalation in Idlib, Dar’a or in the north-east might also result in risks not only to Syrian civilians, but also for international peace and security. As we know, many of those areas contain external and international forces. Conflict there might entail confrontations with those forces, thereby leading us down a slippery slope towards regional or potential international conflict. Therefore, discussions at the international level on how to prevent that and on de-escalation are needed, and, although they are taking place, they also need to be very intensive.I was therefore very encouraged to see concrete discussions on de-escalation when I attended the ninth high-level Astana meeting yesterday, which covered the issue of Idlib in particular, as the three guarantors have a say and the means to avoid it. That round of discussions in Astana saw constructive discussions on how that might be achieved. While fully stressing the need to respect Syria’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity, we saw at first-hand the parties engage actively on how to avoid a worst-case scenario in Idlib. Moreover, the working group, of which the United Nations is a member and a proactive supporter — as hundreds of thousands of people in Syria expect of us — held its second meeting on the release of detainees, abductees and bodies, and on the identification of missing persons. The members of the working group held constructive discussions on practical and concrete steps to address that key humanitarian issue. The guarantors informed us that they have secured the parties’ support — which, if confirmed, is good news — for the activities taking place under the auspices of the working group, which is a positive development. As it is a matter of preliminary discussions, I hope that we will see progress with regard to that complex issue at the working group’s next meeting, which we understand will be held in Ankara.De-escalation is indispensable, as the Syrians themselves are telling us, but it is only one of the ingredients necessary to move forward the political process. We also need to overcome concrete challenges to meaningfully follow through with the Geneva process so as to implement resolution 2254 (2015). As instructed by the Secretary-General, I have consulted with a broad spectrum of relevant stakeholders and proactively identified options for a meaningful relaunch of the United Nations-facilitated Geneva process. Over a period of two weeks, I conducted an exhaustive tour of consultations with members of the League of Arab States; representatives of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and Iraq; the European Union (EU) High Representative; representatives of several key European countries, Turkey, the Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic of Iran; and all members of the Council, during what I believe was a very productive and useful retreat in Sweden; United States authorities during my visit to meet with them in Washington, D.C., several days ago; and also the Syrian Government and the opposition, with whom I had constructive discussions on the sidelines of the Astana meeting over the past two days. My deputy, Mr. Ramzy, was also in the region this past weekend in continuous political contact with regional stakeholders, and my chief of political affairs, Mr. Robert Dann, is visting China as we speak to exchange views with officials of that important member of the Security Council.What did I learn from that long tour? Not surprisingly, I returned to Geneva with a mixed picture. S/PV.8260 The situation in the Middle East 16/05/2018
4/12 18-14999
Clearly, significant differences remain, but there is also much common ground and interest on the need, first, to de-escalate, secondly, to form a constitutional committee under the auspices of the United Nations, thirdly, to facilitate the establishment of a safe, calm and neutral environment — leading to our shared goals in the political process — and, fourthly, to respect Syria’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence. However, those commonalities risk getting glossed over, especially in the absence of serious international dialogue. I will say more on that later. During my tour, my message to all was the need — now more than ever — for robust, strong, proactive and urgent dialogue and consensus at the international level to create the minimum conditions necessary for a realistic and credible political process. As we know, much water has flowed under the bridge and much has happened since resolution 2254 (2015) was adopted. We are therefore becoming increasingly realistic and know that we need a credible political process that takes into account the current situation and does not forget resolution 2254 (2015).As the Secretariat, we are not sitting idle in that regard. We are assessing a number of creative options to update, revive and advance the Geneva-based political process. Let me state for the record that the United Nations remains ever-mobilized and -ready to work on the formation of a constitutional committee in accordance with the final statement of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi. I therefore welcome the intention of the Astana guarantors to actively and regularly engage with the United Nations in Geneva so as to see through a concrete follow-up to the statement since its adoption three and a half months ago.I was also pleased to see a significant number of Member States reaffirm the primacy of the United Nations-led Geneva process, in general, and the need for a constitutional committee working under United Nations auspices, when I was at the EU-United Nations Brussels conference from 24 to 25 April. Those at the conference nearly unanimously reiterated the message that the only solution to the crisis will be political and that only such a political solution will pave the way for reconstruction efforts. Also in Brussels, we saw the entire United Nations system highlight the increasing needs of millions of Syrians, including internally displaced persons (IDPs) and neighbouring countries hosting refugees.Let me also note the important contribution of Syrian civil society in Brussels, in particular during a side event organized by the EU and my own Office. Those present did not shy away from debating with one another constructively and intensively on complex issues, such as transitional justice and sanctions. They all demanded the release of all detainees, abductees and missing persons. They all affirmed that any political solution must protect the right of refugees and IDPs. Despite their differences, Syrians — Syrian civil society — displayed a genuine commitment to dialogue and a spirit of negotiation that I hope can be replicated in the formal negotiations.In Brussels I also met with a group of Syrian women activists who stressed that not enough has been done to secure the direct participation of Syrian women in the political process. I committed to translating our collective commitment to that inclusion into concrete measures, and I will count on the Council’s support to keep that promise. For instance, in future intra-Syrian talks, I will insist that the relevant number of seats be reserved exclusively for Syrian women. When I am criticized, I hope that the Council will support me. I know it will not be popular, but it needs to be done.Let me briefly touch on an issue that was raised by the civil society in Brussels and by many Syrians elsewhere who have been writing to us, that is, the possible implications of the newly adopted Law No. 10. We are quite aware of the concerns surrounding that law. We, as well as other United Nations partners, are seeking clarifications on the law’s goals and repercussions, especially for refugees and IDPs who do not have access to legal documentation.Let me conclude with two bottom lines.First, de-escalation is critical between the Syrian and international stakeholders, both regional and global. We hope that the relevant players can re-establish some overarching rules of the road in that regard. We stand ready to facilitate such a discussion, with focused support from the Council and key countries for the good offices of the Secretary-General and myself.Secondly, we must revive the political process in terms of the constitutional committee, as well as in terms of some initial steps towards the establishment of a safe, calm and neutral environment. We stand ready to facilitate discussions on both. Let me stress that a critical component of either aspect of the political process is active, continuous and positive United 16/05/2018 The situation in the Middle East S/PV.8260
18-14999 5/12
Nations engagement with the Syrian parties. I repeat once again that we stand ready, today as always, to engage with the Syrian Government in Damascus. We will also continue our contacts with the opposition and Syrian civil society.To unlock and lock those two aspects, careful diplomacy is required more than ever — careful, but proactive diplomacy, including at a high level. Hence, we look with interest to the forthcoming visits to Moscow and meetings of Chancellor Merkel and, later on, President Macron with President Putin, which undoubtedly will not avoid the issue of a political process in Syria. The United Nations believes that there is an urgent need for high-level diplomacy to support de-escalation, avoid any miscalculation and ensure a genuine communication system about a sustainable end to the conflict. With the support of the Secretary-General, we will increase our own efforts to contribute to that endeavour, including by offering further ideas and —if required, which we hope it will be — bridging proposals.The President: I thank Mr. De Mistura for his briefing.I shall now give the floor to the members of the Security Council who wish to make statements.Ms. Eckels-Currie (United States of America): Since this is my first opportunity to congratulate you upon assuming the presidency, Madam President, I would like to do so at this time. I also thank Staffan for his briefing.Last week the world witnessed a new and extremely dangerous escalation in Syria. It should not surprise anyone on the Security Council that Iran was responsible. Iranian forces operating from Syrian territory launched a rocket attack against Israeli citizens — citizens of a sovereign State Member of the United Nations. The United States strongly supports Israel’s right to act in self-defence. Iran’s reckless and provocative acts last week prove what we have been saying: wherever Iran shows up in the Middle East, chaos follows. Last week’s rocket attack against Israel is the latest in a pattern of destabilizing behaviour that is a dire threat to the region’s stability.Iran’s rocket attack against Israel shows something else too. It puts to bed any myths about why Iran is present in Syria, or what its true objectives might be. The fact is that Iran has installed offensive rocket and missile systems in Syria aimed at Israel. Iran has introduced those threats that were not present in Syria before the conflict; they are now. Iran, together with Hizbullah and other militias, is taking advantage of Syrian territory to establish bases and training camps. They are moving ever closer to Israel. The United States calls on Iran, Hizbullah and their other proxies to take no further provocative steps. If they do, Iran will bear full responsibility for its actions.It is also important to emphasize that Iran’s actions do not serve the interests of the Iranian or the Syrian people. The Syrian people get no say in whether Iran threatens war against Syria’s neighbours, but it is they who have to live with the consequences.All of us on the Security Council have an important choice to make: we can stay quiet and watch as Iran builds up the infrastructure to create another Hizbullah in Syria, or we can speak up and take steps to put real pressure on Iran to stop. For our part, the United States refuses to stay quiet. Russia in particular has a special responsibility here. Its troops are on the ground, sometimes alongside Iran’s. Russia must know that Iran’s provocative actions do nothing to help resolve the war in Syria. Russia must know that Iran’s actions do just the opposite. They only inflame, prolong and widen the conflict.We heard once again from Staffan today that there has been very little progress on the political track. There has been no progress at all in Geneva, or following Russia’s own conferences in Astana and Sochi. Since January, the United Nations was supposed assemble a new constitution drafting committee that would help kick off a new round of talks. The United Nations was supposed to have the ability to choose which people would serve on the committee, and the United Nations was supposed to be empowered to facilitate those talks. Instead, the Al-Assad regime has backtracked, stalled and then refused to cooperate.At the same time, the Syrian regime escalated its brutal military campaign. It seized eastern Ghouta, at the cost of thousands of lives and tens of thousands displaced. It used chemical weapons in Douma. Just yesterday, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons Fact-finding Mission released a report determining that chlorine was used during attacks on 4 February in Saraqib.As reported by the Fact-finding Mission, the facts of that chemical-weapons attack bear the hallmarks S/PV.8260 The situation in the Middle East 16/05/2018
6/12 18-14999
of similar attacks conducted by the Al-Assad regime. As we have said before, the United States assesses that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons well over 50 times since the start of the civil war. The Al-Assad regime, with Iran’s and Russia’s full support, is choosing to pursue a military solution instead of a political solution, and that goes against everything we should stand for as the Security Council.In the aftermath of eastern Ghouta, the need for a real ceasefire could not be more obvious. Already, we see the Al-Assad regime launching new attacks in Idlib and the south-west. As Staffan noted, a Ghouta scenario in Idlib would be six times worse than the horror we saw in recent months in Ghouta. Air strikes in the south-west have tripled in the last month, even though that area is part of a de-escalation zone. Russia is supposed to be a sponsor of that zone. It must urgently meet its commitments to prevent the regime from carrying out attacks and stop Iranian militias from expanding their foothold in t
Update By The Director-general On The Deployment Of The Opcw Fact-finding Mission To Douma, Syrian Arab Republic, To The Executive Council At Its Fifty-ninth Meeting
No full textUpdate By The Director-general On The Deployment Of The Opcw Fact-finding Mission To Douma, Syrian Arab Republic, To The Executive Council At Its Fifty-ninth Meetin