NZUN: Syria Remarks at UNSC Stakeout

NZUN: Syria Remarks at UNSC Stakeout by Gerard van Bohemen, Permanent Representative of New Zealand

NZ%20UNSC%20FB-AvatarPermanent Mission of New Zealand to the United Nations
Remarks by Gerard van Bohemen, Permanent Representative of New Zealand to the United Nations
At the UN Security Council stakeout following consultations on the humanitarian situation in Syria
10 February 2016, New York

Good afternoon.

New Zealand and Spain asked for consultations today to talk about the humanitarian situation in Syria. Specifically we were very concerned about the reports of the situation in Aleppo. Stephen O’Brien gave us a very graphic briefing about the situation there and also about some other humanitarian crises in some of the other besieged areas.

I made the point at the beginning of the consultations that we have tried throughout this exercise that we are engaged on, to keep the humanitarian situation separate from the political situation because it’s very important that this is seen as an obligation that arises under international humanitarian law. It’s not to be mixed into the politics of the situation. And as I said in the room, unfortunately, there are two ways in which they are directly linked. One of course is that there will be no end to the humanitarian crisis until there is a political solution. But what we are also seeing here is that the war on the ground is having a direct impact on the political talks and therefore on the humanitarian situation.

And it’s sadly the case, but Russia’s airstrikes have been a direct cause of this crisis around Aleppo. The particular point we drew attention to today, was the fact that two of the crossings into Turkey are being compromised as a result of those airstrikes and we are very concerned about that situation. Now Stephen O’Brien said that one of them has reopened, the one that had been closed briefly, but for how long we don’t know. So clearly that’s a situation that’s of great concern.

We asked that serious consideration be given to a humanitarian pause to enable assistance to be got through because it’s clear that aid is also not getting through to Madaya and the other besieged areas that need more aid. And we also asked for informational about reports of cluster munitions, which we haven’t yet heard back from.

The point that we all made in the room is that we want the political talks that are suspended at the moment to get underway as soon as possible, but there’s clearly a great division within the Council as a result of the military campaigns and that’s a real problem for us all.

I’ll take any questions.

AFP: Mr Ambassador can you tell us what the response was to your proposal for a humanitarian pause? Foreign Minister Lavrov is going to the Munich meeting tomorrow to talk about ceasefire proposals; do you have any idea what those might be?
No I don’t, but Vitaly Churkin did refer to the fact that they had made proposals for ceasefires before and that they would be making those again tomorrow at the talks of the support group.

The response to the proposal was?
He didn’t respond to my proposal, he simply referred to the fact that Russia had its own proposals in that regard.

Reuters: Ambassador, yourself and several of your colleagues on the Council have expressed concern about Russia’s airstrikes around Aleppo. Were you satisfied with the response you got from Russia today?
We are in a very difficult situation; the Russian Ambassador spoke about other situations and basically suggested we weren’t being consistent in approaches to the other situations. But I don’t accept that. I think what we’re saying here, there’s a particularly grave situation. Syria is the most dramatic and devastating situation before the Council right now and so I wasn’t very impressed at the attempt to divert attention from that.

RIA Novosti: Ambassador, you said the humanitarian situation should be considered separately from the political track, so any chance that this proposal will be discussed tomorrow at Munich?
I think it will be. People referred to that. We are not at Munich, so that’s really not in our hands at all. I should also mention that Stephen O’Brien said the most important thing right now that could be done, is that those with influence use that influence to persuade the Syrian authorities to let go all of the aid that’s being held up through bureaucratic processes. There’s a whole series of things that can’t happen because we’re not getting the approval from the Syrian authorities and we do call on them to show some decency and cooperate with the United Nations in this regard.

How many Council members support a humanitarian pause?
Not everybody referred to it, so I don’t really want to speculate on that.

AP: Mr Ambassador. What else can the Security Council do? I mean, this is something that gets asked by a lot of people. You passed a resolution, how do you try and go about really enforcing it?
Well that’s the problem, that’s not unique to the Syrian situation; unfortunately, it’s the consequence of the way that the United Nations is structured and the way the Security Council is structured. But your question is a really good one, it’s one that frustrates us a lot. What can we do? I mean we are a Council of words, we don’t command armies. And frankly, in this situation, it’s not force that’s the solution, it’s conversations and negotiations and that’s what we want most of all.

Thank you very much.

[ENDS]

© Scoop Media