In
Syria,
Terrorist
Water Cuts
&
Government
Airstrikes,
Dodging on Besieged
By Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
August 27 --
When UN Relief
Chief Stephen
O'Brien
briefed the UN
Security
Council about
the
humanitarian
situation in
Syria on
August 27, he
cited
Government
airstrikes and
shelling and
water cuts by
"non-State
armed groups
and designated
terrorist
groups."
Where
the line
between these
two is was not
drawn. Syria's
Permanent
Representative
Bashar
Ja'afari
criticized the
UN reports for
calling Al
Qaeda a
"non-State
armed group."
O'Brien
said, among
other things,
“On 12 and 16
August,
Government
airstrikes hit
a market place
in Duma
killing over
[one] hundred
people and
injuring many
more. This
attack took
place just a
few days after
the
indiscriminate
shelling of
Damascus by
non-State
armed groups.
Despite the
outrage and
condemnations,
there has
since been at
least one
further,
similar
attack.
According to
reports, since
mid-August
approximately
200 people
have been
killed and 400
injured in
eastern
Ghutah.
Shelling of
Damascus has
also
continued,
reportedly
killing over
30 people on
23-24 August
only. This
tit-for-tat
approach by
the warring
parties is
causing
devastation to
the ordinary
women, men and
children of
Syria and it
must stop.
"Non-State
Armed Groups
and designated
terrorist
groups
deliberately
cut access to
essential
services such
as water and
electricity.
Such acts
violate
international
humanitarian
law and must
be stopped
immediately.
In Aleppo
City, water
supply was cut
from 2 to 18
July and again
in early
August --
during the
hottest month
of the year --
affecting an
estimated 1.7
million
people.
Similarly in
Dar'a City and
the
surrounding
villages,
active
fighting
disrupted the
supply of
water and
electricity
for more than
ten days
affecting some
300,000
people. The
city of
Damascus was
also affected
by water cuts
as non-State
armed group
cut off the
supply from
the Wadi
Barada Springs
which provide
water to
Damascus. It
is
unconscionable
for anyone to
live under
these
conditions."
O'Brien
said "UNRWA
was able to
access Yalda
on 18 August
and again on
19 and 24
August as well
as today, to
provide
life-saving
healthcase
consultations
for 1000
people and
200,000 water
purification
tablets." He
did not say
"typhoid," nor
"Yarmouk."
If it wasn't
accessible
from June 8 to
August 18, is
that not
"besieged"?
We hope to
have more on
this.
On August 17 after
the UN
Security
Council's
Syria
Presidential
Statement was
adopted on
August 17 with
Venezuela
disassociating
itself from
Paragraphs 8
and 10 (speech
online here),
Inner City
Press asked
the Permanent
Representatives
of Venezuela
and New
Zealand, then
France's
deputy, about
the process.
Inner
City Press
asked
Venezuela's
Rafael Ramirez
about the
Elected Ten
members of the
Security
Council being
consulted only
at the end:
Inner City
Press: Do you
think the
elected 10
members should
have been
involved
earlier?
Amb Ramirez:
We haven't
been involved
in the
negotiation.
Just the P5,
they prepared
a consensus,
and then come
here, to
everybody for
support. We
are here
elected... The
idea is
supposed to be
a democratic
body, but it’s
not.
New
Zealand's
Permanent
Representative,
when Inner
City Press
asked if he
shared this
view said yes,
that he had
expressed it.
By
contrast when
Inner City
Press asked
France's
Deputy
Permanent
Representative
Alexis Lamek
about the
views not only
of Venezuela
but also New
Zealand and
others,
characterized
this as merely
process, video
here. Isn't
France the one
talking about
(some) reforms
in the
Security
Council?
Back on
August 14,
Inner City
Press asked
Nigeria's
Ambassador Joy
Ogwu about
this, if the
Elected Ten
members of the
Security
Council
should
be brought
into
negotiating
documents
earlier, Video
here, from
2:43.
Ambassador
Ogwu said, on
UNTV camera,
“That’s an
aspiration of
the ten
elected
members. There
should be more
participation.”
In this
case, until
Venezuela
objected, they
were given a
mere 18 hours.
What is the
point of
running for a
seat on the
Security
Council if
rubber
stamping is
all that's
expected of
you?
This
paragraph, and
its compliance
or
non-compliance
with Syria's
constitution,
was at issue:
“10. The
Security
Council
demands that
all parties
work urgently
towards the
comprehensive
implementation
of the Geneva
Communiqué,
aimed at
bringing an
end to all
violence,
violations and
abuses of
human rights
and violations
of
international
humanitarian
law and the
launching of a
Syrian-led
political
process
leading to a
political
transition
that meets the
legitimate
aspirations of
the Syrian
people and
enables them
independently
and
democratically
to determine
their future,
including
through the
establishment
of an
inclusive
transitional
governing body
with full
executive
powers, which
shall be
formed on the
basis of
mutual consent
while ensuring
continuity of
governmental
institutions.”
Disassociation,
allowing it to
be adopted as
unanimous
while a member
can disavow
it, may solve
a problem for
this
particular
text. But
other ongoing
dysfunctions
of the
Security
Council
continue.
Watch this
site.
Back on August
7 the Security
Council on
August 7 a
resolution to
establish a
so-called
accountability
mechanism for
the use of
chemical
weapons in
Syria. Outside
the Council
before and
after the
unanimous vote
on August 7,
Russia's
ambassador
Vitaly Churkin
referred to a
Presidential
Statement he
said may be
adopted early
next week, to
support UN
envoy Staffan
de Mistura's
work.
Inside
the Council
after the
vote, Syria's
Ambassador
Bashar
Ja'afari began
his speech
with a
reference to
the 70th
anniversary of
the US
dropping the
atomic bomb on
Hiroshima. He
went to to say
the UN never
investigated
the use of
chemical
weapons, by
rebels he
said, in Khan
al Asal.
In its
resolution the
Security
Council
“recalls that
in its
resolution
2118, it
decided that
the Syrian
Arab Republic
and all
parties in
Syria shall
cooperate
fully with the
OPCW and the
United
Nations.” It
seems doubtful
that ISIS will
cooperate.
Churkin in his
post-vote
speech inside
the Council
said that “the
existing
mechanics of
the UN and
OPCW do not
have a mandate
to identify
those
participating
in such acts.
Moreover, we
became
witnesses of
the many
politicized
statements in
this regard,
which were
clearly meant
to be
propaganda. It
was necessary
to eliminate
this gap,
which was done
with the
adoption of
today’s
resolution...
Any efforts in
the Syrian
area must be
in line with
assisting a
search for a
political
solution to
the conflict.”
Inside the
Council, US
Samantha Power
delivered this
speech. At the
stakeout,
questions were
given to
Reuters, Al
Hurra (really,
France 24, by
mistake), and
Voice of
America.
(We'll have a
separate piece
on Power's
response to
the Press'
final question
about Burundi.
For now,
here's previous
stakeout, sit-down.
After the
meeting ended,
on the steps
leading out
from the UNSC
stakeout,
Churkin said
“I hope it
will translate
into our
continued
joint work on
the political
front. We are
working, I
think very
well, on a
PRST
[Presidential
Statement] in
support of
Staffan de
Mistura’s
efforts. I
hope it will
be adopted...”
More on InnerCityPro.com. Follow @innercitypressFollow @FUNCA_info
, 
