As
UNSC
Speaks on
Ceasefire But
Not Terrorism,
Al Qaeda OK in
Some Places?
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
October 24 --
After envoy
Lakhdar
Brahimi told
the UN
Security
Council by
video to
await an
official Eid
ceasefire
response
from the
Syrian
government
tomorrow, the
Council agreed
on a press
statement
directed
particularly
at the
government, as
the stronger
party.
After
the statement
was read out,
Russian
Ambassador
Vitaly Churkin
was
asked of the
reported
rejection in
advance of the
ceasefire by
the Al
Nusra Front,
which claimed
credit for
deadly
bombings in,
among other
places, Aleppo
in an attack
the Council
condemned in a
statement.
Churkin
said
those with
influence
should speak
with such
groups. Inner
City
Press asked
Churkin about
his other
draft Council
statement on
"Terrorism in
Damascus,"
which the
Council did
not agree to.
Churkin
said
there is a
trend of not
denouncing
some acts of
terrorism. He
said some find
attacks by Al
Qaeda OK in
some places
but not in
others: there
is, "say
that Al Qaeda
cannot do
certain things
in one place
but is welcome
to do them in
another
place." Transcript
below.
Minutes
later,
Syria's
Permanent
Representative
Bashar
Ja'afari told
the
press, "There
will be an
official
statement
tomorrow" -
that is, the
day before the
Eid holiday
begins. Watch
this site.
Footnote:
Inner City
Press exclusively
reported on
and put online
a list Syrian
Mission filed
with the
Security
Council of 108
"foreign
nationals"
arrested in
Syria. Click here
for that.
Wednesday the
Mission said
nothing had
been done on
the list; it
filed a letter
about the
killing of
some 25
civilians in
Douma, in an
area it says
there is no
government
army presence.
Don't expect a
press
statement any
time soon.
A friend on
Inner City
Press prepared
this
transcript:
Inner
City Press:
What about
[the rejection
of] your other
press
statement on
terrorist
attacks in
Damascus,
there was one
I think had
been pending,
and I know
that Syria's
put in a
letter on
Douma, where
25 civilians
were killed.
Do you still
have hope of
passing those?
Were they shot
down?
Ambassador
Churkin: We
have some
objections,
and in fact,
we need to
have, I think,
discussion in
the Security
Council about
that, because
lately, we
have seen a
certain
erosion of
what used to
be the rock
bottom and
sort of
principal and
fundamental
position of
the Security
Council
rejecting all
forms of
violence,
whatever the
pretext or the
motives and
whatever the
reasons which
may be given
for such acts
of terrorism.
Laterly we
have a had a
situation
where some of
our colleagues
in the
Security
Council were
saying: "Well,
we have all
this violence,
so maybe it's
not proper to
make statement
condemning a
certain
terrorist
attack."
We do
not accept
that logic.
Their idea is
that, well,
the government
has sort of a
predominant
forces,
asymmetrical
situation, so
under those
circumstances,
maybe we
should not
condemn
certain
terrorist
attacks. We
believe that
this is wrong,
because there
are other
situations
after all,
where we have
nice
symmetrical
conflict, and
where one of
the sides has
predominant
military
force, but
that does not
prevent us
from
condemning
acts of
terrorism. I
mean, you
cannot say
that Al Qaeda
cannot do
certain things
in one place
but is welcome
to do them in
another place.
So this is
really a
slippery
slope, and I
think that at
some point
before too
long we need
to have a
serious
conversation
in the
Security
Council about
that.
, 
