On Syria
Draft, US Says
Didn't Merge
With Russia's,
Hezbollah
& Quds
Omitted
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
February 21,
updated with transcript
-- Twenty
hours before
the UN
Security
Council is
slated to vote
on the
re-drafted
Syria
humanitarian
resolution,
Inner City
Press asked US
State
Department
Marie Harf
about the
evolution of
the draft,
specifically
the deletion of
a reference to
Hezbollah and
Quds Force,
and for any
predictions
for the rare
Saturday vote.
Harf replied
that the draft
is
substantially
the same as
that first
proposed by
Australia,
Luxembourg and
Jordan -- "we
didn't merge"
the drafts,
she said,
referring to
Russia's
counter
proposal.
Transcript below.
On this: "We
didn’t merge
the
two drafts,
right? We
negotiated to
maintain key
provisions of
the
original
resolution
that we think
are essential
to saving
lives on
the ground."
She declined
to predict a
15-0 vote, but
later cited
the upcoming
vote as a sign
of working
with China, in
contrast to
disagreeing on
Tibet and
President Obama
meeting
earlier in the
day with the
Dalai Lama.
The State
Department on
February 21
designated
Sarah Sewall
as "US Special
Coordinator
for Tibetan
Issues.
(Notably,
former Chinese
Permanent
Representative
to the UN Li
Baodong
recently
criticized
Australia's
policies on
asylum
seekers, an
issue Inner
City Press
also asked
Harf about in
light of the
deadly riot at
Australia's
detention
facility on
Manus Island
in Papua New
Guinea -- more
on that in a
separate
story.)
On Syria it
was announced
on the evening
of February 20
that the humanitarian
resolution
will be voted
on at 11 am on
Saturday,
February
22. What
changed?
Compare, for
example, the "terrorism
paragraph,"
#12 in Australia's
(and Jordan's
and
Luxembourg's)
first draft,
and #14 now.
As first
drafted, it
explicitly
called for
Hezbollah and
Quds Force to
immediately
withdraw from
Syria.
Now the draft
"in blue," to
be voted on,
does not
mention Hizballah
or Quds Force.
Instead, it
adds to
Al-Qaeda "its
affiliates and
other
terrorist
groups;" compare
to Russia's
now "merged in
draft," which
referred to
"Al-Qaeda and
other
terrorist and
extremist
groups."
The new addition
of
"affiliates"
applies only
to Al
Qaeda.
This is one
example, as
most
questioning in
front of the
Security
Council has
focused only
on timing.
In front of
the Security
Council on
February 21,
Inner City
Press asked
February's
Council
president Raimonda
Murmokaite of
Lithuania, if
any changes
were being
made to the
draft formally
put "in blue,"
an archaic
reference to
the ink color
of final
drafts. She
replied that
the blue
version is the
version.
After meeting
on Syria
draft
resolutions
on February
18, UN
Security
Council
Ambassador
exited one by
one issuing
one liners on
projected
timing for a
vote.
Russia's
Vitaly
Churkin, asked
if there would
be a vote this
week, said
setting
timelines is
not really
productive.
More than an
hour later
when UK
Permanent
Representative
Mark Lyall
Grant emerged,
Inner City
Press asked
him if he
thinks there
will be a vote
this week.
Lyall Grant
told Inner
City Press, "I
think there'll
be a vote this
week, I hope."
Update
of Feb 19,
10:07 am:
overnight,
Russian
foreign
minister
Lavrov was
quoted by
Interfax that
the draft
could be
approved in
days if
Security
Council
members don't
try to
"politicize"
the issue.
Then his way
into the Feb
19 "rule of
law" debate,
Lyall Grant
said "we hope
we will be in
a position to
vote this
week."
Earlier in the
day, Syria's
Permanent
Representative
Bashar
Ja'afari, who
was lead
negotiator at
the talks in
Geneva,
re-appeared at
the UN in New
York; we'll
have more on
this.
Australia's
Gary Quinlan,
asked if his
draft with
Luxembourg and
Jordan is the
basis of
negotiation,
said, Yes.
Jordan's
Prince Zeid,
asked the same
question,
nodded and
called the
issues urgent.
After US
President
Barack Obama
met with
Jordan's King
Abdullah II in
Rancho Mirage,
California, a
self-described
US Senior
Administration
Official said
"Jordan and
the United
States are
both working
together in
the Security
Council at
present and
there is an
ongoing,
pretty
intensive
negotiation
over a
potential
humanitarian
resolution in
the Security
Council aimed
at not only
condemning the
atrocities,
but trying to
create a legal
predicate for
cross-border
operations and
cross-line
operations."
In terms of
creating a
"legal
predicate,"
the Western
draft
resolution
"demands
that
the Syrian
authorities
promptly
facilitate
rapid, safe
and unhindered
humanitarian
access to
people in need
through the
most effective
ways,
including
across
conflict lines
and across
borders from
neighboring
countries, and
lift all
restrictions
on
cross-border
humanitarian
access, in
particular,
via Turkey and
Iraq, and
stresses, in
this regard,
the
particularly
urgent need
for the Syrian
authorities to
reopen the
Yariba border
crossing with
Iraq."
But as
described
below, the
Russian
counter-draft
"urges
all parties,
in particular
the Syrian
authorities,
to promptly
facilitate
safe and
unhindered
humanitarian
access to
people in
need, through
the most
effective
ways,
including
across
conflict lines
and, where
appropriate,
across borders
from
neighboring
countries, in
accordance
with the UN
guiding
principles of
humanitarian
emergency
assistance."
Could the US
and its allies
objec to "the
UN guiding
principles of
humanitarian
emergency
assistance"?
In terms of
the
negotiations
process in New
York being
"intensive,"
Inner City
Press covered
the February
14 session, it
was at the
"experts"
level and the
Lithuanian
presidency did
not provide a
summary much
less question
and answer
stakeout
afterward, as
the Free
UN Coalition
for Access
requested at
the beginning
of the month.
(China, by
contrast, held
nine Q&A
stakeouts
during its
recent
Security
Council
presidency;
for Lithuania
as of February
15 the number
is zero.)
The UN
Spokesperson's
office did not
announce in
advance
mediator
Lakhdar
Brahimi's
down-beat
February 15
press
conference in
Geneva, at
which no date
was set for
any more
talks; the UN
in New York is
closed until
February 18.
Intensive?
Russia had
counter-proposed
a Syria humanitarian
resolution,
and has also
proposed a
counter-terrorism
Presidential
Statement,
Ambassador
Vitaly Churkin
told the press
on February
13.
Churkin said
after Russia
heard US
statements
about the rise
of terrorism
in Syria, the
idea of the
Presidential
Statement
arose. He said
Russia's
counter-draft
resolution on
humanitarian
access also
has terrorism
language.
Inside the
Security
Council in an
otherwise
nearly empty
UN,
humanitarian
chief Valerie
Amos' briefing
and closed
door
consultations
continued. Earlier
on February
13, Inner City
Press exclusively
reported on a
four page
letter the
Syrian mission
submitted to
the Security
Council
president,
naming towns
which the
armed
opposition --
"terrorists"
-- were
blockading.
Click here for
that.
At the
February 13 UN
noon briefing,
Inner City
Press asked UN
spokesperson
Martin Nesirky
to confirm
these
blockades. He
replied that
the UN has
never denied
that there are
blockages from
the opposition
side. But if
Valerie Amos
won't name the
opposition
groups, the
UN's or her
critique
appears to be
one-sided.
On February 10
in the US
State
Department
briefing,
deputy
spokesperson
Marie Harf had
talked up the
humanitarian
resolution;
she was asked
why the US is
supposedly
deferring to
the too-slow
UN, after the
high level
humanitarian
meeting in
Rome.
Churkin said
on February 10
that Rome
meeting has
been "quite
useless" and
that it
"departed from
the original
conception."
On February 13
he criticized
it again,
contrasting it
to what he
called
Russia's
practical
approach. He
said the
Russian
embassy in
Damascus was
involved in
the deal(s) to
get aid into
Homs.
US State
Department
deputy
spokesperson
Marie Harf on
February 13
insisted that
the US
supports the
Australian -
Luxembourg -
Jordan draft.
But what about
the Russian
submission,
now on
counter-terrorism?
From Geneva,
France 24
reported wanly
on the Brahimi
talks; in New
York, it asked
Churkin if a
vote should be
expect before
the Olympics
are over. He
said, there is
no connection.
Neither France
24, nor other
ostensibly
Syria-focused
media have
done much
follow up, but
on January 29
Inner City
Press first
published
quotes from
the UN's
report on
Syria Children
and Armed
Conflict,
specifically
that the Free
Syrian Army
recruits and
uses child
soldiers:
"Throughout
the
reporting
period, the
United Nations
received
consistent
reports of
recruitment
and use of
children by
FSA-affiliated
groups."
Inner City
Press asked
the US Mission
to the UN to
respond to the
report, since
Congress in
its 2008
Child Soldiers
Prevention Act
said the US
Government
should condemn
the use of
child soldiers
by
paramilitaries
like the FSA.
Inner City
Press was told
to put the
request for
comment in
writing, and
did, to the UK
Mission as
well.
The report had
already been
circulated to
Security
Council
members in
English; the
UK said it
would wait to
provide Inner
City Press
with a comment
until the
report was
made official
on February 3,
that is to
say, when it
was translated
into the UN's
five other
official
languages and
put on the
Internet.
Readers asked
Inner City
Press where on
the UN website
to find the
Syria child
soldiers
report. Inner
City Press
told them it
would go
online on
February 3,
and noted
that the Free
UN Coalition
for Access
had previously
opposed the UN
withholding or
delaying the
release of
important
document like
this.
In this case,
however, the
delay
affirmatively
helped the
Syrian
opposition. On
January 29
they were in
Geneva,
issuing
statements
about abuses
by the Assad
government.
They were not
asked about
the Free
Syrian Army's
use of child
soldiers.
On February 3,
Inner City
Press again
asked the UK
for its
comment, and
it did arrive
the following
day on
February 4:
"The
UK absolutely
condemns the
use of child
soldiers in
all cases, and
strongly
supports
international
efforts to
stop the use
of child
soldiers. We
urge all
parties in the
Syrian
conflict to
release any
children held
in detention.
"Armed
conflict
affects
millions of
lives around
the world, and
children are
among those
most
vulnerable to
the effects of
conflict. The
only way to
secure the
long-term
future of
Syria’s
children is to
find a
political
solution to
the crisis.
"We
have made
clear our
absolute
condemnation
of the use of
child
soldiers. As
noted in this
report, the
use of child
soldiers by
the opposition
is not
systematic and
is limited to
certain
elements. We
have provided
training to
the Supreme
Military
Council of the
Syrian
opposition on
the law of
armed
conflict, and
will continue
to work with
them to help
ensure that
they meet
their
obligations
under
international
law."
Before
publishing the
UK's quote,
Inner City
Press again in
writing asked
two
spokespeople
of the US
Mission to the
UN for their
comment --
noting that
the UK had
provided one.
As Inner City
Press noted,
that might be
OK for the
United Kingdom
-- but what
about the US,
including in
light of the 2008 Child
Soldiers
Prevention Act,
which provides
for example:
It is
the sense of
Congress that—
(1)
the United
States
Government
should condemn
the
conscription,
forced
recruitment,
or use of
children by
governments,
paramilitaries,
or other
organizations;
(2)
the United
States
Government
should support
and, to the
extent
practicable,
lead efforts
to establish
and uphold
international
standards
designed to
end the abuse
of human
rights
described in
paragraph (1);
There are
prohibitions
on funding
which can only
be overridden
for formal,
public
findings by
the President.
Given all
this, Inner
City Press on
February 4
again asked
the two
spokespeople
for the US
Mission to the
UN its January
30 question:
"could the US
provide aid to
a non-state
group, the FSA
and its
affiliates,
which the UN
has found
using child
soldiers?"
The New York
Times, saying
that the child
soldiers
report was
"quietly
presented to
the Security
Council last
week," had a
quote from the
State
Department.
Why was the
report, and
this
statement,
delayed a full
six days until
the Geneva II
talks were
over?
Even more
cynically,
Voice of
America on
whose Broadcasting
Board of
Governors US
Secretary of
State John
Kerry serves,
also ran a
delayed /
withheld story
on the report;
Reuters
typically
didn't bring
up the US
Child Soldiers
Prevention Act
and claimed
that the
report was
released on
February 4,
when even the
Times said it
was February 3
-- and see
Inner City
Press' January
29 story, here.
On
January 29,
Inner City
Press
published
additional
quotes from
the report,
including
that:
"Boys
aged 12 to 17
were trained,
armed, and
used as
combatants or
to man
checkpoints.
For instance,
a 15 year-old
boy reported
being
recruited in
April 2012 by
the FSA in
Tall Kalakh
(Tartus
governate),
and
participation
in military
operations....
Also
indicative was
the case of a
16 year-old
boy from Homs
who reportedly
joined the FSA
as a
combatant. In
March 2013,
his family
reported to
the United
Nations that
he was still
fighting with
the group."
And
is
this boy still
fighting with
the FSA? There
is more to be
said about
this UN
report, but
what steps
will actually
be taken on
this UN
report?
on
February 14,
the following
was received
from US
Mission deputy
spokesperson
Tony Deaton:
"We
are deeply
disturbed by
the contents
of this report
and strongly
condemn the
mistreatment
and torture of
children in
any conflict.
We equally
condemn the
use of child
soldiers in
Syria and
around the
world. The use
of children in
armed conflict
is morally
reprehensible,
and the United
States in no
way supports
or condones
this activity.
We vet
recipients of
our assistance
to the
moderate
opposition and
work
diligently to
prevent
assistance
from falling
into the hands
of groups that
recruit or use
children in
combat or
employ terror
tactics."
While
we
will continue
to pursue how
the 2008 Child
Soldiers
Prevention Act
applies after
the FSA
finding in the
UN report, we
appreciate the
US response
and publish it
in full.
Watch
this site.
Here
is the US
State
Department's Feb 21
transcript:
MODERATOR:
Up next,
Marie, we have
Matthew
Russell Lee
from Inner
City Press.
Operator, can
you please
open Matthew’s
line? And
Matthew, go
ahead.
Inner
City
Press: Thanks
a lot. I
wanted to ask
something on
Syria, and
then something
else you may
have something
on. It sounds
– this
humanitarian
resolution at
the UN is set
for voting on
tomorrow
morning.
MS.
HARF:
Yes.
Inner
City
Press: And it
looks like the
draft or the
final draft
put into
blue or to be
voted on has
dropped – it
dropped a
reference that
it
had in it to
Hezbollah and
to the Quds
Force. And it
made –
obviously,
made changes
to try to
garner these
votes. Well,
do you
have anything
to say about –
do you think
that these
changes are
weak in the
draft, and do
you have a
sense it’s
going to be
15-nothing, or
what do you
think?
MS.
HARF:
Well, a couple
points. You
are correct.
We do expect
the
Security
Council
resolution to
be voted on
tomorrow. And
it’s my
understanding
that this is
basically the
original draft
that we
supported that
was drafted by
some of our
colleagues on
the Security
Council –
Australia,
Luxembourg,
and Jordan. We
didn’t merge
the
two drafts,
right? We
negotiated to
maintain key
provisions of
the
original
resolution
that we think
are essential
to saving
lives on
the ground.
I
don’t want to
prejudge the
outcome. I
think one
thing I’ve
learned is not
to make those
kinds of
predictions.
But what I
would
say is that if
China and
Russia and
everyone else
is as
concerned as
we’ve all said
about the
humanitarian
crisis, then
they should
support this
resolution. So
we will see if
we can get a
vote that
goes the right
way here – not
for our sake,
quite frankly,
but for
the sake of
the Syrian
people.
* * *
These
reports
are
usually also available through Google
News and on Lexis-Nexis.
Click here
for Sept 26, 2011 New Yorker on Inner City
Press at UN
Click
for
BloggingHeads.tv re Libya, Sri Lanka, UN
Corruption
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
UN Office: S-303,
UN, NY 10017 USA
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest service,
and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2014 Inner City Press,
Inc. To request reprint or other permission,
e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
|