This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/world/middleeast/un-orders-both-sides-in-syria-to-allow-humanitarian-aid.html

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
U.N. Orders Both Sides in Syria to Allow Humanitarian Aid U.N. Orders Both Sides in Syria to Allow Humanitarian Aid
(about 3 hours later)
UNITED NATIONS — In a hard-fought show of unity among world powers, the United Nations Security Council voted unanimously on Saturday to order the warring parties in Syria to stop blocking the delivery of humanitarian aid, though without the immediate prospect of punishment against those who disobey. UNITED NATIONS — In a rare show of unity among world powers, the United Nations Security Council voted unanimously on Saturday for a resolution ordering the warring parties in Syria to stop blocking the delivery of humanitarian aid, though without the immediate prospect of punishment against those who disobey.
The resolution is the first binding measure to be approved by the divided Security Council in a conflict that began nearly three years ago and has killed more than 100,000 and left a trail of polio and starvation. The measure calls on the Syrian government to allow relief agencies to enter the country, criticizes the dropping of barrel bombs by government aircraft, and strongly condemns terror attacks, plainly referring to some of the rebels fighting to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad. The resolution, which is legally binding, addresses a conflict that has gone on for nearly three years, killing more than 100,000 people. It calls on the Syrian government to allow relief agencies to enter the country, including from across national borders; decries the dropping of barrel bombs by government aircraft; and strongly condemns terror attacks, plainly referring to some of the rebels fighting to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad.
Until the moment of the vote, it was unclear whether Syria’s principal ally, Russia, would approve it. The Russian ambassador to the United Nations, Vitaly I. Churkin, ended the suspense at 11 a.m. as he entered the Council’s chambers. “Of course we’re going to support it,” Mr. Churkin told reporters. “It’s a pretty good resolution.” It also calls on the United Nations secretary general to submit progress reports, and while it does not threaten sanctions, economic or otherwise, it promises to take “further steps” against those who do not comply. Britain and France, among Syria’s most biting critics on the council, indicated their readiness to introduce a resolution calling for tougher measures in the event of noncompliance.
The adoption of the resolution was made possible, diplomats said, by important concessions. It contains no specific enforcement language, saying only that the Council will keep tabs on all sides in the war and meet later to decide whether to punish them. Russia would have vetoed any specific threat of sanctions, Western diplomats said. It also contains no threat to refer those suspected of committing war crimes to the International Criminal Court, a move about which Russia and the United States are apparently conflicted. It says only that the parties in the conflict could be guilty of committing such crimes. Before the vote, council diplomats said it was clear that there would be no chance of approval from Russia, Syria’s strongest ally, if the measure contained any language on sanctions. And so, just before the text was finalized Wednesday night, the suggestion of sanctions came out; late Friday afternoon, Moscow signaled its assent. The countries pushing for the resolution were clearly aiming to put it up for a vote during the Olympic Games in Sochi to exert the greatest leverage on Russia.
As for sanctions, the measure leaves that fight for another day by stating “its intent to take further steps in the case of noncompliance with this resolution.” On Saturday morning, as he entered the council chambers, the Russian ambassador to the United Nations, Vitaly I. Churkin, told reporters: “Of course we’re going to support it. It’s a pretty good resolution.”
Those elements were in an earlier draft proposed by Australia, Jordan and Luxembourg, which hold two-year rotating seats on the 15-member body, but were massaged out of the text during several days of what were described as intense negotiations. Inside, Mr. Churkin made a point to say that the Assad government had made “progress” in facilitating the delivery of humanitarian aid. There was no suggestion that Moscow’s support for the Assad government was diminishing, though one United Nations diplomat said Russia’s vote could be a sign of its “uneasiness” over the government’s unwillingness to make aid delivery easier.
The final product does contain specific references to the Syrian government, which its critics in the West, including the United States, insisted on. It expresses, for instance, “grave alarm at the significant and rapid deterioration of the humanitarian situation in Syria, in particular the dire situation of hundreds of thousands of civilians trapped in besieged areas, most of whom are besieged by the Syrian armed forces and some by opposition groups.” The American ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, emphasized that Mr. Churkin had joined in the condemnation of the Syrian government. “We are heartened that our Russian colleagues have joined us in demanding the end of the use of indiscriminate weapons like barrel bombs,” she told reporters after the vote, “and how all the parties, but particularly the regime, need to stop using food and medicine as a weapon of war.”
It also expresses concern for “the dire situation of over three million people in hard-to-reach areas,” and deplores the difficulties in enabling humanitarian assistance to all civilians. Since the Syrian conflict broke out in March 2011, Russia has vetoed three resolutions trying to address broader concerns. It initially dismissed the need for this one, too, saying that it preferred to let the warring parties on the ground agree to local cease-fires, one by one, so as to let in food and medicine. But Russia eventually signaled its intention to engage by putting forward a resolution of its own, and several rounds of negotiations ensued.
In a nod to Russian demands, the resolution “strongly” condemns the “increased terrorist attacks resulting in numerous casualties and destruction carried out by organizations and individuals associated with Al Qaeda, its affiliates and other terrorist groups.” In a nod to Russian demands, the resolution “strongly” condemns the “increased terrorist attacks resulting in numerous casualties and destruction carried out by organizations and individuals associated with Al Qaeda, its affiliates and other terrorist groups.” The Syrian government refers to all of the rebels as terrorists.
In several places, there are specific, pointed references to the government’s singular role in blocking aid. In several places, the resolution points to the government’s singular role in blocking aid. For instance, it “demands that all parties, in particular the Syrian authorities, promptly allow rapid, safe and unhindered humanitarian access for U.N. humanitarian agencies and their implementing partners, including across conflict lines and across borders, in order to ensure that humanitarian assistance reaches people in need through the most direct routes.”
One section reads that the resolution “demands that all parties, in particular the Syrian authorities, promptly allow rapid, safe and unhindered humanitarian access for U.N. humanitarian agencies and their implementing partners, including across conflict lines and across borders, in order to ensure that humanitarian assistance reaches people in need through the most direct routes.” Inside Syria, both parties tried to use the resolution to bolster their positions and condemn their enemies.
Russia has vetoed three resolutions pertaining to Syria in three years. It initially dismissed the need for this one, too, saying that it preferred to let the warring parties on the ground agree to local cease-fires, one by one, so as to let in food and medicine. Monzer Akbik, chief of staff to the president of the opposition Syrian National Coalition, said the group welcomed the resolution but was skeptical that the government would live up to its obligations.
Russia had said all along that it would not support a resolution that was “ideological,” though in truth, all Security Council decisions are political by nature. “This means that the international community is talking in one voice and saying that the starvation and siege that the regime is inflicting on many areas in Syria should stop now and the regime should allow access to these areas,” he said.
The measure received support in recent weeks from stronger statements by United Nations officials. In her briefing to the council in mid-February, the United Nations humanitarian relief chief, Valerie Amos, named several communities that were trapped behind conflict lines, pointing to the culpability of the government. For his part, the Syrian ambassador to the United Nations, Bashar al-Jaafari, said, “Humanitarian aid for Syrian cannot be achieved unless it is accompanied by an end to terrorism.”
On Wednesday, the United Nations human rights chief, Navi Pillay, cited cases of starvation deaths in towns beyond the reach of food and medicine. The most intense negotiations, diplomats said in interviews on Saturday, concerned whether to include language on aerial bombardments, particularly of barrel bombs, which was a priority to several Western countries, and a reference to specific besieged communities. Naming those communities pointed to the Syrian government’s role in blocking aid. For the Russians as well as the Chinese, the subject of allowing aid across Syria’s national borders was especially troublesome. By late Wednesday, diplomats said, language on barrel bombs, besieged communities and cross-border access remained in the draft.
Also by Wednesday, the three countries that had drafted the document — Australia, Jordan and Luxembourg — had decided that the time for negotiations was over. “Our bottom lines had been preserved,” one council diplomat said. “We had incorporated a good deal of some of the concerns from Russia and China.”
After the vote, Ban Ki-moon, the secretary general, told the council: “This resolution should not have been necessary. Humanitarian assistance is not something to be negotiated; it is something to be allowed by virtue of international law.”
Jan Egeland, the former United Nations relief coordinator who now heads the Norwegian Refugee Council, said the secretary general must be “ruthlessly honest” in monitoring what happens on the ground.