Bid to Deliver Aid to Syria May Set Stage for a U.N. Clash
|
Version 0 of 1. The United Nations Security Council was potentially headed for a showdown on Monday over getting food and medicine to millions of needy Syrians. The would-be diplomatic row is a measure of how difficult it is for the world powers to agree on much, least of all on the crisis in Syria, where Russia and the West support opposing sides in the civil war. The draft resolution would authorize the United Nations to send aid convoys over four specific border crossings, even without Syrian government consent, but only after United Nations monitors inspect what was loaded onto the trucks. The monitoring mechanism is tricky. It potentially sets a precedent, requiring aid workers in future crises to jump through hoops to deliver food and medicine. It is ostensibly intended to assuage the Syrian government’s fear of arms being smuggled in, though in truth the supply of guns and rockets seems to be far greater than, say, grains and medicine. The United Nations humanitarian relief coordinator, Valerie Amos, told the Council last month that aid delivery has become even more difficult since its last resolution, passed in February, urging the warring parties in Syria to lift blockades. Government forces in particular have repeatedly seized medicine from aid convoys, she said. The measure’s passage is far from certain. The draft text is not under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, meaning there is no immediate threat of enforcement. It proposes vaguely to take “further measures in the event of noncompliance,” according to a copy of the measure obtained by The New York Times. That would require another resolution. But that could rile Moscow. The Russian ambassador, Vitaly I. Churkin, complained last week of “politicized elements” in the draft text and suggested that it left open the possibility of military intervention. A Western diplomat said Russia objected in particular to language that the United States has pushed for: describing the humanitarian crisis in Syria as “a threat to peace and security in the region.” That is something of a flashback to a sweeping 2011 Council resolution on Libya, authorizing member nations to take “all necessary measures” to protect civilians, which effectively authorized a military solution. Russia and China abstained on that measure. The United States voted for it. Mr. Churkin said last week that he was wary of any language that could suggest justifying military action in Syria. The current draft contains no such explicit suggestion. It does propose opening four border crossings that the United Nations has identified as most fruitful in getting relief to a large share of the four million people in need inside the country. Two of the crossings are along the frontier with Turkey, the third with Iraq, the fourth with Jordan. Of the four crossings, three have been in control of militant groups like the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria and the Islamic Front. ISIS is fighting for control of the fourth. The measure would “establish a monitoring mechanism, under the authority of the United Nations secretary general, to monitor, with the consent of the relevant neighboring countries of Syria, the loading of all humanitarian relief consignments of the United Nations humanitarian agencies and their implementing partners at the relevant United Nations facilities, and any subsequent opening of the consignments by the customs authorities of the relevant neighboring countries, for passage into Syria across the border crossings.” The measure says the United Nations would inform the Syrian authorities, who control barely a third of the country’s territory, according to the United Nations, but it would not wait for their permission. United Nations officials have said the government has not given consent to its agencies to cross into parts of the country that it does not control. As a result, aid has reached only those living in government-held areas. Russia has already vetoed four separate draft resolutions on Syria, the most recent aimed at referring the warring parties to the International Criminal Court. |