The Situation In The Middle East Report Of The Secretary-General On The Implementation Of Security Council Resolutions 2139 (2014), 2165 (2014), 2191 (2014), 2258 (2015), 2332 (2016) And 2393 (2017) ; United Nations S/PV.8171 Security Council Seventy-third year 8171st meeting Tuesday, 30 January 2018, 10.35 a.m. New York Provisional President: Mr. Umarov. . (Kazakhstan) Members: Bolivia (Plurinational State of). . Mr. Llorentty Solíz China. . Mr. Shen Bo Côte d'Ivoire. . Mr. Tanoh-Boutchoue Equatorial Guinea. . Mr. Ndong Mba Ethiopia. . Mr. Woldegerima France. . Mr. Delattre Kuwait. . Mr. Alotaibi Netherlands. . Mrs. Gregoire Van Haaren Peru. . Mr. Meza-Cuadra Poland. . Ms. Wronecka Russian Federation. . Mr. Safronkov Sweden . Mr. Skoog United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland . Mr. Allen United States of America. . Mr. Miller Agenda The situation in the Middle East Report of the Secretary-General on the implementation of Security Council resolutions 2139 (2014), 2165 (2014), 2191 (2014), 2258 (2015), 2332 (2016) and 2393 (2017) (S/2018/60) This record contains the text of speeches delivered in English and of the translation of speeches delivered in other languages. The final text will be printed in the Official Records of the Security Council. Corrections should be submitted to the original languages only. They should be incorporated in a copy of the record and sent under the signature of a member of the delegation concerned to the Chief of the Verbatim Reporting Service, room U-0506 (verbatimrecords@un.org). Corrected records will be reissued electronically on the Official Document System of the United Nations (http://documents.un.org). 18-02496 (E) *1802496* S/PV.8171 The situation in the Middle East 30/01/2018 2/10 18-02496 The meeting was called to order at 10.35 a.m. Adoption of the agenda The agenda was adopted. The situation in the Middle East Report of the Secretary-General on the implementation of Security Council resolutions 2139 (2014), 2165 (2014), 2191 (2014), 2258 (2015), 2332 (2016) and 2393 (2017) (S/2018/60) The President: In accordance with rule 39 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure, I invite Ms. Ursula Mueller, Assistant Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Deputy Emergency Relief Coordinator, to participate in this meeting. The Security Council will now begin its consideration of the item on its agenda. I wish to draw the attention of Council members to document S/2018/60, which contains the report of the Secretary-General on the implementation of Security Council resolutions 2139 (2014), 2165 (2014), 2191 (2014), 2258 (2015), 2332 (2016) and 2393 (2017). I now give the floor to Ms. Mueller. Ms. Mueller: I thank you, Mr. President, for this opportunity to provide the Security Council with an update on the humanitarian situation in Syria. Years of conflict have caused immeasurable human suffering and left countless civilians dead, injured or missing. The United Nations estimates that 13.1 million people are in need of protection and humanitarian assistance, including 6.1 million people who are displaced within the country. Another 5.5 million people have fled the conflict across borders into neighbouring countries. The Council will have heard at first-hand the account of the Emergency Relief Coordinator in his statement to the Security Council on 22 January with regard to his visit to Syria, in which he highlighted the plight of the Syrian people. During the visit, he heard individual stories from some of the people caught up in the violence and conflict. In Homs, he saw entire districts of the city reduced to rubble. The visit was the first for an Emergency Relief Coordinator in more than two years. It was an important opportunity to see ways in which the United Nations can support people in need. It was also a chance to hold discussions with the Government of Syria and our humanitarian partners on how to address some of the most pressing humanitarian needs. As fighting continues, I am particularly concerned about the safety and protection of civilians caught up in the violence in north-west Syria, where hostilities have reportedly caused numerous deaths and injuries. Air strikes and fighting in southern Idlib and northern Hama have resulted in more than 270,000 displacements since 15 December 2017, driving people from their homes to other areas of Idlib. Camps for displaced people are overstretched, forcing most of those displaced to seek shelter in some 160 makeshift settlements. During the cold and wet winter months, many families have nothing else but improvised tents, which they share with others. Attacks on medical facilities and vital infrastructure continue, with reports of at least 16 attacks on health-care facilities during the month of December alone. Yesterday Médecins Sans Frontières reported that air strikes had hit a hospital it supports in the Saraqib district of Idlib, causing five deaths, injuring others and seriously damaging the facility, which is now closed. That was the second reported strike on the facility in nine days. Further north, in Afrin, in Aleppo governorate, the United Nations is carefully monitoring the situation of over 300,000 people living in the district, which is experiencing fighting. We have reports of civilian casualties and that approximately 15,000 people have been displaced within the district, with another 1,000 displaced to Aleppo governorate. We have also received reports that local authorities inside Afrin are restricting civilian movement, particularly for those who want to leave. I am also concerned about the situation in eastern Ghouta and areas of Damascus, where civilian deaths and destruction of civilian infrastructure continue to be reported. In the first 10 days of the year, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights documented at least 81 civilians killed in the enclave, including 25 women and 30 children. Scores of residential buildings in the area have been damaged or destroyed in recent weeks. I also note with concern that shelling continues from eastern Ghouta into Damascus, resulting in civilian deaths and injuries. Although 29 patients in urgent need of medical care were allowed out of eastern Ghouta in late December, hundreds more, most of them women and children, require immediate medical attention. So far, there have 30/01/2018 The situation in the Middle East S/PV.8171 18-02496 3/10 been 21 civilian deaths among those waiting for and needing medical evacuation. Their needs are critical, and the law is clear. I urge all parties, and all those with influence over the parties, to see to it that all such medical evacuations take place without conditions or delay. With reference to all of the flashpoints I have highlighted, I call on the parties to ensure the protection of civilians and civilian and medical infrastructure, in line with international humanitarian law, and to ensure the safe, sustained and unimpeded delivery of humanitarian assistance to all in need. I would also like to take this opportunity to reiterate my concern about the protection situation in the city of Raqqa, where returns continue despite the widespread presence of explosive remnants of war. Nearly 60,000 individuals have reportedly returned since the end of hostilities in October 2017. However, humanitarian partners continue to emphasize that, given the high prevalence of landmines, booby traps and unexploded ordinance, Raqqa is not safe for civilian returns. Deaths and injuries due to explosions have been reported with alarming frequency, and trauma cases nearly doubled in recent months. More than 534 civilians have been injured in blasts since the expulsion of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant from the city in October 2017, of whom 112 people died. Each week, between 30 and 50 civilians continue to arrive at trauma centres in Raqqa after being wounded by improvised explosive devices concealed in their homes and neighbourhoods. Risk from explosive hazards is not limited to Raqqa; there are indications that substantial contamination also exists throughout Deir ez-Zor governorate, where there has been little or no mine surveying or clearance. Despite the desperate humanitarian needs in many areas in Syria, the United Nations and humanitarian partners continue to face serious challenges in accessing those in need. Last month, I briefed the Council that none of our cross-line convoys were able to reach besieged locations and that only two convoys had accessed hard-to-reach areas. This month, the United Nations and its partners have had no access to any such locations at all. Not one convoy has been able to deploy. Discussions about convoys have stalled over requirements to lower the number of beneficiaries and about splitting convoys in a way that would not allow us to provide food or other essential items. Our deliveries must continue to be based on humanitarian principles and international humanitarian law, impartially based on civilian need. At the same time, the United Nations is also seeing access to areas previously reached under regular programming coming to a halt. Local authorities in north-east Syria have twice held humanitarian convoys at the checkpoint with Government-controlled areas in eastern Aleppo. Furthermore, local authorities have requested changes related to the operations of our non-governmental partners, which in turn has blocked our assistance delivery to much of north-east Syria. The situation has been further compounded by the refusal of the Governor of Hassakah to issue facilitation letters for our deliveries. While the cross-border operations of our partners continue, such assistance is not sufficient to meet the needs in the north-east. To solve the situation, I call on all parties and those with influence over them to engage now to see that access to those areas resume. Finally, due to insecurity in the north-west, which has included numerous rocket attacks from within Syria into Turkey, on 20 January the United Nations temporarily suspended cross-border deliveries at the two authorized border crossing points in Turkey. The United Nations remains in discussion with Turkish authorities on restarting operations as quickly as possible to ensure the continued delivery of assistance, which hundreds of thousands of Syrians rely upon every month. Those access challenges underscore the importance of using all the modalities of delivery at our disposal. Despite prevailing challenges, the United Nations and its partners have continued to reach millions of people in need each month. For example, in December, regular programming from within the country resulted in the delivery of humanitarian assistance to millions of people, including over 3 million people who received food assistance through 1,500 deliveries. The United Nations and its partners also provided health, protection and education services. Cross-border assistance also continued to reach hundreds of thousands of people in need, as 653 trucks delivered food assistance to more than 500,000 people, health assistance for over 600,000 treatments, as well as other support for hundreds of thousands. After almost eight years of conflict, people's needs are as vast as they are critical. The United Nations and its partners will continue to deliver to millions of S/PV.8171 The situation in the Middle East 30/01/2018 4/10 18-02496 people in need. The United Nations also stands ready to bolster such support, but requires efficient and effective mechanisms to ensure the safe and rapid delivery of aid. To that end, the Emergency Relief Coordinator has identified five areas where the United Nations is looking to make concrete progress. First, we need to finalize the United Nations humanitarian response plan for 2018, for which we will be seeking $3.5 billion to meet the needs of more than 13 million people in all parts of Syria. Secondly, it is important that there be an agreement on medical evacuations for hundreds of critically ill people trapped in besieged eastern Ghouta. People in other besieged areas should get the same assistance. Thirdly, humanitarian access needs to improve. The United Nations has requested agreement for three to four United Nations and Syrian Arab Red Crescent inter-agency cross-line convoys each week. We need consistent access to all people in need. Fourthly, we must reach agreement on the United Nations-supported aid convoys from Damascus to Rukban in south-eastern Syria. While the exceptional delivery of assistance from Jordan in early January was a positive development, a sustainable solution is required. Fifthly, more effective arrangements are needed to enable the United Nations to support the work of Syrian non-governmental organizations and to enable international non-governmental organizations to perform the stronger role they can, and are ready to, play in relieving the suffering. I hope that we will be able to report to the Security Council next month on real progress achieved in those five key areas, and that, month after month, we will move forward until they are all fully addressed. The President: I thank Ms. Mueller for her briefing. I shall now give the floor to those members of the Council who wish to make statements. Mr. Allen (United Kingdom): I thank Assistant Secretary-General Mueller for her briefing. When considering the Syria humanitarian issue, we always have in mind the powerful plea last December by the Russian Permanent Representative that we should keep our differences over the politics in Syria out of our consideration of humanitarian issues — a view that we strongly continue to endorse. Last week, Mark Lowcock briefed us on his visit to Syria. It was the first time that an Under-Secretary- General for Humanitarian Affairs had visited Syria in more than two years, having been blocked previously from visiting. The United Kingdom commends the Under-Secretary-General's efforts to start a meaningful dialogue between the United Nations and the Syrian regime in order to improve the humanitarian situation for the people of Syria. On the basis of discussions and as we iterated today, the Under-Secretary-General set out five clear asks to enable the United Nations to sustain and improve its aid efforts. The United Kingdom fully supports those asks. Unfortunately, the Security Council has been unable to reach agreement on a text that would unanimously call upon the Syrian regime to ensure that those five asks are granted without delay. I want to reflect on this disappointing situation. One of the five key asks of the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs is the regime's agreement to allow three or four United Nations and Syrian Arab Red Crescent convoys each week across front lines to provide assistance to up to 2.5 million people in besieged and hard-to-reach areas. These convoys are needed to deliver aid, including both food and medical supplies, to civilians who have lived in a war zone for almost seven years. That request for consistent, regular access to all people in need is crucial. In 2017, only 27 per cent of United Nations inter-agency convoy requests were approved by the Syrian regime in full. That is significantly worse than in 2016, when 45 per cent of requests were approved. Assistant Secretary- General Mueller's briefing was especially concerning in that respect. We cannot let that happen again in 2018. Ninety-four per cent of those living under siege are located in eastern Ghouta. The Al-Assad regime is using humanitarian aid as a weapon of war by restricting access to the besieged population. There were no aid deliveries to the area for the whole of December, and nearly 12 per cent of children under five years of age in eastern Ghouta suffer from acute malnutrition. It is appalling that innocent children are once again suffering the most. The Under-Secretary-General also requested the immediate evacuation of hundreds of people who are in need of medical assistance from eastern Ghouta. We call on those who can influence the regime to use all of their authority to allow for rapid, unhindered and sustained humanitarian access and medical evacuations 30/01/2018 The situation in the Middle East S/PV.8171 18-02496 5/10 for those in need. According to the Secretary-General, 18 people have already died while waiting for the regime's permission to leave the besieged city. People are dying for want of health care and services that are available fewer than 10 miles away, in Damascus. Let us recall that the backdrop of the Under- Secretary-General's visit was the escalation in air strikes in eastern Ghouta and the north-west, including Aleppo, Idlib governorate and northern Hama. Yesterday at least five people, including a child, were killed by an air strike on a hospital supported by Médecins sans frontières in Syria's Idlib governorate. The facility was also seriously damaged and at least six people, including three medical staff, were injured as a result of the attack. The air strikes on the hospital occurred while the doctors were receiving people who had been injured an hour earlier in another air strike on a market. Those strikes had already killed 11 people. These events are taking place are in areas where there are meant to be ceasefires with the stated aim of putting a prompt end to violence and improving the humanitarian situation. Unfortunately for the people of Syria, that could not be further from the reality. The deliberate targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure in Idlib and eastern Ghouta continues, in blatant violation of international humanitarian law and human rights law. The intensification of hostilities has displaced approximately 270,000 people within Idlib since 15 December 2017, stretching scarce resources beyond their limits. The escalation of air strikes in eastern Ghouta has resulted in hundreds of civilian deaths since 30 December. UNICEF reports that, in the first 14 days of 2018, more than 30 children were killed by escalating violence in the enclave. It is against that backdrop that I call on the regime to allow for immediate, safe and unhindered access to humanitarian assistance to meet fully the needs of those who require food and medical supplies. Let all with influence exert it to ensure that. It is our must crucial, immediate request. It is also imperative that all parties adhere to agreed ceasefires and cessations of hostilities, uphold international humanitarian law and protect civilians. Yesterday, a number of us visited the United States National Holocaust Museum's exhibition on Syria. We saw the photographs of those killed and tortured by the regime and we read their biographies, their life stories. It had a profound effect on me, and it brought home how the tragedy in Syria is not just a geopolitical one — it is a human one. For humanity's sake, all of us around this table must ensure that we have done our all. Mr. Delattre (France) (spoke in French): I would like to thank Ms. Ursula Mueller for her comprehensive briefing. I reiterate France's full support for the recommendations of the Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, Mr. Mark Lowcock, which Ms. Mueller has just referenced. I would also like to express my country's grave concerns about the latest developments in the humanitarian situation in Syria. Several points are of particular concern. We note the extremely dire situation of the population in eastern Ghouta — still besieged and denied the humanitarian assistance and medical evacuations that they need — and the escalation of violence, particularly in the Idlib region. In addition, we are concerned about the attacks on hospitals, medical facilities and the provision of health care, as well as the persistent restrictions on humanitarian access in Syria, which are unacceptable and have tightened further in recent weeks — denying the civilian population the access to the essential resources that they so vitally need. Accordingly, I should like to make three main observations. First, we are particularly concerned about the current escalation of violence in eastern Ghouta and the Idlib region, which adds to the suffering of the affected populations. In eastern Ghouta, 400,000 civilians are victims of almost daily bombings by the regime and its allies. According to the World Health Organization, approximately 750 people in eastern Ghouta are still waiting for emergency medical evacuation. Since 30 December, the wounded have been unable to be transported out of eastern Ghouta to receive care; 21 others have died from their wounds, unable to wait another day. We note and stress that it is the responsibility of the Syrian regime to allow those medical evacuations to proceed without delay. The situation in the south of Idlib and in the north of Hama is very worrying as well. The continued bombings led to the displacement of about 250,000 civilians last month. More than 33 people were reportedly killed in less than 24 hours. The town of Sarakab was bombed yesterday morning, and the strikes hit the town market, killing more than 11 people and injuring a number of others. One hour later, the only public hospital in the district — a hospital supported by the non-governmental S/PV.8171 The situation in the Middle East 30/01/2018 6/10 18-02496 organization Médecins Sans Frontières — was struck, killing five people, including a child, and injuring six others, including medical staff. France very firmly condemns attacks on health-care workers and medical infrastructure, as well as the indiscriminate bombings carried out in recent weeks by the Syrian regime against civilians in eastern Ghouta and in residential areas of Idlib province. France reiterates that indiscriminate bombings and the use of incendiary weapons against civilians represent serious violations of international humanitarian law and could constitute war crimes or even crimes against humanity. It is vital and urgent to bring to an immediate end the bombings in Idlib and the siege in eastern Ghouta. The Astana guarantors have taken upon themselves the responsibility to supervise its implementation, and we therefore urge these States to effectively impose on the Syrian regime a complete cessation of hostilities as well as respect for the basic principles and norms of international humanitarian law and human rights law. The second observation is particularly worrying: the deterioration of humanitarian access in recent weeks in Syria. We have reiterated this concern on numerous occasions in this Chamber: the humanitarian situation will not improve without comprehensive, unimpeded, safe and ongoing humanitarian access to the aid distributed by the United Nations and its partners. Nonetheless, the regime is continuing to create unacceptable obstacles to the provision of humanitarian aid. The Syrian authorities have not authorized even a single inter-agency convoy in several weeks. France condemns this unacceptable attitude and reiterates its call for the safe and unhindered access of the United Nations and its humanitarian partners to civilians throughout Syrian territory. The right of the Syrian population both to humanitarian assistance and to protection must be respected unconditionally. The Security Council cannot remain silent given these recurring violations of international humanitarian law, which require a strong response from the Council. Finally, I would like to touch on the obvious discrepancy between the continuing violence on the ground in Syria and the diplomatic offensives, which are not facing up to the situation. We know that only an inclusive political solution that is elaborated under the auspices of the United Nations and that sets up a political transition in the context of resolution 2254 (2015) can bring a lasting and credible end to the suffering of the Syrian people. However, the regime is continuing its policy of methodical and deliberate obstruction, as we saw during the negotiation session held in Vienna on 25 and 26 January. In this context more than ever, we need to support the United Nations and United Nations mediation in Geneva, as well as eschew any temporary solutions agreed without the opposition, which would be unrealistic as they would not meet the aspirations of all Syrians. It is up to those countries that support the regime, primarily Russia and Iran, to bring to bear the pressure necessary to ensure that the regime puts an end to this negative and irresponsible strategy. Make no mistake: there can be no negotiated political transition in Syria without a total ceasefire, humanitarian access throughout the whole of the territory and the creation of a neutral environment that would restore trust and ensure the safety of all Syrians. How credible is a regime that is stepping up the bombing in Idlib, preventing medical evacuations in eastern Ghouta and refusing to authorize a single humanitarian convoy? How credible can diplomatic efforts be that are devoid of any specific assurances and that do not lead to any significant and lasting improvement in the humanitarian situation in Idlib and eastern Ghouta? We reiterate that humanitarian aid is unconditional and apolitical. We therefore make an urgent request to see proof of this on the ground. That is exactly what France will seek to defend in the weeks to come, in line with the Geneva communiqué (S/2012/522, annex), namely, the establishment of a neutral environment that must include the lifting of sieges, the cessation of hostilities, prisoner exchanges and chemical disarmament, all of this under international supervision so as to ensure genuine constitutional reform and the holding of free elections. That is the only way to bring a lasting end to the suffering of the Syrian people and open the way to an inclusive political process in Syria, in the interests of all the Syrian people. It is for that reason that we will continue to fully support the process stemming from resolution 2254 (2015), and we will make every effort to unite the Council in this respect. Mrs. Gregoire Van Haaren (Netherlands): The Kingdom of the Netherlands wishes to thank Assistant Secretary-General Ursula Mueller for her briefing. 30/01/2018 The situation in the Middle East S/PV.8171 18-02496 7/10 Seven years after the start of the conflict in Syria, the humanitarian situation in the country continues to be a truly heartbreaking drama. While several parties to the conflict are responsible for a wide array of violations of international humanitarian law, it is especially painful to see the horrifying effects of the military actions taken by the Syrian authorities. Instead of protecting their own citizens, the Syrian authorities are bombing them. Instead of providing basic services to their people, the authorities are destroying hospitals and schools. Instead of allowing humanitarian aid into the most affected areas, the authorities are starving some of their own people. The outlook for 2018 remains grim, with a worsening humanitarian situation and a continuation of the battle for influence by regional Powers. Allow me to focus on three important aspects: the current situation on the ground, cross-border aid delivery and the implementation of the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs' (OCHA) five asks. On the situation on the ground, the international community has been providing funding for a principled humanitarian response. The Kingdom of the Netherlands has provided amply to the United Nations and to international non-governmental organizations in order to provide relief for the suffering of the Syrian people. But this relief is hardly reaching those in need. In besieged eastern Ghouta, we are witnessing the use of starvation as a method of warfare. Not a single aid convoy has reached the 400,000 people trapped there in the last three months. Where have we seen this before? In Idlib, because of the continuous intensified aerial bombardments, aid to more than 250,000 internally displaced persons is extremely difficult to deliver. Improvised explosive devices in Raqqa and elsewhere in Syria have caused large numbers of casualties. The Netherlands urges all Council members to continue their contributions to make all of Syria free of mines and explosive devices. Concerning cross-border aid delivery, it is equally disturbing that today, one month after the Council renewed the authorization of cross-border aid, some of these very aid convoys cannot cross the border because of the security situation. The consequences of this lack of cross-border aid for the large number of displaced people in north-west Syria are tremendous. There is an urgent need to ensure that all convoys can have safe passage to reach those in need, both in Afrin and beyond. In Afrin, the intensification of the military operation there last Sunday has led to more displaced families that have nowhere to go. We call upon all parties to protect civilians, to facilitate humanitarian access and to allow for the safe passage of all people who wish to leave areas under attack. Turning to the implementation of OCHA's five asks, the recent visit by Mark Lowcock to Syria was in itself a positive step, but it is imperative that the dialogue on aid delivery yield effective results as soon as possible. In effect, the requests made by the Emergency Relief Coordinator do not differ much from those of his predecessors, effectively highlighting the lack of progress in terms of sustained, principled humanitarian access to those most in need. The message of the humanitarian and international community has been consistent: respect your obligations under international humanitarian law, protect your own citizens — including health workers and humanitarian aid workers — and allow for rapid, safe and sustained humanitarian access. In conclusion, it is crucial that the Security Council unequivocally unite itself behind the concrete and attainable five asks of OCHA. It remains essential to see progress on the rapid, effective and principled implementation in the coming weeks of all five asks of OCHA. We call on Council members to consider steps to be taken collectively in case no progress takes place and on those who have influence on the Syrian authorities to make sure that humanitarian aid reaches those most in need. Let us not forget that lives are at stake. Mr. Miller (United States of America): The Security Council met only last week (see S/PV.8164) and heard the Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs describe his visit to Syria and reiterate a series of requests that, in his estimation, would be a positive step towards improving the humanitarian situation in Syria. Sadly, not only has none of those requests been approved by the Syrian regime, but also the situation in places such as eastern Ghouta continues to deteriorate beyond our worst imagaination. To the surprise of no one, cross-line deliveries in Syria, particularly to besieged and hard-to-reach areas, remain stalled. In S/PV.8171 The situation in the Middle East 30/01/2018 8/10 18-02496 fact, there have been no United Nations inter-agency convoys anywhere for more than six weeks and no convoys to a besieged area for more than eight weeks. We deplore what are, frankly, starve-and-siege tactics, preventing the distribution of aid, which must be needs-based. As a result, many families are going without the most basic food, medicine and other supplies required for survival. Hospitals reuse syringes and other medical items meant for single use and, during the coldest months of winter, families who have run out of fuel and cooking oil burn household items to stay warm. That is happening in Ghouta and elsewhere throughout Syria. We need an immediate, unconditional humanitarian pause in eastern Ghouta, where the impact of air strikes and artillery shelling on the civilian infrastruture has forced the closure of more schools and medical clinics. Those bombings continued over the weekend, further proving that any supposed ceasefire in the area was merely aspirational. We reiterate the need to evacuate hundreds of critically ill people trapped in eastern Ghouta. We have seen no movement on that issue since late December, and the list continues to grow. Only a few weeks ago, we heard that the medical evacuation list contained 600 names, including hundreds of children. That list has now grown to at least 750 people, according to the United Nations staff on the ground. Over the weekend, the United Nations reported that another critically ill person on Ghouta's medical evacuation list died due to the lack of medical treatment. Such deaths are senseless and reflect the Syrian regime's depraved disregard for human life. Such gratuitous cruelty suggests that the regime's siege of eastern Ghouta is directed not at the armed opposition but against the civilian population. We need not remind the members of the Council that a siege directed against civilians is a violation of international humanitarian law. We also appreciate the fact that Sweden and Kuwait worked on a draft presidential statement to address such dire humanitarian challenges. The overwhelming majority of Council members agree that we must be clear in demanding that the Syrian authorities allow immediate medical evacuations and cross-line assistance. When there are hundreds of thousands of Syrians besieged by the regime and starving due to the regime's actions, such demands are the very least that the Council can make. We would also like to take a moment to thank the Government of Jordan for facilitating an extraordinary delivery of humanitarian assistance in mid-January to the internally displaced populations stranded at Rukban. That population now has food and relief items for one month. However, we continue to wait for the Syrian regime's formal approval for the United Nations to begin cross-line aid deliveries to that vulnerable population from Damascus. The United Nations submitted its proposal in mid-November and has still receievd no response. All arrangements have been made for the deliveries to begin as soon as possible. The Syrian regime has only to grant its approval and to stand out of the way for life-saving assistance to reach those in need. As we heard earlier today, members of the Security Council visited the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., yesterday and saw the exhibition about the Syrian regime's arbitrary detention and torture of more than 100,000 civilians. The name of the exhibition is "Please Don't Forget Us". We should bear that, and what the Syrian regime is capable of doing, in mind as we discuss yet again what is taking place in easter Ghouta and elsewhere in Syria. Mr. Llorentty Solíz (Plurinational State of Bolivia) (spoke in Spanish): My delegation wishes to thank Ms. Ursula Mueller, Assistant Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, for her briefing. Bolivia regrets the crisis in Syria, which, after all these years, has caused so much destruction and the loss of so many lives. Ms. Mueller told us that, since the beginning of the conflict, more than 500,000 people have died; currently, there are 13.1 million people who need humanitarian assistance, 2.9 million of whom are trapped in besieged and hard-to-reach areas; and at least 6.1 million people have been internally displaced. We believe that the most recent events have resulted in an increase in the number of dead, of people who need humanitarian assistance and of internally displaced persons. We call for the cleaning and demining of and access for basic humanitarian assistance to the city of Raqqa to take place as soon as possible to allow for the safe and dignified return of those families who were displaced due to the conflict. We regret that, since the month of October 2017, approximately 220 people have died and others have been injured in blasts. 30/01/2018 The situation in the Middle East S/PV.8171 18-02496 9/10 The recent events in Syria show once again the urgent need to revitalize the Geneva political process, reinforcing the tangible results of the Astana meeting, in consultation, of course, with all the parties involved, including the opposition, in order to facilitate the development of mutual confidence-building measures and, as a result, the improvement of the political and humanitarian situation. We are certain that this will also allow for the release of detainees and hostages and the search for the disappeared, as well as for the establishment of conditions for a political process and a sustained and lasting ceasefire. We express our support for the efforts made recently in Vienna and for the work to take place in Sochi. We welcome the decision of the Secretary-General to allow his representative to participate in those events. We once again remind the parties to the conflict that they must allow unconditional access for humanitarian assistance, ensuring and safeguarding the security and physical integrity of humanitarian workers, in particular in the besieged and hard-to-reach areas. In that regard, we reiterate once again our highest recognition for the work being done by the staff of the various humanitarian assistance agencies and bodies on the ground, and we urge the parties involved to meet their obligations under international law, in particular international humanitarian law and international human rights law. We remind the parties involved that they must implement the Astana agreements, respect the de-escalation areas and prevent any attacks on civilian institutions, such as residential areas, schools and hospitals, in line with international humanitarian law, to ensure the protection of civilians and unimpeded access for accredited humanitarian organizations to provide the greatly needed assistance. In that regard, we underscore the work of the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, which has reached 800,000 people through cross-border convoys. We hope that those operations can continue, for which better coordination and cooperation between the United Nations and the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic are recommended. In that context, we underscore the agreements arrived at among Iran, Russia, and Turkey on 22 December 2017, and we urgently call for strengthening them so as to free detainees and abductees, as well as to positively identify missing persons. We stress the importance of the work of the Russian Centre for Reconciliation of Opposing Sides in the Syrian Arab Republic, which has become a guarantor of security and the distribution of humanitarian aid, while ensuring the evacuation of persons from areas facing armed conflict. Lastly, it is important to point out that the humanitarian situation, which is affecting more than 13.2 million people in Syria, must be resolved exclusively through an organized, inclusive and political process based on dialogue and led for and by the Syrian people, which would allow for a peaceful solution respecting the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of Syria. We call on members of the Security Council to make every effort to ensure that it remain unified on such an issue as fundamental as humanitarian assistance. Mr. Meza-Cuadra (Peru) (spoke in Spanish): We thank Ms. Ursula Mueller, Assistant Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Deputy Emergency Relief Coordinator, for her detailed briefing. The humanitarian landscape in Syria that she described to us this morning is, once again, disheartening. Over the past several years, the relevant reports of the Secretary-General and Security Council meetings on this issue have repeatedly related victim fatalities, the renewal of the large-scale displacement of refugees, besieged cities, an increasing spread of diseases, a high level of malnutrition, the destruction of medical infrastructure and other scourges. Given such a situation, the only remedy left is to ensure the immediate, safe and unrestricted access of humanitarian assistance and strict compliance under international humanitarian law, in particular respect for the principle of proportionality as related to conducting military attacks and taking the appropriate precautions with regard to their impact on the civilian population. We therefore regret the persistent restrictions placed on access to humanitarian aid in various areas of Syria, in particular the tragic and untenable situation facing the people of eastern Ghouta and Idlib. We hope that the ceasefire agreement in eastern Ghouta, recently deliberated in Vienna, will have a positive secondary effect in addressing the pressing humanitarian needs of its people. We appreciate the work of the Syrian authorities and Russia that resulted in the medical evacuation of 29 people from eastern Ghouta in December 2017. At the same time, we encourage them S/PV.8171 The situation in the Middle East 30/01/2018 10/10 18-02496 to intensify such efforts as there are hundreds of other people who are in need of urgent care. Another issue that deeply concerns us pertains to demining and, in general, to the deactivation of explosive ordnance, in the light of what is happening daily in cities, such as Raqqa in which 30 to 50 victims, who fall prey to such ordnance, are recorded weekly. We see as positive the dialogue aimed at humanitarian goals between the United Nations and the Government of Syria, especially the visit to the country by Under- Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Mark Lowcock. That dialogue and the joint statement on humanitarian mine action issued following the latest Astana meeting positively herald that more substantial progress could be made in that area. Concerning military operations in densely populated areas, such as Afrin, we call for preventing any escalation that could further exacerbate the suffering of the people and hinder achieving a political solution pursuant to resolution 2254 (2015) and the Geneva communiqué (S/2012/522, annex). It is absolutely necessary that the Council show the world its unity and sense of commitment, and send a message that prioritizes human beings over political interests. We therefore hope that a consensus can be reached on the adoption of a text that reflects the five priorities outlined by Mr. Lowcock, which constitute the bare minimum for alleviating the human suffering of the Syrian people, and that is why Peru fully supports them. Mr. Ndong Mba (Equatorial Guinea) (spoke in Spanish): In taking the floor at this meeting on the humanitarian situation of Syrian Arab Republic, I should like to begin by sincerely thanking Ms. Ursula Mueller, Assistant Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Deputy Emergency Relief Coordinator, for her detailed briefing on the very unfortunate humanitarian situation that Syria is currently undergoing. Moreover, we listened to Under-Secretary- General Lowcock's briefing on 22 January following his visit to Syria, in which he pointed out for us five areas where improvement is needed in order to address the serious humanitarian situation, including the imperative to address the needs of some 13 million people in Syria, to facilitate medical evacuations and freedom of movement across borders, and to adopt measures so that the United Nations and international non-governmental organizations can provide effective assistance to the Syrian people. Both Ms. Mueller and Mr. Lowcock's briefings afford us a very desolate overview that must focus the attention of the international community on making every effort necessary to alleviate the suffering of the Syrian people. The specific situation in eastern Ghouta, in which almost 94 per cent of the people are trapped, is a particularly a worrisome issue. The situation of more than 600 people in need of urgent medical care has been, and is being, exacerbated by air-strike campaigns that have led to the displacement of those in Idlib and Hama. In addition to all this, we also point to the catastrophic humanitarian situation resulting from the ongoingOperation Olive Branch, which is leading to the substantial displacement and suffering of civilians. On the one hand, that can only elicit our deep concern, and, on the other hand, we must call for redoubling the efforts of the United Nations and the international community to find a solution to the very serious humanitarian crisis in the Syrian Arab Republic. The President: There are no more speakers inscribed on the list of speakers. I now invite Council members to informal consultations to continue our discussion on the subject. The meeting rose at 11.30 a.m.
Die Inhalte der verlinkten Blogs und Blog Beiträge unterliegen in vielen Fällen keiner redaktionellen Kontrolle.
Warnung zur Verfügbarkeit
Eine dauerhafte Verfügbarkeit ist nicht garantiert und liegt vollumfänglich in den Händen der Blogbetreiber:innen. Bitte erstellen Sie sich selbständig eine Kopie falls Sie einen Blog Beitrag zitieren möchten.
The study of International Relations is founded on a series of assumptions that originate in the monotheistic traditions of the West. For Siba Grovogui, this realization provoked him to question not only IR but to broaden his enquiries into a multidisciplinary endeavor that encompasses law and anthropology, journalism and linguistics, and is informed by stories and lessons from Guinea. In this Talk, he discusses the importance of human encounters and the problem with the Hegelian logic which distorts our understanding of our own intellectual development and the trajectory of the discipline of IR.
Print version of this Talk (pdf)
What is, according to you, the biggest challenge / principal debate in current IR? What is your position or answer to this challenge / in this debate?
I don't want to be evasive, but I actually don't think that International Relations as a field has an object today. And that is the problem with International Relations since Martin Wight and Stanley Hoffmann and all of those people debated what International Relations was, whether it was an American discipline, etc. I believe you can look at International Relations in multiple ways: if you think of à la Hoffmann, as a tool of dominant power, International Relations is to this empire what anthropology was to the last. This not only has to do with the predicates upon which it was founded initially but with its aspirations, for International Relations shares with Anthropology the ambition to know Man—and I am using here a very antiquated language, but that is what it was then—to know Man in certain capacities. In the last empire, anthropology focused on the cultural dimension and, correspondingly separated culture from civilization in a manner that placed other regions of the world in subsidiarity vis-à-vis Europe and European empires. In the reigning empire, IR has focused on the management and administration of an empire that never spoke its name, reason, or subject.
Now you can believe all the stories about liberalism and all of that stuff, but although it was predicated upon different assumptions, the ambition is still the same: it is actually to know Man, the way in which society is organized, to know how the entities function, etc. If you look at it that way, then International Relations cannot be the extension of any country's foreign policy, however significant. This is not to say that the foreign policies of the big countries do not matter: it would be foolish not to study them and take them into account, because they have greater impact than smaller countries obviously. But International Relations is not—or should not be—the extension of any country's foreign policy, nor should it be seen as the agglomeration of a certain restricted number of foreign policies. International Relations suggests, again, interest in the configurations of material, moral, and symbolic spaces as well as dynamics resulting from the relations of moral and social entities presumed to be of equal moral standings and capacities.
If one sees it that way then we must reimagine what International Relations should be. Foreign policy would be an important dimension of it, but the field of foreign policy must be understood primarily in terms of its explanations and justifications—regardless of whether these are bundled up as realism, liberalism, or other. Today, these fields provide different ways of explaining to the West, for itself, as a rational decision, or a justification to the rest, that what it has done over the past five centuries, from conquest to colonization and slavery and colonialism, is 'natural' and that any political entities similarly situated would have done it in that same manner. It follows therefore that this is how things should be. Those justifications, explanations, and rationalizations of foreign policy decisions and events are important to understand as windows into the manners in which certain regions and political entities have construed value, interest, and ethics. But they still belong, in some significant way, to a different domain than what is implied by the concept of IR.
I am therefore curious about the so-called debates about the nature of politics and the proper applicable science or approach to historical foreign policy realms and domains, particularly those of the West: I don't consider those debates to be 'big debates' in International Relations, because they are really about how the West sees itself and justifies itself and how it wants to be seen, and thus as rational. For the West (as assumed by so-called Western scholars), these debates extend the tradition of exculpating the West and seeing the West as the regenerative, redemptive, and progressive force in the world. All of that language is about that. So when you say to me, what are the debates, I don't know what they are, so far, really, in International Relations. The constitution of the 'international', the contours and effects of the imaginaries of its constituents, and the actualized and attainable material and symbolic spaces within it to realize justice, peace, and a sustainable order have thus far eluded the authoritative disciplinary traditions.
Consider the question of China today, as it is posed in the West. The China question, too, emerges from a particular foreign policy rationale, which may be important and particular ways to some people or constituencies in the West but not in the same way to others, for instance in Africa. The narrowness of the framing of the China question is why in the West many are baffled about how Africa has been receiving China, and China's entry into Latin America, etc. In relation to aid, for instance, if you are an African of a certain age, or you know some history, you will know that China formulated its foreign aid policy in 1964 and that nothing has changed. And there are other elements, such as foreign intervention and responsibility to self and others where China has had a distinct trajectory in Africa.
In some regard, China may even be closer in outlook to postcolonial African states than the former colonial powers. For instance, neither China nor African states consider the responsibility to protect, to be essentially Western. In this regard, it is worth bearing in mind for instance that Tanzania intervened in Uganda to depose Idi Amin in 1979; Vietnam ended the Khmer Rouge tyranny in Cambodia in 1979; India intervened in Bangladesh in 1971—it wasn't the West. So those kinds of understandings of responsibility, in the way they are framed today in the post-Cold War period, superimposes ideas of responsibility that were already there and were formulated in Bandung in 1955: differences between intervention and interference, the latter of which today comes coded as regime change, were actually hardly debated. So our imaginaries of the world and how it works, of responsibility, of ethics, etc., have always had to compete with those that were formulated since the seventeenth century in Europe, as "international ethics", "international law", "international theory". And in fact that long history full of sliding concepts and similar meanings may be one of the problems for understanding how the world came into being as we know it today. And this is why actually my classes here always begin with a semester-long discussion of hermeneutics, of historiography, and of ethnography in IR and how they have been incorporated.
How did you arrive at where you currently are in IR?
I came to where I am now essentially because of a sense of frustration, that we have a discipline that calls itself "international" and yet seemed to be speaking either univocally or unidirectionally: univocally in imagining the world and unidirectionally in the way it addresses the rest of the world, and a lot of problems result from that.
I had trained as a lawyer in Guinea, and when I came to the US I imagined that International Relations would be taught at law school, which is the case in France, most of the time, and also in some places in Germany in the past, because it is considered a normative science there. But when I came here I was shocked to discover that it was going to be in a field called Political Science, but I went along with it anyway. In the end I did a double major: in law, at the law school in Madison, Wisconsin, and in political science. When I came to America and went the University of Wisconsin, I first took a class called "Nuclear Weapons and World Politics" or something of the sort, it was more theology and less science. It was basically articulated around chosen people and non-chosen people, those who deserve to have weapons and those who don't. There was no rationale, no discussion of which countries respected the Non-Proliferation Treaty, no reasoning in terms of which countries had been wiser than others in using weapons of mass destruction, etc.: there was nothing to it except the underlying, intuitive belief that if something has to be done, we do it and other people don't. I'm being crass here, but let's face it: this was a course I took in the 1980s and it is still the same today! So I began to feel that this is really more theology and less science. Yes, it was all neatly wrapped in rationalism, in game theory, all of these things. So I began to ask myself deeper questions, outside of the ones they were asking, so my Nuclear Weapons and World Politics class was really what bothered me, or you could say it was some kind of trigger.
This way of seeing IR is related to the fact that I don't share the implicit monotheist underpinnings of the discipline. That translates into my perhaps unorthodox teaching style, unorthodox within American academia anyway. Teaching all too often tends to be less about understanding the world and more about proselytizing. In order to try to explore this understanding I like to bring my students to consider the world that has existed, to imagine that sovereignty and politics can be structured differently, especially outside of monotheism with its likening of the sovereign to god, the hierarchy modeled on the church, Saint Peter, Jesus, God, uniformity and the power of life (to kill or let live), and to understand that there have always been places where the sovereign was not in fact that revered. Think of India, for example, where people have multiple gods, and some are mischievous, some are promiscuous, some are happy and some are mean, so there are lots of conceptions and some of these don't translate well into different cultural contexts. The same, incidentally, goes for the Greek gods. Of course, we had to make the Greeks Christians first, before we drew our lineage to them. You see what I mean? Christianity left a very deep impact on Western traditions. Whether you think of political parties and a parallel to the Catholic orders: if you are a Jesuit, the Jesuits are always right; if you are a Franciscan, the Franciscans are always right. The Franciscans for instance think they have the monopoly on Christian social teaching. In a similar way, it doesn't matter what your political party does, you follow whatever your party says. The same thing happens when you study: are you a realist, are you liberalist, etc. You are replicating the Jesuits, the Franciscans, those monks and their orders. But we are all caught within that logic, of tying ourselves into one school of thought and going along with one "truth" over another, instead of permitting multiple takes on reality..
For me, as a non-monotheist myself, everything revolves around this question of truth: whether truth is given or has to be found and how we find it. Truth has to be found, discovered, revealed—we have to continuously search. The significant point is that we never find it absolutely. Truth is always provisional, circumstantial, and pertinent to a context or situation. We all want truth and it is always evading us, but we must look for it. But I don't think that truth is given. It is in the Bible, the Quran, and the Torah. And I am comfortable with that but I am not in the realm of theology. I dwell on human truths and humans are imperfect and not omniscient, at least not so individually.
If I had the truth, then I might be one of those dictators governing in Africa today. I was raised a Catholic by the way, I almost went to the seminary. If you just think through the story of the Revelation in profane terms, you come to the realization that ours are multiple revelations. Again in theology, one truth is given at a time—the Temple Mount, the Tablets, and all that stuff—but that is not in our province. I leave that to a different province and that is unattainable to me. The kind of revelation I want is the one that goes through observing, through looking, through deliberating, through inquiry—that I am comfortable with. There can be a revelation in terms of meeting the unexpected, for example: when I went to the New World, to Latin America for the first time, I said, 'wow, this is interesting'. That was through my own senses, but it had a lot to do with the way I prepared myself in order to receive the world and to interact with the world. That kind of revelation I believe in. The other one is beyond me and I'm not interested in that. When I want to be very blasphemous, even though I was raised a Catholic, I tell my students: the problem with the Temple Mount is that God did not have a Twitter account, so the rest of us didn't hear it—we were not informed. I don't have the truth, and I don't really don't want to have it.
What would a student need to become a specialist in IR or understand the world in a global way?
I am not sure I want to make a canonical recommendation, if that's what you are asking me for. Let me tell you this: I have trained about eleven PhD students, and none of them has ever done what I do. I am not interested in having clones, I don't want to recreate theology, and in fact I feel this question to betray a very Western disposition, by implying the need to create canons and theology. I don't want that. What I want is to understand the world, and understanding can be done in multiple ways: people do it through music, through art, through multiple things. The problem for me, however, is actually the elements, assumptions, predicates of studies and languages that we use in IR, the question to whom they make sense—I am talking about the types of ethnographies, the ways in which we talk about diplomatic history, and all of those things. The graduate courses that I was talking about have multiple dimensions, but there are times in my seminars here where I just take a look at events like what happened in the New World from 1492 to 1600. This allows me to talk about human encounters. The ones we have recorded, of people who are mutually unintelligible, are the ones that took place on this continent, the so-called New World. And what this does is that it allows me to talk about encounters, to talk about all of the possibilities—you know the ones most people talk about in cultural studies like creolization, hybridization, and all those things—and all of the others things that happened also which are not so helpful, such as violence, usurpation, and so forth.
What that allows me to do is to cut through all this nonsense—yes I am going to call it nonsense—that projects the image that what we do today goes back to Thucydides and has been handed down to us through history to today. There are many strands of thought like that. If you think about thought, and Western thought in general, all of those historically rooted and contingent strands of thought have something to do with how we construct social scientific fields of analysis today—realism, liberalism, etc.—so I'm not dispensing with that. What I'm saying is that history itself has very little to do with those strands of thought, and that people who came here—obviously you had scientists who came to the New World—but the policies on the ground had nothing to do with Thucydides, nothing to do with Machiavelli, etc. Their practices actually had more to do with the violence that propelled those Europeans from their own countries in seeking refuge, and how that violence shaped them, the kind of attachments they had. But it also had to do with the kind of cultural disposition here, and the manner in which people were able to cope, or not. Because that's where we are today in the post-Cold War era, the age of globalization, we must provide analyses that are germane to how the constituents (or constitutive elements) of the historically constituted 'international' are coping with our collective inheritance. For me, this approach is actually much more instructive. This has nothing to do with the Melian Dialogue and the like.
All of the stuff projected today as canonical is interesting to me but only in limited ways. I actually read the classics and have had my students read them, but try to get my students to read them as a resource for understanding where we are today and how we were led there, rather than as a resource for justifying or legitimating the manner in which European conducted their 'foreign' policies or their actions in the New World. No. I know enough to know that no action in the New World or elsewhere was pre-ordained, unavoidable, or inevitable. The resulting political entities in the West must assume the manners in which they acted. It is history, literally. And of course we know through Voltaire, we know through Montaigne, we know even through Roger Bacon, that even in those times people realized that in fact the world had not been made and hence had not been before as it would become later; that other ways were (and still) are possible; and that the pathologies of the violence of religious and civil wars in Europe conditioned some the behaviours displayed in the New World and Africa during conquest and enslavement.
For the same reason I recommend students to read Kant: I tell them to read Kant as a resource for understanding how we might think about the world today, but I am compelled to say often to my students that before Kant, hospitality, and such cultural intermediaries as theDragomans in the Ottoman Empire, the Wangara in West Africa, the Chinese Diaspora in East and Southeast Asia, and so forth, enabled commerce across continents for centuries before Europe was included into the existing trading networks. This is not to dismiss Kant, it is simply to force students to put Kant in conversation with a different trajectory of the development of commercial societies, cross-regional networks, and the movements to envisage laws, rules, and ethics to enable communications among populations and individual groups.
This approach causes many people to ask whether the IR programme at Johns Hopkins really concerns IR theory or something else. I actually often get those kinds of questions, and they are wedded to particular conceptions of IR. I am never able to give a fixed and quick answer but I often illustrate points that I wish to make. Consider how scholars and policymakers relate the question of sovereignty to Africa. Many see African sovereignty as problem, either because they think it is abused or stands in the way of humanitarian or development actions by supposed well-meaning Westerners. I attempt to have my students think twice when sovereignty is evoked in that way: 'sovereignty is a problem; the extents to which sovereignty is a problem in Africa; and why sovereignty is unproblematic in Europe or America'. This questioning and bracketing is not simply a 'postmodernist' evasion of the question.
Rather, I invite my students to reconsider the issue: if sovereignty is your problem, how do you think about the problem? For me, this is a much more interesting question; not what the problem is. For instance, if you start basing everything around a certain mythology of the Westphalia model, particularly when you begin to see everything as either conforming to it (the good) or deviating from it (the bad), then you have lost me. Because before Westphalia there were actually many ways in which sovereigns understood themselves, and therefore organized their realms, and how sovereignty was experienced and appreciated by its subjects. Westphalia is a crucial moment in Europe in these regards—I grant you that. If you want to say what is wrong with Westphalia, that's fine too. But if Westphalia is your starting point, the discussion is unlikely to be productive to me. Seriously!
In your work on political identity in Africa, such as your contribution to the 2012 volume edited by Arlene Tickner and David Blaney, the terms periphery, margin, lack of historicity recur frequently. What regional or perhaps even global representational protagonism can you envisage for IR studies emerging from Africa and its spokespeople?
The subjects of 'periphery' and 'marginalization' come into my own thinking from multiple directions. One of them has to do with the African state and the kind of subsidiarity it has assumed from the colonization onward. That's a critique of the state of affairs and a commentary on how Africa is organized and is governed. But I do also use it sometimes as a direct challenge to people who think they know the world. And my second book, Beyond Eurocentrism and Anarchy (2006), was actually about that, and that book was triggered by an account of an event in Africa, that everybody in African Studies has repeated and still continues to repeat, which is this: in June 1960, Africans went to defend France, because France asked them to. This is to say that nobody could imagine that Africans—and I am being careful here in terms of how people describe Africans—understood that they had a stake in the 'world' under assault during World War II. And so the book actually begins with a simple question: in 1940, which France would have asked Africans to defend it: Vichy France which was under German control, or the Germans who occupied half of France? But the decision to defend France actually came partly from a discussion between French colonial officers in Chad and African veterans of World War I, who decided that the world had to be restructured for Africa to find its place in it. They didn't do it for France, because it's a colonial power, they did it for the world. That's the thing. And Pétain, to his credit, is the only French official who asked the pertinent question about that, in a letter to his minister of justice (which is an irony, because justice under Pétain was a different question) he said: 'I am puzzled, that in 1918 when we were victorious, Africans rebelled; in 1940, we are defeated, and they come to our aid. Could you explain that to me?' The titular head of Vichy had the decency to ask that. By contrast, every scholar of Africa just repeated, 'Oh, the French asked Africans to go fight, and the Africans showed up'.
Our inability to understand that Africa actually sees itself as a part of the world, as a manager of the world, has so escaped us today that in the case of Libya for instance, when people were debating, you saw in every single newspaper in the world, including my beloved Guardian, that the African Union decided this, but the International Community decided that, as if Africans had surrendered their position in the international society to somebody: to the International Community. People actually said that! The AU, for all its 'wretchedness', after all represents about a quarter of the member states of the UN. And yet it was said the AU decided this and the International Community decided that. The implication is that the International Community is still the West plus Japan and maybe somebody else, and in this case it was Qatar and Saudi Arabia: "good citizens of the world", very "good democracies" etc. That's how deeply-set that is, that people don't even check themselves. Every time they talk they chuck Africa out of the World. Nobody says, America did this and the International Community decided that. All I am saying is that our mindscapes are so deeply structured that nothing about Africa can be studied on its own, can be studied as something that has universal consequence, as something that has universal value, as something that might be universalizing—that institutions in Africa might actually have some good use to think about anything. Otherwise, people would have asked them how did colonial populations—people who were colonized—overcome colonial attempts to strip them of their humanity and extend an act of humanity, of human solidarity, to go fight to defend them? And what was that about? Even many Africans fail to ask that question today!
And it could be argued that this thinking is, to some degree, down to widespread ignorance about Africa. We all are guilty of this. And oddly, especially intellectuals are guilty of this, and worse. Let me give you an example: recently I was in Tübingen in Germany, and I went into a store to buy some shoes—a very fine store, wonderful people—and I can tell you I ended up having a much more rewarding conversation with the people working in the shoe shop than I had at Tübingen University. Because there was a real curiosity. You would like to think that it is not so unusual in this day and age that a person from Guinea teaches in America, but you cannot blame them for being curious and asking many questions. At the university, in contrast, they actually are making claims, and for me that is no longer ignorance, that is hubris.
Your work presents an original take on the role of language in International Relations. How is language tied up with IR theory?
The language problem has many, many layers. The first of these is, simply, the issue of translation. If I were, for instance, to talk to someone in my father's language about Great Power Responsibility, they would look totally lost. Because in Guinea we have been what white people call stateless or acephalous societies, the notion that one power should have responsibility for another is a very difficult concept to translate, because you are running up against imaginaries of power, of authority, etc. that simply don't exist. So when you talk about such social scientific categories to those people, you have to be aware of all the colonial era enlightenment inheritances in them. When we talk about International Relations in Africa, we thus bump into a whole set of problems: the primary problem of translating ideas from here into those languages; another in capturing what kind of institutions exist in those languages; and a third issue has to do with how you translate across those languages. Consider for instance the difference between Loma stateless societies in the rain forest in Guinea, and Malinke who are very hierarchical, especially since SundiataKeita came to power in the 13th century. But the one problem most people don't talk about is the very one that is obsessing me now, is the question how I, as an African, am able to communicate with you through Kant, without you assuming that I am a bad reader of Kant.
The difference that I am trying to make here is actually what in linguistics is called vehicular language which is distinct from vernacular language. Because a lot of you assume that vehicular language is vernacular—that there is Latin and the rest is vernacular; that there is a proper reading of Kant and everything else is vernacular; or you have cosmopolitan and perhaps afropolitan and everything else is the vernacular of it. But this is not in fact always the case. The most difficult thing for linguists to understand, and for people in the social sciences to understand, is that Kant, Hegel and other thinkers can avail themselves as resources that one uses to try to convey imaginaries that are not always available to others—or to Kant himself for that matter. And it is not analogical—it is not 'this is the African Machiavelli'. It is easy to talk about power using Machiavelli, but to smuggle into Machiavelli different kind of imaginaries is more difficult. Nonetheless, I use Machiavelli because there is no other language available to me to convey that to you, because you don't speak my father's language.
Moreover, there is a danger for instance when I speak with my students that they may hear Machiavelli even when I am not speaking of him, and I warn them to be very careful. Machiavelli is a way to bring in a different stream of understanding of Realpolitik, but it's not entirely Machiavelli. If you spoke my father's language, I would tell you in my father's language, but that is not available to me here, so Machiavelli is a vehicle to talk about something else. Sometimes people might say to me 'what you are saying sounds to me like Kant but it's not really Kant' then I remind them that before Kant there were actually a lot of people who talked about the sublime, the moral, the categorical imperative, etc. in different languages; and if you are patient with me then we will get to the point when Kant belongs to a genealogy of people who talked about certain problems differently, and in that context Kant is no longer a European: I place Kant in the context of people who talk about politics, morality, etc. differently and I want to offer you a bunch of resources and please, please don't package me, because you don't own the interpretation of Kant, because even in your own context in Europe today Kant is not your contemporary, so you are making a lot of translations and I am making a lot of translations to get to something else: it is not that I am not a bad reader.
At an ISA conference I once was attacked by a senior colleague in IR for being a bad reader of Hegel, and I had to explain to him that while my using Hegel might be an act of imposition, and a result of having been colonized and given Hegel, but at this particular moment he should consider my gesture as an act of generosity, in the sense that I was reading Hegel generously to find resources that would allow him to understand things that he had no idea exist out there, and Hegel is the only tool available to me at this moment. But because all of you believe in one theology or another, he insisted that if I spoke Hegelian then I was Hegelian, and I retorted that I was not, but that deploying Hegel was merely an instance of vehicular language, allowing me to explore certain predicates, certain precepts and assumptions, and that is all. In this way, I can use Kant, or Hegel, or Hobbes, or Locke, and my problem when I do this is not with those thinkers—I can ignore the limitations of their thinking which was conditioned by the realities of their time—my problem is with those people who think they own traditions originating from long dead European thinkers. Thus, my problem today is less with Kant than with Kantians.
Or take Hobbes: Hobbes talked about the body in the way that it was understood in his time, and about human faculties in the way that they were understood at that time. Anybody who quotes Hobbes today about the faculties of human nature, I have to ask: when was the last time you read biology? I am not saying that Hobbes wasn't a very smart man; he was an erudite, and I am not joking. It is not his problem that people are still trivializing human faculties and finding issue with his view of how the body works—of course he was wrong on permeability, on cohabitation, on what organs live in us, etc.—he was giving his account of politics through metaphors and analogies that he understood at that time. When I think about it this way, my problem is not that Hobbes didn't have a modern understanding of the body, the distribution of the faculties and the extent of human capacities. Nor is my problem that Hobbes is Western. My problem is not with Hobbes himself. My problem is with all these realists who based their understanding of sovereignty or borders strictly on Hobbes' illustrations but have not opened a current book on the body that speaks of the faculties. If they did, even their own analogies may begin to resonate differently. There is new research coming out all the time on how we can understand the body, and this should have repercussions on how we read Hobbes today.
The absence of contextualization and historicization has proved a great liability for IR. Historicity allows one to receive Hobbes and all those other writers without indulging in mindless simplicities. It helps get away from simplistic divisions of the world—for instance, the West here and Africa there—from the assumptions that when I speak about postcolonialism in Africa I must be anti-Western. I am in fact growing very tired of those kinds of categories. As a parenthesis, I must ask if some of those guys in IR who speak so univocally and unidirectionally to others are even capable of opening themselves up to hearing other voices. I must also reveal that Adlai Stevenson, not some postcolonialist, alerted me to the problem of univocality when he stated in 1954 during one UN forum that 'Everybody needed aid, the West surely needs a hearing aid'. Hearing is indeed the one faculty that the West is most in need of cultivating. The same, incidentally, could be said of China nowadays.
One of the things I would like to deny Western canonist is their inclination to think of the likes of Diderot as Westerners. In his Supplément au Voyage a Bougainville (1772), Diderot presents a dialogue between himself and Orou, a native Tahitian. Voltaire wrote dialogues, some real, some imaginary, about and with China. The authors' people were reflecting on the world. It is hubris and an act of usurpation in the West today to want to lay claim to everything that is perceived to be good for the West. By the same token that which is bad must come from somewhere else. This act of usurpation has led to the appropriation—or rather internal colonization—of Diderot and Voltaire and like-minded philosophers and publicists who very much engaged the world beyond their locales. I have quarrels with this act of colonization, of the incipit parochialization of authors who ought not to be. I have quarrels with Voltaire's characterization of non-Europeans at times; but I have a greater quarrel with how he has been colonized today as distinctly European. Voltaire rejected European orthodoxies of his day and opted explicitly to enter into dialogue with Chinese and Africans as he understood them. Diderot, too, was often in dialogue with Tahitians and other non-Europeans. In fact, the relationship between Diderot and the Tahitian was exactly the same as the relationship between Socrates and Plato, in that you have an older person talking and a younger person and less wise person listening. A lot of Western philosophy and political theory was actually generated—at least in the modern period—after contact with the non-West. So how that is Western I don't know. I encounter the same problem when I am in Africa where I am accused of being Western just because I make the same literary references. It is a paradox today that even literature is assigned an identity for the purpose of hegemony and/or exclusion. Francis Galton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Galton) travelled widely and wrote dialogues from this expedition in Africa, so how can we say to what extent the substance of such dialogues was Western or British?
So in sum you are not trying to counter Western thought, but do you feel that the African political experience and your own perspective can bring something new to IR studies?
I am going to try and express something very carefully here, because the theory of the state in Africa brought about untold horrors—in Sierra Leone, in Liberia, and so on—so I am not saying this lightly. But I have said to many people, Africans and non-Africans, that I am glad that the postcolonial African state failed, and I wish many more of them failed, and I'm sure a lot more will fail, because they correspond to nothing on the ground. The idea of constitutions and constitutionalism came with making arrangements with a lot of social elements that were generated by certain entities that aspired to go in certain directions. What happened in Africa is that somebody came and said: 'this worked there, it should work here'—and it doesn't. I'll give you three short stories to illustrate this.
One of the presidents of postcolonial Guinea, the one I despise the most, Lansana Conté (in office 1984-2008), also gave me one of my inspirational moments. Students rebelled against him and destroyed everything in town and so he went on national TV that day and said: 'You know I'm very disheartened. I am disheartened about children who have become Europeans.' Obviously the blame would be on Europe. He continued, 'They are rude, they don't respect people or property. I understand that they may have quarrels with me, but I also understand that we are Africans. And though we may no longer live in the village', and it is important for me that he said that, 'though we may no longer live in the village, when we move in the big city, the council of elders is what parliament does for us now. We don't have the council of elders, instead we have parliament. They, the students, can go to parliament and complain about their father. I am their father, my children are older than all of them. So in the village, they would have gone to the council of elders, and they could have done this and I would have given them my explanation'. And the next morning, the whole country turned against the students, because what he had succeeded in doing was to touch and move people. They went to the head of the student government, who said: 'The president was right. We had failed to understand that our ways cannot be European ways, and we can think about our modern institutions as iterations of what we had in the past, suited to our circumstances, and so we should not do politics in the same way. I agree with him, and in that spirit I want to say that among the Koranko ethnic group, fathers let their children eat meat first, because they have growing needs, and if the father doesn't take care of his children, then they take the children away from the father and give them to the uncle. Our problem at the university is that our stipends are not being paid, and father has all his mansions in France, in Spain, and elsewhere, so we want the uncle.' He was in effect asking for political transition: he was saying they were now going to the council of elders, the parliament, and demand the uncle, for father no longer merits being the father. He was able to articulate political transition and rotation in that language. It was a very clever move.
The second one was my mother who was completely unsympathetic to me when I came home one day and was upset that one of my friends who was a journalist had been arrested. She said, 'if you wish you can go back to your town but don't come here and bother me and be grumpy'. So I started an exchange with her and explained to her why it is important that we have journalists and why they should be free, until our discussion turned to the subject of speaking truth to power. At that moment she said, 'now you are talking sense' and she started to tell me how the griot functioned in West Africa for the past eight hundred years, and why truth to power is part of our institutional heritage. But that truth is not a personal truth, for there is an organic connection between reporter and the community, there is a group in which they collect information, communicate and criticize, and we began to talk about that. And since then I have stopped teaching Jefferson in my constitutional classes in Africa, as a way of talking about the free press, instead I talk about speaking truth to power. But it allows me not only to talk about the necessity of speaking truth to power, but also to criticize the organization of the media, which is so individualised, so oriented toward the people who give the money: think of the National Democratic Institute in Washington, the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung in Germany, they have no organic connection to the people. And my mother told me, 'as long as it's a battle between those who have the guns and those who have the pen, then nobody is speaking to my problems, then I have no dog in that fight'. And journalists really make a big mistake by not updating their trade and redressing it. Because speaking truth to power is not absent in our tradition, we have had it for eight hundred years, six centuries before Jefferson, but we don't think about it that way. I have to remind my friends in Guinea: 'you are vulnerable precisely because you have not understood what the profession of journalism might look like in this community, to make your message more relevant and effective'. You see the smart young guys tweeting away and how they have been replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood, because we have not made the message relevant to the community. We are communicating on media and in idioms that have no real bearing on people's lives, so we are easily dismissed. That is in fact the tragedy of what happened in Tunisia: the smart, young protesters have so easily been brushed aside for this reason.
The third story is about how we had a constitutional debate in Guinea before multipartism, and people were talking about the separation of powers. And I went to the university to talk to a group of people and I put it to them: why do you waste your time studying the American Constitution and the separation of powers in America? I grant you, it is a wonderful experiment and it has lasted two hundred years, but that would not lead you anywhere with these people. The theocratic Futa Jallon in Guinea (in the 18th and 19th centuries) had one of the most advanced systems of separation of powers: the king was in Labé, the constitution was in Dalaba, the people who interpreted the constitution were in yet another city, the army was based in Tougué. It was the most decentralised organization of government you can imagine, and all predicated on the idea that none of the nine diwés, or provinces, should actually have the monopoly of power. So those that kept the constitution were not allowed to interpret it, because the readers were somewhere else. But to make sure that what they were reading was the right document, they gave it to a different province. So the separation of powers is not new to us.
In sum, the West is a wonderful political experiment, and it has worked for them. We can actualize some of what they have instituted, but we have sources here that are more suited to the circumstances of the people in that region, without undermining the modern ideas of democratic self-governance, without undermining the idea of a republic. Without dispensing with all of those, we must not be tempted to imagine constitution in the same way, to imagine separation of powers in the same way, even to imagine and practice journalism in the same way, in this very different environment. It is going to fail. That is my third story.
Siba N. Grovogui has been teaching at Johns Hopkins University after holding the DuBois-Mandela postdoctoral fellowship of the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor in 1989-90 and teaching at Eastern Michigan University from 1993 to 1995. He is currently professor of international relations theory and law at The Johns Hopkins University. He is the author of Sovereigns, Quasi-Sovereigns, and Africans: Race and Self-determination in International Law (University of Minnesota Press, 1996) and Beyond Eurocentrism and Anarchy: Memories of International Institutions and Order (Palgrave, April 2006). He has recently completed a ten-year long study partly funded by the National Science Foundation of the rule of law in Chad as enacted under the Chad Oil and Pipeline Project.
Related links
Faculty Profile at Johns Hopkins University Read Grovogui's Postcolonial Criticism: International Reality and Modes of Inquiry (2002 book chapter) here (pdf) Read Grovogui's The Secret Lives of Sovereignty (2009 book chapter) here (pdf) Read Grovogui's Counterpoints and the Imaginaries Behind Them: Thinking Beyond North American and European Traditions (2009 contribution to International Political Sociology) here (pdf) Read Grovogui's Postcolonialism (2010 book chapter) here (pdf) Read Grovogui's Sovereignty in Africa: Quasi-statehood and Other Myths (2001 book chapter in a volume edited by Tim Shaw and Kevin Dunn) here (pdf)
Quantifying the genetic correlation between cancers can provide important insights into the mechanisms driving cancer etiology. Using genome-wide association study summary statistics across six cancer types based on a total of 296,215 cases and 301,319 controls of European ancestry, here we estimate the pair-wise genetic correlations between breast, colorectal, head/neck, lung, ovary and prostate cancer, and between cancers and 38 other diseases. We observed statistically significant genetic correlations between lung and head/neck cancer (rg = 0.57, p = 4.6 × 10-8), breast and ovarian cancer (rg = 0.24, p = 7 × 10-5), breast and lung cancer (rg = 0.18, p =1.5 × 10-6) and breast and colorectal cancer (rg = 0.15, p = 1.1 × 10-4). We also found that multiple cancers are genetically correlated with non-cancer traits including smoking, psychiatric diseases and metabolic characteristics. Functional enrichment analysis revealed a significant excess contribution of conserved and regulatory regions to cancer heritability. Our comprehensive analysis of cross-cancer heritability suggests that solid tumors arising across tissues share in part a common germline genetic basis. ; he authors in this manuscript were working on behalf of BCAC, CCFR, CIMBA, CORECT, GECCO, OCAC, PRACTICAL, CRUK, BPC3, CAPS, PEGASUS, TRICL- ILCCO, ABCTB, APCB, BCFR, CONSIT TEAM, EMBRACE, GC-HBOC, GEMO, HEBON, kConFab/AOCS Mod SQuaD, and SWE-BRCA. The breast cancer genome-wide association analyses: BCAC is funded by Cancer Research UK [C1287/A16563, C1287/ A10118], the European Union ' s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme (grant numbers 634935 and 633784 for BRIDGES and B-CAST, respectively), and by the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement number 223175 (grant number HEALTH-F2-2009-223175) (COGS). The EU Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme funding source had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report. Genotyping of the OncoArray was funded by the NIH Grant U19 CA148065, and Cancer UK Grant C1287/ A16563 and the PERSPECTIVE project supported by the Government of Canada through Genome Canada and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant GPH-129344) and, the Ministère de lÉconomie, Science et Innovation du Québec through Genome Québec and the PSR-SIIRI-701 grant, and the Quebec Breast Cancer Foundation. Funding for the iCOGS infrastructure came from: the European Community 's Seventh Framework.Programme under grant agreement n° 223175 (HEALTH-F2-2009-223175) (COGS), Cancer Research UK (C1287/A10118, C1287/A10710, C12292/A11174, C1281/A12014, C5047/A8384, C5047/A15007, C5047/A10692, C8197/A16565), the National Institutes of Health (CA128978), and Post-Cancer GWAS initiative (1U19 CA148537, 1U19 CA148065, and 1U19 CA148112 — the GAME-ON initiative), the Department of Defence (W81XWH-10-1-0341), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) for the CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer, and Komen Foundation for the Cure, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund. The DRIVE Consortium was funded by U19 CA148065. The Australian Breast Cancer Family Study (ABCFS) was supported by grant UM1 CA164920 from the National Cancer Institute (USA). The content of this manuscript does not necessarily re fl ect the views or policies of the National Cancer Institute or any of the collaborating centers in the Breast Cancer Family Registry (BCFR), nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the USA Government or the BCFR. The ABCFS was also supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the New South Wales Cancer Council, the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (Aus- tralia), and the Victorian Breast Cancer Research Consortium. J.L.H. is a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Senior Principal Research Fellow. M.C.S. is a NHMRC Senior Research Fellow. The ABCS study was supported by the Dutch Cancer Society [grants NKI 2007-3839; 2009 4363]. The Australian Breast Cancer Tissue Bank (ABCTB) is generously supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, The Cancer Institute NSW and the National Breast Cancer Foundation. The ACP study is funded by the Breast Cancer Research Trust, UK. The AHS study is supported by the intramural research program of the National Institutes of Health, the National Cancer Institute (grant number Z01-CP010119), and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (grant number Z01-ES049030). The work of the BBCC was partly funded by ELAN-Fond of the University Hospital of Erlangen. The BBCS is funded by Cancer Research UK and Breast Cancer Now and acknowledges NHS funding to the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, and the National Cancer Research Network (NCRN). The BCEES was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia and the Cancer Council Western Australia and acknowledges funding from the National Breast Cancer Foundation (JS). For the BCFR-NY, BCFR-PA, and BCFR-UT this work was supported by grant UM1 CA164920 from the National Cancer Institute. The content of this manuscript does not necessarily re fl ect the views or policies of the National Cancer Institute or any of the collaborating centers in the Breast Cancer Family Registry (BCFR), nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the US Government or the BCFR. For BIGGS, ES is supported by NIHR Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre, Guy ' s & St. Thomas ' NHS Foundation Trust in partnership with King ' s College London, United Kingdom. IT is supported by the Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. BOCS is supported by funds from Cancer Research UK (C8620/A8372/A15106) and the Institute of Cancer Research (UK). BOCS acknowledges NHS funding to the Royal Marsden/Institute of Cancer Research NIHR Specialist Cancer Biomedical Research Centre. The BREast Oncology GAlician Network (BREOGAN) is funded by Acción Estratégica de Salud del Instituto de Salud Carlos III FIS PI12/02125/Co fi nanciado FEDER; Acción Estratégica de Salud del Instituto de Salud Carlos III FIS Intrasalud (PI13/01136); Programa Grupos Emergentes, Cancer Genetics Unit, Instituto de Investigacion Biomedica Galicia Sur. Xerencia de Xestion Integrada de Vigo-SERGAS, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Spain; Grant 10CSA012E, Consellería de Industria Programa Sectorial de Investigación Aplicada, PEME I + DeI + D Suma del Plan Gallego de Investigación, Desarrollo e Innovación Tecnológica de la Consellería de Industria de la Xunta de Galicia, Spain; Grant EC11-192. Fomento de la Investigación Clínica Independiente, Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales e Igualdad, Spain; and Grant FEDER-Innterconecta. Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad, Xunta de Gali- cia, Spain. The BSUCH study was supported by the Dietmar-Hopp Foundation, the Helmholtz Society and the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ). The CAMA study was funded by Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACyT) (SALUD-2002- C01-7462). Sample collection and processing was funded in part by grants from the National Cancer Institute (NCI R01CA120120 and K24CA169004). CBCS is funded by the Canadian Cancer Society (grant # 313404) and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. CCGP is supported by funding from the University of Crete. The CECILE study was supported by Fondation de France, Institut National du Cancer (INCa), Ligue Nationale contre le Cancer, Agence Nationale de Sécurité Sanitaire, de l ' Alimentation, de l ' Environnement et du Travail (ANSES), Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR). The CGPS was supported by the Chief Physician Johan Boserup and Lise Boserup Fund, the Danish Medical Research Council, and Herlev and Gentofte Hospital. The CNIO-BCS was supported by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III, the Red Temática de Investigación Cooperativa en Cáncer and grants from the Asociación Española Contra el Cáncer and the Fondo de Investigación Sanitario (PI11/00923 and PI12/00070). COLBCCC is sup- ported by the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany. D.T. was in part supported by a postdoctoral fellowship from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. The American Cancer Society funds the creation, maintenance, and updating of the CPS-II cohort. The CTS was initially supported by the California Breast Cancer Act of 1993 and the California Breast Cancer Research Fund (contract 97-10500) and is currently funded through the National Institutes of Health (R01 CA77398, UM1 CA164917, and U01 CA199277). Collection of cancer incidence data was supported by the California Department of Public Health as part of the statewide cancer reporting program mandated by California Health and Safety Code Section 103885. H.A.C eceives support from the Lon V Smith Foundation (LVS39420). The University of Westminster curates the DietCompLyf database funded by Against Breast Cancer Registered Charit.No. 1121258 and the NCRN. The coordination of EPIC is fi nancially supported by the European Commission (DG-SANCO) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The national cohorts are supported by: Ligue Contre le Cancer, Institut Gustave Roussy, Mutuelle Générale de l ' Education Nationale, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM) (France); German Cancer Aid, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) (Germany); the Hellenic Health Foundation, the Stavros Niarchos Foundation (Greece); Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro-AIRC-Italy and National Research Council (Italy); Dutch Ministry of Public Health, Welfare and Sports (VWS), Netherlands Cancer Registry (NKR), LK Research Funds, Dutch Prevention Funds, Dutch ZON (Zorg Onderzoek Nederland), World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF), Statistics Netherlands (The Neth- erlands); Health Research Fund (FIS), PI13/00061 to Granada, PI13/01162 to EPIC- Murcia, Regional Governments of Andalucía, Asturias, Basque Country, Murcia and Navarra, ISCIII RETIC (RD06/0020) (Spain); Cancer Research UK (14136 to EPIC- Norfolk; C570/A16491 and C8221/A19170 to EPIC-Oxford), Medical Research Council (1000143 to EPIC-Norfolk, MR/M012190/1 to EPIC-Oxford) (United Kingdom). The ESTHER study was supported by a grant from the Baden Württemberg Ministry of Science, Research and Arts. Additional cases were recruited in the context of the VERDI study, which was supported by a grant from the German Cancer Aid (Deutsche Kreb- shilfe). FHRISK is funded from NIHR grant PGfAR 0707-10031. The GC-HBOC (Ger- man Consortium of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer) is supported by the German Cancer Aid (grant no 110837, coordinator: Rita K. Schmutzler, Cologne). This work was also funded by the European Regional Development Fund and Free State of Saxony, Germany (LIFE - Leipzig Research Centre for Civilization Diseases, project numbers 713- 241202, 713-241202, 14505/2470, and 14575/2470). The GENICA was funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) Germany grants 01KW9975/5, 01KW9976/8, 01KW9977/0, and 01KW0114, the Robert Bosch Foundation, Stuttgart, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum (DKFZ), Heidelberg, the Institute for Prevention and Occupational Medicine of the German Social Accident Insurance, Institute of the Ruhr University Bochum (IPA), Bochum, as well as the Department of Internal Medicine, Evangelische Kliniken Bonn gGmbH, Johanniter Krankenhaus, Bonn, Germany. The GEPARSIXTO study was conducted by the German Breast Group GmbH. The GESBC was supported by the Deutsche Krebshilfe e. V. [70492] and the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ). GLACIER was supported by Breast Cancer Now, CRUK and Biomedical Research Centre at Guy ' s and St Thomas ' NHS Foundation Trust and King ' s College London. The HABCS study was supported by the Claudia von Schilling Foundation for Breast Cancer Research, by the Lower Saxonian Cancer Society, and by the Rudolf- Bartling Foundation. The HEBCS was fi nancially supported by the Helsinki University Central Hospital Research Fund, Academy of Finland (266528), the Finnish Cancer Society, and the Sigrid Juselius Foundation. The HERPACC was supported by MEXT Kakenhi (No. 170150181 and 26253041) from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports, Culture and Technology of Japan, by a Grant-in-Aid for the Third Term Comprehensive 10-Year Strategy for Cancer Control from Ministry Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan, by Health and Labour Sciences Research Grants for Research on Applying Health Technology from Ministry Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan, by National Cancer Center Research and Development Fund, and " Practical Research for Innovative Cancer Control (15ck0106177h0001) " from Japan Agency for Medical Research and develop- ment, AMED, and Cancer Bio Bank Aichi. The HMBCS was supported by a grant from the Friends of Hannover Medical School and by the Rudolf Bartling Foundation. The HUBCS was supported by a grant from the German Federal Ministry of Research and Education (RUS08/017), and by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research and the Federal Agency for Scienti fi c Organizations for support the Bioresource collections and RFBR grants 14-04-97088, 17-29-06014, and 17-44-020498. ICICLE was supported by Breast Cancer Now, CRUK, and Biomedical Research Centre at Guy ' s and St Thomas ' NHS Foundation Trust and King ' s College London. Financial support for KARBAC was provided through the regional agreement on medical training and clinical research (A.L. F.) between Stockholm County Council and Karolinska Institutet, the Swedish Cancer Society, The Gustav V Jubilee foundation and Bert von Kantzows foundation. The KARMA study was supported by Märit and Hans Rausings Initiative Against Breast Cancer. The KBCP was fi nancially supported by the special Government Funding (E.V. O.) of Kuopio University Hospital grants, Cancer Fund of North Savo, the Finnish Cancer Organizations, and by the strategic funding of the University of Eastern Finland. kConFab is supported by a grant from the National Breast Cancer Foundation, and previously by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), the Queensland Cancer Fund, the Cancer Councils of New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia, and the Cancer Foundation of Western Australia. Financial support for the AOCS was provided by the United States Army Medical Research and Materiel Command [DAMD17-01-1-0729], Cancer Council Victoria, Queensland Cancer Fund, Cancer Council New South Wales, Cancer Council South Australia, The Cancer Foundation of Western Australia, Cancer Council Tasmania and the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (NHMRC; 400413, 400281, 199600). G.C.-T. and P.W. are supported by the NHMRC. RB was a Cancer Institute NSW Clinical Research Fellow. The KOHBRA study was partially supported by a grant from the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI), and the National R&D Program for Cancer Control, Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (HI16C1127; 1020350; 1420190). LAABC is supported by grants (1RB-0287, 3PB- 0102, 5PB-0018, 10PB-0098) from the California Breast Cancer Research Program. Incident breast cancer cases were collected by the USC Cancer Surveillance Program (CSP) which is supported under subcontract by the California Department of Health. TheCSP is also part of the National Cancer Institute ' s Division of Cancer Prevention and Control Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program, under contract number N01CN25403. L.M.B.C. is supported by the ' Stichting tegen Kanker ' . D.L. is supported by the FWO. The MABCS study is funded by the Research Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology " Georgi D. Efremov " and supported by the German Academic Exchange Program, DAAD. The MARIE study was supported by the Deutsche Krebshilfe e.V. [70-2892-BR I, 106332, 108253, 108419, 110826, 110828], the Hamburg Cancer Society, the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and the Federal Ministry of Edu- cation and Research (BMBF) Germany [01KH0402]. MBCSG is supported by grants from the Italian Association for Cancer Research (AIRC) and by funds from the Italian citizens who allocated the 5/1000 share of their tax payment in support of the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, according to Italian laws (INT-Institutional strategic projects " 5 × 1000 " ). The MCBCS was supported by the NIH grants CA192393, CA116167, CA176785 an NIH Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE) in Breast Cancer [CA116201], and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation and a generous gift from the David F. and Margaret T. Grohne Family Foundation. MCCS cohort recruitment was funded by VicHealth and Cancer Council Victoria. The MCCS was further supported by Australian NHMRC grants 209057 and 396414, and by infrastructure provided by Cancer Council Victoria. Cases and their vital status were ascertained through the Victorian Cancer Registry (VCR) and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW), including the National Death Index and the Australian Cancer Database. The MEC was support by NIH grants CA63464, CA54281, CA098758, CA132839, and CA164973. The MISS study is supported by funding from ERC-2011-294576 Advanced grant, Swedish Cancer Society, Swedish Research Council, Local hospital funds, Berta Kamprad Foun- dation, Gunnar Nilsson. The MMHS study was supported by NIH grants CA97396, CA128931, CA116201, CA140286, and CA177150. MSKCC is supported by grants from the Breast Cancer Research Foundation and Robert and Kate Niehaus Clinical Cancer Genetics Initiative. The work of MTLGEBCS was supported by the Quebec Breast Cancer Foundation, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research for the " CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer " program – grant # CRN-87521 and the Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade – grant # PSR-SIIRI-701. MYBRCA is funded by research grants from the Malaysian Ministry of Higher Education (UM.C/HlR/MOHE/ 06) and Cancer Research Malaysia. MYMAMMO is supported by research grants from Yayasan Sime Darby LPGA Tournament and Malaysian Ministry of Higher Education (RP046B-15HTM). The NBCS has been supported by the Research Council of Norway grant 193387/V50 (to A.-L. Børresen-Dale and V.N. Kristensen) and grant 193387/H10 (to A.-L. Børresen-Dale and V.N. Kristensen), South Eastern Norway Health Authority (grant 39346 to A.-L. Børresen-Dale and 27208 to V.N. Kristensen) and the Norwegian Cancer Society (to A.-L. Børresen-Dale and 419616 - 71248 - PR-2006-0282 to V.N. Kristensen). It has received funding from the K.G. Jebsen Centre for Breast Cancer Research (2012-2015). The NBHS was supported by NIH grant R01CA100374. Biological sample preparation was conducted the Survey and Biospecimen Shared Resource, which is supported by P30 CA68485. The Northern California Breast Cancer Family Registry (NC- BCFR) and Ontario Familial Breast Cancer Registry (OFBCR) were supported by grant UM1 CA164920 from the National Cancer Institute (USA). The content of this manu- script does not necessarily re fl ect the views or policies of the National Cancer Institute or any of the collaborating centers in the Breast Cancer Family Registry (BCFR), nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the USA Government or the BCFR. The Carolina Breast Cancer Study was funded by Komen Foundation, the National Cancer Institute (P50 CA058223, U54 CA156733, and U01 CA179715), and the North Carolina University Cancer Research Fund. The NGOBCS was supported by Grants-in-Aid for the Third Term Comprehensive Ten-Year Strategy for Cancer Control from the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare of Japan, and for Scienti fi c Research on Priority Areas, 17015049 and for Scienti fi c Research on Innovative Areas, 221S0001, from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan. The NHS was supported by NIH grants P01 CA87969, UM1 CA186107, and U19 CA148065. The NHS2 was supported by NIH grants UM1 CA176726 and U19 CA148065. The OBCS was supported by research grants from the Finnish Cancer Foundation, the Academy of Finland (grant number 250083, 122715 and Center of Excellence grant number 251314), the Finnish Cancer Foundation, the Sigrid Juselius Foundation, the University of Oulu, the University of Oulu Support Foundation, and the special Governmental EVO funds for Oulu University Hospital-based research activities. The ORIGO study was supported by the Dutch Cancer Society (RUL 1997- 1505) and the Biobanking and Biomolecular Resources Research Infrastructure (BBMRI- NL CP16). The PBCS was funded by Intramural Research Funds of the National Cancer Institute, Department of Health and Human Services, USA. Genotyping for PLCO was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health, NCI, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics. The PLCO is supported by the Intramural Research Program of the Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics and supported by contracts from the Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health. The POSH study is funded by Cancer Research UK (grants C1275/ A11699, C1275/C22524, C1275/A19187, C1275/A15956, and Breast Cancer Campaign 2010PR62, 2013PR044. PROCAS is funded from NIHR grant PGfAR 0707-10031. The RBCS was funded by the Dutch Cancer Society (DDHK 2004-3124, DDHK 2009-4318). The SASBAC study was supported by funding from the Agency for Science, Technology and Research of Singapore (A*STAR), the US National Institute of Health (NIH) and the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation. The SBCGS was supported primarily by NIH grants R01CA64277, R01CA148667, UMCA182910, and R37CA70867. Biological sample preparation was conducted the Survey and Biospecimen Shared Resource, which is supported by P30 CA68485. The scienti fi c development and funding of this project were, in part, supported by the Genetic Associations and Mechanisms in Oncology (GAME- ON) Network U19 CA148065. The SBCS was supported by Shef fi eld Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre and Breast Cancer Now Tissue Bank. The SCCS is supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health (R01 CA092447). Data on SCCS cancer cases used in this publication were provided by the Alabama Statewide Cancer Registry; Kentucky Cancer Registry, Lexington, KY; Tennessee Department of Health, Of fi ce of Cancer Surveillance; Florida Cancer Data System; North Carolina Central Cancer Registry, North Carolina Division of Public Health; Georgia Comprehensive Cancer Registry; Louisiana Tumor Registry; Mississippi Cancer Registry; South Carolina Central Cancer Registry; Virginia Department of Health, Virginia Cancer Registry; Arkansas Department of Health, Cancer Registry, 4815 W. Markham, Little Rock, AR 72205. The Arkansas Central Cancer Registry is fully funded by a grant from National Program of Cancer Registries, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Data on SCCS cancer cases from Mississippi were collected by the Mississippi Cancer Registry which participates in the National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The contents of this publication are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the of fi cial views of the CDC or the Mississippi Cancer Registry. SEARCH is funded by Cancer Research UK [C490/A10124, C490/ A16561] and supported by the UK National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre at the University of Cambridge. The University of Cambridge has received salary support for PDPP from the NHS in the East of England through the Clinical Academic Reserve. SEBCS was supported by the BRL (Basic Research Laboratory) program through the National Research Foundation of Korea funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (2012-0000347). SGBCC is funded by the NUS start- up Grant, National University Cancer Institute Singapore (NCIS) Centre Grant and the NMRC Clinician Scientist Award. Additional controls were recruited by the Singapore Consortium of Cohort Studies-Multi-ethnic cohort (SCCS-MEC), which was funded by the Biomedical Research Council, grant number: 05/1/21/19/425. The Sister Study (SIS- TER) is supported by the Intramural Research Program of the NIH, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (Z01-ES044005 and Z01-ES049033). The Two Sister Study (2SISTER) was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the NIH, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (Z01-ES044005 and Z01-ES102245), and, also by a grant from Susan G. Komen for the Cure, grant FAS0703856. SKKDKFZS is supported by the DKFZ. The SMC is funded by the Swedish Cancer Foundation. The SZBCS was supported by Grant PBZ_KBN_122/P05/2004. The TBCS was funded by The National Cancer Institute, Thailand. The TNBCC was supported by a Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE) in Breast Cancer (CA116201), a grant from the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, a generous gift from the David F. and Margaret T. Grohne Family Foundation. The TWBCS is supported by the Taiwan Biobank project of the Institute of Biomedical Sciences, Academia Sinica, Taiwan. The UCIBCS component of this research was supported by the NIH [CA58860, CA92044] and the Lon V Smith Foundation [LVS39420]. The UKBGS is funded by Breast Cancer Now and the Institute of Cancer Research (ICR), London. ICR acknowledges NHS funding to the NIHR Bio- medical Research Centre. The UKOPS study was funded by The Eve Appeal (The Oak Foundation) and supported by the National Institute for Health Research University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre. The US3SS study was supported by Massachusetts (K.M.E., R01CA47305), Wisconsin (P.A.N., R01 CA47147) and New Hampshire (L.T.-E., R01CA69664) centers, and Intramural Research Funds of the National Cancer Institute, Department of Health and Human Services, USA. The USRT Study was funded by Intramural Research Funds of the National Cancer Institute, Department of Health and Human Services, USA. The WAABCS study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health (R01 CA89085 and P50 CA125183 and the D43 TW009112 grant), Susan G. Komen (SAC110026), the Dr. Ralph and Marian Falk Medical Research Trust, and the Avon Foundation for Women. The WHI program is funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the US National Institutes of Health and the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHSN268201100046C, HHSN268201100001C, HHSN268201100002C, HHSN268201100003C, HHSN268201100004C, and HHSN271201100004C). This work was also funded by NCI U19 CA148065-01. D.G.E. is supported by the all Manchester NIHR Biomedical research center Manchester (IS-BRC- 1215-20007). HUNBOCS, Hungarian Breast and Ovarian Cancer Study was supported by Hungarian Research Grant KTIA-OTKA CK-80745, NKFI_OTKA K-112228. C.I. received support from the Nontherapeutic Subject Registry Shared Resource at George- town University (NIH/NCI P30-CA-51008) and the Jess and Mildred Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research. K.M. is supported by CRUK C18281/ A19169. City of Hope Clinical Cancer Community Research Network and the Hereditary Cancer Research Registry, supported in part by Award Number RC4CA153828 (PI: J Weitzel) from the National Cancer Institute and the of fi ce of the Directory, National Institutes of Health. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the of fi cial views of the National Institutes of Health. The colorectal cancer genome-wide association analyses: Colorectal Transdisciplinary Study (CORECT): The content of this manuscript does not necessarily re fl ect the views or policies of the National Cancer Institute or any of the collaborating centers in the CORECT Consortium, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products or organizations imply endor- sement by the US Government or the CORECT Consortium. We are incredibly grateful for the contributions of Dr. Brian Henderson and Dr. Roger Green over the course of this study and acknowledge them in memoriam. We are also grateful for support from Daniel and Maryann Fong. ColoCare: we thank the many investigators and staff who made thisHHSN268201600001C, HHSN268201600002C, HHSN268201600003C, and HHSN26 8201600004C. The head and neck cancer genome-wide association analyses: The study was supported by NIH/NCI: P50 CA097190, and P30 CA047904, Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute (no. 020214) and Cancer Care Ontario Research Chair to R.H. The Princess Margaret Hospital Head and Neck Cancer Translational Research Program is funded by the Wharton family, Joe ' s Team, Gordon Tozer, Bruce Galloway and the Elia family. Geoffrey Liu was supported by the Posluns Family Fund and the Lusi Wong Family Fund at the Princess Margaret Foundation, and the Alan B. Brown Chair in Molecular Genomics. This publication presents data from Head and Neck 5000 (H&N5000). H&N5000 was a component of independent research funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research scheme (RP-PG-0707-10034). The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. Human papillomavirus (HPV) in H&N5000 serology was supported by a Cancer Research UK Programme Grant, the Integrative Cancer Epidemiology Programme (grant number: C18281/A19169). National Cancer Institute (R01-CA90731); National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (P30ES10126). The authors thank all the members of the GENCAPO team/The Head and Neck Genome Project (GENCAPO) was supported by the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) (Grant numbers 04/12054-9 and 10/51168-0). CPS-II recruitment and maintenance is supported with intramural research funding from the American Cancer Society. Genotyping per- formed at the Center for Inherited Disease Research (CIDR) was funded through the U.S. National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR) grant 1 × 01HG007780- 0. The University of Pittsburgh head and neck cancer case-control study is supported by National Institutes of Health grants P50 CA097190 and P30 CA047904. The Carolina Head and Neck Cancer Study (CHANCE) was supported by the National Cancer Institute (R01-CA90731). The Head and Neck Genome Project (GENCAPO) was supported by the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) (Grant numbers 04/ 12054-9 and 10/51168-0). The authors thank all the members of the GENCAPO team. The HN5000 study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research scheme (RP-PG-0707-10034), the views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. The Toronto study was funded by the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute (020214) and the National Cancer Institute (U19-CA148127) and the Cancer Care Ontario Research Chair. The alcohol-related cancers and genetic susceptibility study in Europe (ARCAGE) was funded by the Eur- opean Commission ' s 5th Framework Program (QLK1-2001-00182), the Italian Associa- tion for Cancer Research, Compagnia di San Paolo/FIRMS, Region Piemonte, and Padova University (CPDA057222). The Rome Study was supported by the Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro (AIRC) IG 2011 10491 and IG2013 14220 to S.B., and Fon- dazione Veronesi to S.B. The IARC Latin American study was funded by the European Commission INCO-DC programme (IC18-CT97-0222), with additional funding from Fondo para la Investigacion Cienti fi ca y Tecnologica (Argentina) and the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (01/01768-2). We thank Leticia Fernandez, Instituto Nacional de Oncologia y Radiobiologia, La Habana, Cuba and Sergio and Rosalina Koifman, for their efforts with the IARC Latin America study São Paulo center. The IARC Central Europe study was supported by European Commission ' s INCO- COPERNICUS Program (IC15- CT98-0332), NIH/National Cancer Institute grant CA92039, and the World Cancer Research Foundation grant WCRF 99A28. The IARC Oral Cancer Multicenter study was funded by grant S06 96 202489 05F02 from Europe against Cancer; grants FIS 97/0024, FIS 97/0662, and BAE 01/5013 from Fondo de Investigaciones Sanitarias, Spain; the UICC Yamagiwa-Yoshida Memorial International Cancer Study; the National Cancer Institute of Canada; Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro; and the Pan-American Health Organization. Coordination of the EPIC study is fi nancially supported by the European Commission (DG-SANCO) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The lung cancer genome-wide association analyses: Transdisciplinary Research for Cancer in Lung (TRICL) of the International Lung Cancer Consortium (ILCCO) was supported by (U19-CA148127, CA148127S1, U19CA203654, and Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas RR170048). The ILCCO data harmonization is supported by Cancer Care Ontario Research Chair of Population Studies to R. H. and Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System. The TRICL-ILCCO OncoArray was supported by in-kind genotyping by the Centre for Inherited Disease Research (26820120008i-0-26800068-1). The CAPUA study was supported by FIS-FEDER/Spain grant numbers FIS-01/310, FIS-PI03-0365, and FIS- 07-BI060604, FICYT/Asturias grant numbers FICYT PB02-67 and FICYT IB09-133, and the University Institute of Oncology (IUOPA), of the University of Oviedo and the Ciber de Epidemiologia y Salud Pública. CIBERESP, SPAIN. The work performed in the CARET study was supported by the National Institute of Health/National Cancer Insti- tute: UM1 CA167462 (PI: Goodman), National Institute of Health UO1-CA6367307 (PIs Omen, Goodman); National Institute of Health R01 CA111703 (PI Chen), National Institute of Health 5R01 CA151989-01A1(PI Doherty). The Liverpool Lung project is supported by the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation. The Harvard Lung Cancer Study was supported by the NIH (National Cancer Institute) grants CA092824, CA090578, CA074386. The Multi-ethnic Cohort Study was partially supported by NIH Grants CA164973, CA033619, CA63464, and CA148127. The work performed in MSH-PMH study was supported by The Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute (020214), Ontario Institute of Cancer and Cancer Care Ontario Chair Award to R.J.H. and G.L. and the Alan Brown Chair and Lusi Wong Programs at the Princess Margaret Hospital Foundation. NJLCS was funded by the State Key Program of National Natural Science ofChina (81230067), the National Key Basic Research Program Grant (2011CB503805), the Major Program of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81390543). The Norway study was supported by Norwegian Cancer Society, Norwegian Research Council. The Shanghai Cohort Study (SCS) was supported by National Institutes of Health R01 CA144034 (PI: Yuan) and UM1 CA182876 (PI: Yuan). The Singapore Chinese Health Study (SCHS) was supported by National Institutes of Health R01 CA144034 (PI: Yuan) and UM1 CA182876 (PI: Yuan). The work in TLC study has been supported in part the James & Esther King Biomedical Research Program (09KN-15), National Institutes of Health Specialized Programs of Research Excellence (SPORE) Grant (P50 CA119997), and by a Cancer Center Support Grant (CCSG) at the H. Lee Mof fi tt Cancer Center and Research Institute, an NCI designated Comprehensive Cancer Center (grant number P30- CA76292). The Vanderbilt Lung Cancer Study — BioVU dataset used for the analyses described was obtained from Vanderbilt University Medical Center ' s BioVU, which is supported by institutional funding, the 1S10RR025141-01 instrumentation award, and by the Vanderbilt CTSA grant UL1TR000445 from NCATS/NIH. Dr. Aldrich was supported by NIH/National Cancer Institute K07CA172294 (PI: Aldrich) and Dr. Bush was sup- ported by NHGRI/NIH U01HG004798 (PI: Crawford). The Copenhagen General Population Study (CGPS) was supported by the Chief Physician Johan Boserup and Lise Boserup Fund, the Danish Medical Research Council and Herlev Hospital. The NELCS study: Grant Number P20RR018787 from the National Center for Research Resources (NCRR), a component of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The Kentucky Lung Cancer Research Initiative was supported by the Department of Defense [Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program, U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Com- mand Program] under award number: 10153006 (W81XWH-11-1-0781). Views and opinions of, and endorsements by the author(s) do not re fl ect those of the US Army or the Department of Defense. This research was also supported by unrestricted infrastructure funds from the UK Center for Clinical and Translational Science, NIH grant UL1TR000117 and Markey Cancer Center NCI Cancer Center Support Grant (P30 CA177558) Shared Resource Facilities: Cancer Research Informatics, Biospecimen and Tissue Procurement, and Biostatistics and Bioinformatics. The M.D. Anderson Cancer Center study was supported in part by grants from the NIH (P50 CA070907, R01 CA176568) (to X.W.), Cancer Prevention & Research Institute of Texas (RP130502) (to X. W.), and The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center institutional support for the Center for Translational and Public Health Genomics. The deCODE study of smoking and nicotine dependence was funded in part by a grant from NIDA (R01- DA017932). The study in Lodz center was partially funded by Nofer Institute of Occupational Med- icine, under task NIOM 10.13: Predictors of mortality from non-small cell lung cancer — fi eld study. Genetic sharing analysis was funded by NIH grant CA194393. The research undertaken by M.D.T., L.V.W., and M.S.A. was partly funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. M.D.T. holds a Medical Research Council Senior Clinical Fellowship (G0902313). The work to assemble the FTND GWAS meta-analysis was supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) grant number R01 DA035825 (Prin- cipal Investigator [PI]: DBH). The study populations included COGEND (dbGaP phs000092.v1.p1 and phs000404.v1.p1), COPDGene (dbGaP phs000179.v3.p2), deCODE Genetics, EAGLE (dbGaP phs000093.vs.p2), and SAGE. dbGaP phs000092.v1.p1). See Hancock et al. Transl Psychiatry 2015 (PMCID: PMC4930126) for the full listing of funding sources and other acknowledgments. The Resource for the Study of Lung Cancer Epidemiology in North Trent (ReSoLuCENT)study was funded by the Shef fi eld Hospitals Charity, Shef fi eld Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre and Weston Park Hospital Cancer Charity. The ovarian cancer genome-wide association analysis: The Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium (OCAC) is supported by a grant from the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund thanks to donations by the family and friends of Kathryn Sladek Smith (PPD/RPCI.07). The scienti fi c development and funding for this project were in part supported by the US National Cancer Institute GAME-ON Post-GWAS Initiative (U19-CA148112). This study made use of data generated by the Wellcome Trust Case Control consortium that was funded by the Wellcome Trust under award 076113. The results published here are in part based upon data generated by The Cancer Genome Atlas Pilot Project established by the National Cancer Institute and National Human Genome Research Institute (dbGap accession number phs000178.v8.p7). The OCAC OncoArray genotyping project was funded through grants from the U.S. National Institutes of Health (CA1X01HG007491-01 (C.I.A.), U19-CA148112 (T.A.S.), R01-CA149429 (C.M.P.), and R01-CA058598 (M.T.G.); Canadian Institutes of Health Research (MOP-86727 (L.E.K.) and the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund (A.B.). The COGS project was funded through a European Commission ' s Seventh Framework Programme grant (agreement number 223175 - HEALTH-F2-2009-223175) and through a grant from the U.S. National Insti- tutes of Health (R01-CA122443 (E.L.G)). Funding for individual studies: AAS: National Institutes of Health (RO1-CA142081); AOV: The Canadian Institutes for Health Research (MOP-86727); AUS: The Australian Ovarian Cancer Study Group was supported by the U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command (DAMD17-01-1-0729), National Health & Medical Research Council of Australia (199600, 400413 and 400281), Cancer Councils of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Tas- mania and Cancer Foundation of Western Australia (Multi-State Applications 191, 211, and 182). The Australian Ovarian Cancer Study gratefully acknowledges additional support from Ovarian Cancer Australia and the Peter MacCallum Foundation; BAV: ELAN Funds of the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg; BEL: National Kankerplan; BGS: Breast Cancer Now, Institute of Cancer Research; BVU: Vanderbilt CTSA grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH)/National Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNCATS) (ULTR000445); CAM: National Institutes of Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre and Cancer Research UK Cambridge Cancer Centre; CHA: Innovative Research Team in University (PCSIRT) in China (IRT1076); CNI: Instituto de Salud Carlos III (PI12/01319); Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (SAF2012); COE: Department of Defense (W81XWH-11-2-0131); CON: National Institutes of Health (R01-CA063678, R01-CA074850; and R01-CA080742); DKE: Ovarian Cancer Research Fund; DOV: National Institutes of Health R01-CA112523 and R01-CA87538; EMC: Dutch Cancer Society (EMC 2014-6699); EPC: The coordination of EPIC is fi nancially supported by the European Commission (DG-SANCO) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The national cohorts are supported by Danish Cancer Society (Denmark); Ligue Contre le Cancer, Institut Gustave Roussy, Mutuelle Générale de l ' Education Nationale, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM) (France); German Cancer Aid, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) (Germany); the Hellenic Health Foundation (Greece); Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro-AIRC-Italy and National Research Council (Italy); Dutch Ministry of Public Health, Welfare and Sports (VWS), Netherlands Cancer Registry (NKR), LK Research Funds, Dutch Prevention Funds, Dutch ZON (Zorg Onderzoek Nederland), World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF), Statistics Netherlands (The Netherlands); ERC-2009-AdG 232997 and Nordforsk, Nordic Centre of Excellence programme on Food, Nutrition and Health (Norway); Health Research Fund (FIS), PI13/00061 to Granada, PI13/01162 to EPIC-Murcia, Regional Governments of Andalucía, Asturias, Basque Country, Murcia and Navarra, ISCIII RETIC (RD06/0020) (Spain); Swedish Cancer Society, Swedish Research Council and County Councils of Skåne and Västerbotten (Sweden); Cancer Research UK (14136 to EPIC- Norfolk; C570/A16491 and C8221/A19170 to EPIC-Oxford), Medical Research Council (1000143 to EPIC-Norfolk, MR/M012190/1 to EPIC-Oxford) (United Kingdom); GER: German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Programme of Clinical Biomedical Research (01 GB 9401) and the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ); GRC: This research has been co- fi nanced by the European Union (European Social Fund — ESF) and Greek national funds through the Operational Program " Education and Lifelong Learn- ing " of the National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) — Research Funding Program of the General Secretariat for Research & Technology: SYN11_10_19 NBCA. Investing in knowledge society through the European Social Fund; GRR: Roswell Park Cancer Institute Alliance Foundation, P30 CA016056; HAW: U.S. National Institutes of Health (R01- CA58598, N01-CN-55424, and N01-PC-67001); HJO: Intramural funding; Rudolf- Bartling Foundation; HMO: Intramural funding; Rudolf-Bartling Foundation; HOC: Helsinki University Research Fund; HOP: Department of Defense (DAMD17-02-1-0669) and NCI (K07-CA080668, R01-CA95023, P50-CA159981 MO1-RR000056 R01- CA126841); HUO: Intramural funding; Rudolf-Bartling Foundation; JGO: JSPS KAKENHI grant; JPN: Grant-in-Aid for the Third Term Comprehensive 10-Year Strategy for Cancer Control from the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare; KRA: This study (Ko-EVE) was supported by a grant from the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI), and the National R&D Program for Cancer Control, Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (HI16C1127; 0920010); LAX: American Cancer Society Early Detection Professorship (SIOP-06-258-01-COUN) and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), Grant UL1TR000124; LUN: ERC-2011-AdG 294576-risk factors cancer, Swedish Cancer Society, Swedish Research Council, Beta Kamprad Foundation; MAC: National Institutes of Health (R01-CA122443, P30-CA15083, P50-CA136393); Mayo Foundation; Minnesota Ovarian Cancer Alliance; Fred C. and Katherine B. Andersen Foundation; Fraternal Order of Eagles; MAL: Funding for this study was provided by research grant R01- CA61107 from the National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, research grant 94 222 52 from the Danish Cancer Society, Copenhagen, Denmark; and the Mer- maid I project; MAS: Malaysian Ministry of Higher Education (UM.C/HlR/MOHE/06) and Cancer Research Initiatives Foundation; MAY: National Institutes of Health (R01- CA122443, P30-CA15083, and P50-CA136393); Mayo Foundation; Minnesota Ovarian Cancer Alliance; Fred C. and Katherine B. Andersen Foundation; MCC: Cancer Council Victoria, National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (NHMRC) grants number 209057, 251533, 396414, and 504715; MDA: DOD Ovarian Cancer Research Program (W81XWH-07-0449); MEC: NIH (CA54281, CA164973, CA63464); MOF: Mof fi tt Cancer Center, Merck Pharmaceuticals, the state of Florida, Hillsborough County, and the city of Tampa; NCO: National Institutes of Health (R01-CA76016) and the Department of Defense (DAMD17-02-1-0666); NEC: National Institutes of Health R01- CA54419 and P50-CA105009 and Department of Defense W81XWH-10-1-02802; NHS: UM1 CA186107, P01 CA87969, R01 CA49449, R01-CA67262, UM1 CA176726; NJO: National Cancer Institute (NIH-K07 CA095666, R01-CA83918, NIH-K22-CA138563, and P30-CA072720) and the Cancer Institute of New Jersey; If Sara Olson and/or Irene Orlow is a co-author, please add NCI CCSG award (P30-CA008748) to the funding sources; NOR: Helse Vest, The Norwegian Cancer Society, The Research Council of Norway; NTH: Radboud University Medical Centre; OPL: National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia (APP1025142) and Brisbane Women ' s Club; ORE: OHSU Foundation; OVA: This work was supported by Canadian Institutes of Health Research grant (MOP-86727) and by NIH/NCI 1 R01CA160669-01A1; PLC: Intramural Research Program of the National Cancer Institute; POC: Pomeranian Medical Uni- versity; POL: Intramural Research Program of the National Cancer Institute; PVD: Canadian Cancer Society and Cancer Research Society GRePEC Program; RBH: National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia; RMH: Cancer Research UK, Royal Marsden Hospital; RPC: National Institute of Health (P50-CA159981, R01-CA126841); SEA: Cancer Research UK (C490/A10119 C490/A10124); UK National Institute forHealth Research Biomedical Research Centres at the University of Cambridge; SIS: NIH, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Z01-ES044005 and Z01-ES049033; SMC: The bbSwedish Research Council-SIMPLER infrastructure; the Swedish Cancer Foundation; SON: National Health Research and Development Program, Health Canada, grant 6613-1415-53; SRO: Cancer Research UK (C536/A13086, C536/A6689) and Imperial Experimental Cancer Research Centre (C1312/A15589); STA: NIH grants U01 CA71966 and U01 CA69417; SWE: Swedish Cancer foundation, WeCanCureCancer and VårKampMotCancer foundation; SWH: NIH (NCI) grant R37-CA070867; TBO: National Institutes of Health (R01-CA106414-A2), American Cancer Society (CRTG-00-196-01- CCE), Department of Defense (DAMD17-98-1-8659), Celma Mastery Ovarian Cancer Foundation; TOR: NIH grants R01-CA063678 and R01 CA063682; UCI: NIH R01- CA058860 and the Lon V Smith Foundation grant LVS39420; UHN: Princess Margaret Cancer Centre Foundation-Bridge for the Cure; UKO: The UKOPS study was funded by The Eve Appeal (The Oak Foundation) and supported by the National Institute for Health Research University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre; UKR: Cancer Research UK (C490/A6187), UK National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centres at the University of Cambridge; USC: P01CA17054, P30CA14089, R01CA61132, N01PC67010, R03CA113148, R03CA115195, N01CN025403, and Cali- fornia Cancer Research Program (00-01389V-20170, 2II0200); VAN: BC Cancer Foun- dation, VGH & UBC Hospital Foundation; VTL: NIH K05-CA154337; WMH: National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Enabling Grants ID 310670 & ID 628903. Cancer Institute NSW Grants 12/RIG/1-17 & 15/RIG/1-16; WOC: National Science Centren (N N301 5645 40). The Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland. The University of Cambridge has received salary support for PDPP from the NHS in the East of England through the Clinical Academia Reserve. The prostate cancer genome-wide association analyses: we pay tribute to Brian Henderson, who was a driving force behind the OncoArray project, for his vision and leadership, and who sadly passed away before seeing its fruition. We also thank the individuals who participated in these studies enabling this work. The ELLIPSE/ PRACTICAL (http//:practical.icr.ac.uk) prostate cancer consortium and his collaborating partners were supported by multiple funding mechanisms enabling this current work. ELLIPSE/PRACTICAL Genotyping of the OncoArray was funded by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) (U19 CA148537 for ELucidating Loci Involved in Prostate Cancer SuscEptibility (ELLIPSE) project and X01HG007492 to the Center for Inherited Disease Research (CIDR) under contract number HHSN268201200008I). Additional analytical support was provided by NIH NCI U01 CA188392 (F.R.S.). Funding for the iCOGS infrastructure came from the European Community ' s Seventh Framework Pro- gramme under grant agreement n° 223175 (HEALTH-F2-2009-223175) (COGS), Cancer Research UK (C1287/A10118, C1287/A 10710, C12292/A11174, C1281/A12014, C5047/ A8384, C5047/A15007, C5047/A10692, and C8197/A16565), the National Institutes of Health (CA128978) and Post-Cancer GWAS initiative (1U19 CA148537, 1U19 CA148065, and 1U19 CA148112; the GAME-ON initiative), the Department of Defense (W81XWH-10-1-0341), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) for the CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer, Komen Foundation for the Cure, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund. This work was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, European Commission ' s Seventh Framework Programme grant agreement n° 223175 (HEALTH-F2-2009-223175), Cancer Research UK Grants C5047/A7357, C1287/A10118, C1287/A16563, C5047/ A3354, C5047/A10692, C16913/A6135, C5047/A21332 and The National Institute of Health (NIH) Cancer Post-Cancer GWAS initiative grant: No. 1 U19 CA148537-01 (the GAME-ON initiative). We also thank the following for funding support: The Institute of Cancer Research and The Everyman Campaign, The Prostate Cancer Research Founda- tion, Prostate Research Campaign UK (now Prostate Action), The Orchid Cancer Appeal, The National Cancer Research Network UK, and The National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) UK. We are grateful for support of NIHR funding to the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. The Prostate Cancer Program of Cancer Council Victoria also acknowledge grant support from The National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia (126402, 209057, 251533, 396414, 450104, 504700, 504702, 504715, 623204, 940394, and 614296), VicHealth, Cancer Council Victoria, The Prostate Cancer Foun- dation of Australia, The Whitten Foundation, PricewaterhouseCoopers, and Tattersall ' s. E.A.O., D.M.K., and E.M.K. acknowledge the Intramural Program of the National Human Genome Research Institute for their support. The BPC3 was supported by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute (cooperative agreements U01- CA98233 to D.J.H., U01-CA98710 to S.M.G., U01-CA98216 to E.R., and U01-CA98758 to B.E.H., and Intramural Research Program of NIH/National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics). CAPS GWAS study was supported by the Swedish Cancer Foundation (grant no 09-0677, 11-484, 12-823), the Cancer Risk Prediction Center (CRisP; www.crispcenter.org ), a Linneus Centre (Contract ID 70867902) fi nanced by the Swedish Research Council, Swedish Research Council (grant no K2010-70 × - 20430-04-3, 2014-2269). The Hannover Prostate Cancer Study was supported by the Lower Saxonian Cancer Society. PEGASUS was supported by the Intramural Research Program, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health. RAPPER was supported by the NIHR Manchester Bio- medical Research Center, Cancer Research UK (C147/A25254, C1094/A18504) and the EUs7Framework Programme Grant/Agreement no 60186. Overall: this research has been conducted using the UK Biobank Resource (application number 16549). NHS is supported by UM1 CA186107 (NHS cohort infrastructure grant), P01 CA87969, and R01 CA49449. NHSII is supported by UM1 CA176726 (NHSII cohort infrastructure grant),and R01-CA67262. A.L.K. is supported by R01 MH107649. We would like to thank the participants and staff of the NHS and NHSII for their valuable contributions as well as the following state cancer registries for their help: AL, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, NE, NH, NJ, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, VA, WA, WY. The authors assume full responsibility for analyses and interpretation of these data. ; Sí
The Situation In The Middle East This Record Contains The Text Of Speeches Delivered In English And Of The Translation Of Speeches Delivered In Other Languages. ; United Nations S/PV.8164 Security Council Seventy-third year 8164th meeting Tuesday, 23 January 2018, 3 p.m. New York Provisional President: Mr. Umarov. . (Kazakhstan) Members: Bolivia (Plurinational State of). . Mr. Llorentty Solíz China. . Mr. Shen Bo Côte d'Ivoire. . Mr. Tanoh-Boutchoue Equatorial Guinea. . Mr. Ndong Mba Ethiopia. . Ms. Guadey France. . Mr. Delattre Kuwait. . Mr. Alotaibi Netherlands. . Mr. Van Oosterom Peru. . Mr. Tenya Poland. . Ms. Wronecka Russian Federation. . Mr. Nebenzia Sweden . Mr. Skoog United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland . Mr. Allen United States of America. . Mrs. Haley Agenda The situation in the Middle East This record contains the text of speeches delivered in English and of the translation of speeches delivered in other languages. The final text will be printed in the Official Records of the Security Council. Corrections should be submitted to the original languages only. They should be incorporated in a copy of the record and sent under the signature of a member of the delegation concerned to the Chief of the Verbatim Reporting Service, room U-0506 (verbatimrecords@un.org). Corrected records will be reissued electronically on the Official Document System of the United Nations (http://documents.un.org). 18-01889 (E) *1801889* S/PV.8164 The situation in the Middle East 23/01/2018 2/11 18-01889 The meeting was called to order at 3.05 p.m. Adoption of the agenda The agenda was adopted. The situation in the Middle East The President: The Security Council will now begin its consideration of the item on its agenda. Mr. Nebenzia (Russian Federation) (spoke in Russian): I should like at the outset to apologize to the members of the Security Council and the Secretariat for the fact that I ruined their siesta today. We have requested the convening of an open meeting of the Security Council because the issue that we intend to raise is far too important for the discussion to be held in closed consultations. We have nothing to hide. When we discussed Syria in consultations yesterday, many touched on the importance of establishing a new structure to investigate instances of chemical-weapons use in Syria to supplement the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons-United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM), which fully discredited itself. We have never forgotten this issue, and we have consistently recalled in meetings our readiness to continue consultations on this matter, as noted by Minister Lavrov to the Secretary-General last week. Yesterday, however, we were unable to rise to that call. Today, upon instruction from our capital, it is my honour to report the following. Russia has consistently stressed the importance of taking the most serious approach to the problem of the manufacture and use of chemical weapons. We are troubled by manifestations of chemical-weapons terrorism in the Middle East, which are not limited to Syrian territory. Unfortunately, the JIM, which no longer exists, caused the collapse of the investigation, which from a scientific and technical perspective was an utter failure and became an instrument for political manipulation. Members of the international community and the Security Council were well aware of the Russian specialists' scrupulous analysis of the conclusions of the JIM. In an attempt to interpret certain elements of the Russian approach, during consultations on 9 January the United States delegation circulated the relevant document. However, at no point in the document was there even an attempt to approach the matter from a professional standpoint. The so-called refutations of our position do not stand up to any criticism. I invite Council members to familiarize themselves with the material supporting our position in the response that we circulated yesterday as an official Security Council document. Today, incidentally, senior representatives of the United States Department of State made further unfounded accusations alleging that Russia is hindering international verification of the facts of the use of chemical weapons in Syria. We have already responded to that, and anyone who wants to can read Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Ryabkov's comments on the issue. No one has called more than we have for a further investigation — a professional one rather than a simulacrum — into the incidents involving the use of chemical weapons in Syria, and at the moment we are still trying to get the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to send its specialists to Syria to see for themselves the stockpiles of chemical weapons left by militants in liberated areas that the Syrian Government has discovered. By the way, during yesterday's consultations, following the reports of various recent incidents involving the use of toxic substances in Syria, which have yet to be verified, the representatives of the United States and the United Kingdom — without a second's pause or any evidence, let alone an investigation — hastened to declare them the work of what they refer to as the Syrian "regime". Now they are trying to drag Russia into it too. Secretary of State Tillerson brought this up in Paris today at the meeting of the so-called international partnership of States against impunity for the use of chemical weapons, basing his argument on an incident that allegedly occurred yesterday in eastern Ghouta. However, his statement was devoted almost exclusively to Russia. By the way, does nobody find it strange that this alleged incident, whose genuineness has yet to be confirmed — as does the identity of its perpetrators, if it is genuine — coincided very conveniently with the meeting in Paris and the forthcoming Syrian national dialogue conference in Sochi? An amazing coincidence. Some States are persisting in their attempts to push through an anti-Damascus verdict at the OPCW at all costs, and thereby undermining that respected organization's authority. Others are seeking to scrape together a narrow alliance of anti-impunity-ites through non-legitimate formats. In November of last year, Russia, working with others of like mind, put together draft resolution 23/01/2018 The situation in the Middle East S/PV.8164 18-01889 3/11 S/2017/968, which would have ensured that the JIM's activities conformed to the the high international standards of the Chemical Weapons Convention, which guarantee a genuinely impartial and professional investigation. The initiative was blocked by a number of delegations at the time. We want to rise above those differences and propose creating a new international investigative body that could establish the facts that the Security Council needs in order to identify those who used toxic substances as weapons, based on irreproachable, irrefutable information from transparent, credible sources. It must be professional and non-politicized. We have prepared a draft of such a resolution and ask that the Secretariat circulate it. We hope that Council members will study our initiative with their capitals as soon as possible. We are ready for substantive consultations. Mrs. Haley (United States of America): Russia has convened us with almost no notice, and then put forth a proposal that it hopes will distract from the new French initiative to hold accountable those who use chemical weapons. Today, Russia is again doing what it does best with regard to chemical weapons. It is running from the facts. It has the audacity to lecture the Security Council about how to stop the use of chemical weapons. I know that I have said this before, but it is worth repeating. In the past year, Russia exercised the right to veto three times to kill the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons-United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM) in Syria. All by itself, Russia killed the Mechanism, which we had specifically tasked with identifying those responsible for using chemical weapons in Syria. Russia should look in the mirror before bringing us into the Security Council to talk about chemical weapons. Earlier this week, we received yet another report that the Al-Assad regime had used chlorine gas on its own people. Dozens of civilians had to be treated for suffocation. Syrian children were literally gasping for breath as chlorine gas surrounded them. Of course, it is no coincidence that this week's chlorine-gas attack reportedly happened in the exact place that the Al-Assad regime is trying to take over militarily. We know that it resorts to such brutal tactics when it wants to retake territory, without any regard for innocent civilians, and we know that Russia has looked the other way for years while its Syrian friends use those despicable weapons of war. Russia is complicit in the Al-Assad regime's atrocities. Will the representative of the Russian Federation say anything at all today about the suffering caused by Al-Assad's barbaric tactics? Will it hold Al-Assad to account? Of course not. It never does. It is therefore fitting that Russia brought us here on the same day that a new initiative on accountability for chemical weapons has been introduced in Paris. Today, France launched an international partnership against impunity for chemical weapons. We strongly support that effort and commend France for its leadership. More than 25 like-minded countries have come together to share and preserve information on who has used chemical weapons and to make sure that the perpetrators will be held accountable. Make no mistake — the United States, together with the Council, will continue to pursue those who have used chemical weapons to ensure that they are held accountable for their atrocities. Russia says that it has concerns about this French initiative to share evidence of the use of chemical weapons. That is no surprise. Russia opposed the Joint Investigative Mechanism because it collected facts about who used chemical weapons in Syria. Now Russia is questioning the French effort to collect facts on who used chemical weapons. What can we conclude? To put it simply, when Russia does not like the facts, it tries to distract the conversation. That is because the facts come back over and over again to the truth that Russia wants to hide, which is that the Al-Assad regime continues to use chemical weapons against its own people. Today, Russia once again threw around many different accusations. Again, that is not surprising. Russia often puts out misleading and unfounded claims to confuse the conversation about chemical weapons. In fact, this happens so often that we recently wrote to the Security Council with a detailed assessment of Russia's misleading claims. The letter is public and available for anyone to see. We encourage everyone to take a look at it for themselves. Here is the bottom line. The Security Council gave the Joint Investigative Mechanism a mandate to tell us who used chemical weapons in Syria. When investigators found the Islamic State in Iraq and the Sham to be responsible, Russia was fine. When the investigators found that the Al-Assad regime had used them, Russia tried to find any excuse to poke holes in the investigation and threw up smoke to question the findings. But hat is not how independent investigations work. You do not get to question the findings when they do not go your way. We are therefore not going to accept any Russian proposal that undermines our S/PV.8164 The situation in the Middle East 23/01/2018 4/11 18-01889 ability to get to the truth or that politicizes what must be an independent and impartial investigation. If the Russians want to work in good faith towards that goal, we are ready to re-establish the JIM, with its original, independent and impartial mandate, right now. But anything less is unacceptable. To be crystal clear: the United States supports accountability for anyone who uses chemical weapons. We agree with Russia that the Islamic State in Iraq and the Sham must be held accountable for its use of such weapons, as the Joint Investigative Mechanism has found. But the difference between the United States and Russia is that we believe that no one should be let off the hook. Chemical weapons must never be used. Russia can continue to talk for as long as it wants about chemical weapons. It can bring it up in the Security Council Chamber as often as it wants. We welcome the debate. The United States and the international community will not be fooled. We remain steadfast in pursuing accountability for those who use chemical weapons. We stand strong in doing all we can to preserve the norm against their use. We remain forever committed to preserving the truth about what the Al-Assad regime has done in Syria and, sadly, what it will likely continue to do. Mr. Delattre (France) (spoke in French): We meet today after receiving news about another chemical attack in Syria — this time in Douma — which resulted in more than 20 victims, including women and children. Furthermore, the attack was penetrated in a de-escalation zone. We are closely following all available information. We expect that the international investigative mechanism in place — in particular the Fact-finding Mission — will shed light on the attack. As we commemorate the one hundredth anniversary this year of the end of the First World War, during which chemical weapons produced on an industrial scale were used for the first time in history, repeated chemical-weapon attacks in Syria are an affront to the human conscience and a violation of the most fundamental norms of international law. The facts prove that the scourge continues to exist. Last year in Syria, on 4 April, more than 80 people, including women and children, were killed by a powerful nerve agent. Four years prior, 2,000 Syrian civilians were gassed in Ghouta with sarin gas. The use of chemical weapons was confirmed by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). The OPCW-United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM) clearly determined that the Syrian regime and Da'esh were responsible for those attacks. France itself independently confirmed that the Syrian regime was responsible for the attack perpetrated on 4 April. Since 2013, investigations have revealed more than 100 allegations of the use of chemical weapons, primarily in Syria but also in Iraq and Malaysia. Chlorine gas, sarin, mustard gas and VX — all deadly nerve agents — have returned to the forefront of the international arena a century after the horrors of the First World War. Gruesome images of the victims of such weapons of terror, which we thought we had long ago left behind, have also resurfaced. We cannot allow the use of such loathsome weapons to become commonplace. They destabilize entire regions and threaten everyone's security. They increase the risk of chemical terrorism, which we all fear. They also weaken the regime against chemical weapons as well as the entire non-proliferation regime. They undermine international law and call into question the outcome of international forums that have been held for decades. That is why we must take action. We owe it to history; it is a responsibility we must shoulder together. Those of us who claim to be committed to the non-proliferation regime and helped to build it should bear that in mind. Let us be clear: those who hamper our efforts to combat impunity endorse de facto impunity for the perpetrators of such chemical attacks. They prevent us from deterring and bringing to justice those who participated in chemical-weapon programmes and those Governments and entities that give the orders to carry out attacks. We therefore cannot turn a blind eye and allow them to continue — and all the more so, and I repeat this, given that the chemical-weapon non-proliferation regime is the most developed and successful of all international non-proliferation regimes. Allowing it to be weakened without taking action would be tantamount to accepting the erosion of the entire non-proliferation regime on weapons of mass destruction, which we built together, step by step, over decades and which now serves as the backbone of the international security architecture and one of multilateralism's main accomplishments. France has therefore proposed the establishment of a new international partnership to combat impunity for the use of chemical weapons by anyone — State and non-State actors alike. That partnership was launched yesterday in Paris at a conference convened by the 23/01/2018 The situation in the Middle East S/PV.8164 18-01889 5/11 French Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Jean-Yves Le Drian, at which representatives of 24 States were in attendance to reiterate their willingness to work together to counter the threat. I should like to mention just a few of the partnership's ambitious commitments. They include the transfer and sharing of information, when possible, about the perpetrators of attacks; a commitment to impose national or international sanctions against entities and individuals concerned; assistance for building State capacity with regard to designations and sanctions; and the publication of a single, consolidated list of the names of individuals involved in attacks. Criminals who claim responsibility for developing and using such barbaric weapons must know that they will not go unpunished. Once again, this is about the future of the entire collective security system. One should not be able to violate the most basic norms without eventually facing the consequences. Owing to obstruction on the part of certain countries, we were unable to renew the JIM's mandate at the end of last year. Yesterday's consultations on Syria confirmed that an overwhelming majority of the members of the Security Council do not agree with the current impasse. In that regard, we take note of the proposal made today by Russia. We will consider it in the light of the principles I have just outlined. The new partnership launched in Paris does not aim to replace international instruments and the investigative mechanism established by the United Nations and the OPCW. Instead, it seeks to complement and bolster that structure by making a new operational instrument available to the multilateral system and the international community. It will assist investigations and help the international justice system in its work. It is neither an anti-Syrian instrument nor an exclusive club of countries. All countries can join this pragmatic and open partnership by adhering to its statement of principles. Through the partnership, they will show their commitment to law, international stability, justice and security in order to end impunity for the perpetrators of chemical attacks and their accomplices. We must therefore work through the partnership to consolidate the regime prohibiting chemical weapons. The cornerstone of the partnership was laid in Paris and embodies our faith in effective and demanding multilateralism. In an effort to take immediate action, I can confirm that France has imposed asset-freezes on networks involved in the proliferation of chemical weapons in Syria. In conclusion, I recall that there will be no justice or sustainable peace in Syria without putting an end to impunity. How can we continue to defend the regime and reiterate its willingness to speak in good faith and seek a political solution when that very same regime employs barbaric weapons against its own people? There has never been a larger gap between words and deeds. At the United Nations in both Vienna and Geneva, I said that we must work together to reach a political solution in Syria. Implementing an inclusive political solution as outlined in resolution 2254 (2015), which serves as our guidepost now more than ever, will depend upon a neutral environment in Syria guaranteed by the regime's clear commitment to credible constitutional change and democratic elections. It is the only way to permanently end the suffering of Syrians. We continue to believe that we can, and must, bring the Security Council together to proceed in that direction. Mr. Allen (United Kingdom): When I heard today that Russia had called for an urgent meeting on the use of chemical weapons in Syria, I was glad that we could return to an issue on which the Council has a duty to ensure that those responsible are held to account. That duty is even more pressing today, because yet another heinous attack on civilians was reported yesterday to the Council by the Secretariat. In that attack, in Douma, in eastern Ghouta, at least 21 civilians were treated for symptoms consistent with exposure to chlorine. That followed another reported attack in eastern Ghouta on 13 January, affecting six people. In 2016, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons-United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM) found in three cases that the Syrian regime had used chlorine gas to attack civilians. Last year, it found that the regime had used sarin in Khan Shaykhun. Now, as the regime is escalating its attacks on eastern Ghouta in an attempt to force the besieged opposition to surrender, we remain deeply concerned about continuing reports of the use of chemical weapons in Syria. In all of this, we should not forget that it was the regime's 2013 attack on eastern Ghouta, using sarin, that led to the Council's adoption of resolution 2118 (2013), which had the clear, unanimously endorsed aim of disarming Syria's chemical-weapon programme. Throughout that process, Russia has claimed to be acting as a leading Power, a guarantor. But when the Al-Assad regime deliberately ignored its obligation to stop using chemical weapons and continued to do so with careless regard for human life, Russia chose to S/PV.8164 The situation in the Middle East 23/01/2018 6/11 18-01889 abuse its power of veto to protect that regime. Russia says that it supported the renewal of the JIM mandate and that it was the rest of us who killed it, because we could not agree with Russia's terms. Yet Russia's proposed draft resolution would have removed the JIM's ability to investigate the Al-Assad regime, which has been found responsible for multiple attacks. Russia has made it clear several times that it will not support a new investigative mechanism as long as it has the power to hold to account a State Member of the United Nations, and it seems, from a rapid reading of the latest text, that this proposal is another attempt to shift attention to non-State actors. The Russians have even claimed that Syria is a signatory in good standing to the Chemical Weapons Convention. It is not. It has not completed its declaration. The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons has repeatedly warned of inconsistencies, gaps and omissions. Russia has great influence over the Al-Assad regime. For the sake of the Syrian people and for preventing the future use of chemical weapons, we call on Russia to persuade its Syrian friends to get rid of their chemical weapons and comply fully with the Chemical Weapons Convention. By ending the JIM, Russia also stopped its investigations of chemical attacks by Da'esh. The investigators had found that those terrorists had carried out at least two such attacks. We condemn Da'esh unreservedly for its use of these vile weapons, which is yet another reason why we must defeat those terrorists once and for all. The United Kingdom was proud to join the international partnership against impunity for the use of chemical weapons led by our French colleagues today in Paris. The use of chemical weapons is barbaric, illegal under international law and must stop. We must ensure that we can re-establish a mechanism to ensure accountability. We all know where the obstacle to that lies. In response, we will only redouble our efforts to pursue accountability for these crimes. Mr. Van Oosterom (Netherlands): The Kingdom of the Netherlands is deeply shocked by the ongoing attacks using chemical weapons in Syria. The Secretariat briefed the Council yesterday on yet another alleged chemical-weapon attack, the second this month. Two surface-to-surface projectiles targeted eastern Ghouta, releasing what is suspected to be chlorine. The attack resulted in injuring 21 people through exposure to chlorine, of whom eight were men, six women and seven children. Furthermore, there are shocking estimates of 130 chemical attacks between 2012 and 2017, with more than 60 pending allegations of chemical-weapon use in Syria still to be investigated by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and its Fact-finding Mission. The Netherlands condemns in the strongest terms the use of chemical weapons by any State or non-State actor. I would now like to make three points. First, accountability for the use of chemical weapons in Syria is neither optional nor negotiable. Secondly, it is unacceptable that four years after Syria joined the Chemical Weapons Convention, its declaration is still unable to be verified as accurate and complete. Thirdly, the Netherlands will use its membership of the Security Council to bring accountability to the fore. We regret the dismantling of the OPCW-United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM). We were convinced of the professionalism and independence of the JIM's work, and its results still stand. The Council should shoulder its responsibility in that regard. In particular, the countries on the Council with influence on Syria should use it with the Syrian regime to convince it to refrain from further chemical-weapon attacks, acknowledge its past use of such weapons and complete its chemical-weapon declaration. As long as the Council remains deadlocked, our focus on accountability will not stop here. We will look for complementary measures so that impunity will not prevail. We therefore thank France for taking the initiative to establish an international partnership against impunity for the use of chemical weapons. The Netherlands participated in the meeting of the partnership that took place in Paris today. The Paris initiative aims to collect evidence of the use of chemical weapons anywhere in the world. It will enable States to take action to uphold the international norms against the use of chemical weapons. It represents a political commitment to increasing pressure on those responsible for the use of chemical weapons, and the Kingdom of the Netherlands is fully committed to that goal. Furthermore, the International, Impartial, and Independent Mechanism to Assist in the Investigation and Prosecution of Persons Responsible for the Most Serious Crimes under International Law Committed in the Syrian Arab Republic since March 2011; the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic; and national prosecution in third countries, as well as sanctions, remain instrumental for achieving accountability for the crimes committed 23/01/2018 The situation in the Middle East S/PV.8164 18-01889 7/11 against the Syrian people. We must use all the tools available to us to achieve accountability. In conclusion, the Netherlands remains convinced that a referral of the situation in Syria to the International Criminal Court in The Hague is by far the best option for achieving accountability for the extremely serious crimes that have taken place in Syria. Mr. Skoog (Sweden): Yesterday the Council members were briefed by Under-Secretary-General Jeffrey Feltman on yet another alleged chemical-weapon attack in Syria. Allegations of the use of such weapons continue to be reported. There are some 60 cases of the reported use of chemical weapons in Syria that are currently being examined by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and that its Fact-finding Missions continue to investigate and report, including a case of a sarin attack in Lataminah in March of last year. I would like to reiterate once again that Sweden condemns the use of chemical weapons in the strongest terms. It is a serious violation of international law and its use in armed conflict amounts to a war crime. Bringing the perpetrators of such crimes to justice remains a high priority. There must be no impunity for those responsible. That is why we participated in the meeting of the international partnership against impunity for the use of chemical weapons held today in Paris. As a member of the Council and the OPCW Executive Council, Sweden attaches great importance to all international efforts to combat the use and proliferation of chemical weapons by State and non-State actors alike, anywhere in the world. We trust that the French initiative will complement and support our collective work in multilateral forums, as well as the existing multilateral mechanisms to achieve unity around those important goals. That also includes the Human Rights Council's Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic and the International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism for the Syrian Arab Republic, which play an important role in collecting information. It was highly regrettable that the Council was not able to agree on an extension of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons-United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism. It is a critical to establish a similar new impartial and independent attributive mechanism now. The Council needs to come back together and speak with one voice. We need to be forward-looking and overcome our differences with a view to protecting the international disarmament and non-proliferation regime and ensuring accountability. That should be possible if everyone engages seriously, constructively and genuinely in good faith. We stand ready to engage in such efforts in order for the Council to fully shoulder its responsibilities. Ms. Wronecka (Poland): We are deeply concerned about the reported use of chemical weapons in eastern Ghouta, which is in clear violation of international law and deserves condemnation in the strongest possible terms. This alleged use of chemical weapons, as with other incidents, including in Talmenes, demonstrates the need to hold perpetrators accountable. There is no space for impunity in this regard. We support taking all the necessary measures to fill the gap left by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons-United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism, so as to ensure that no one goes unpunished for using chemical weapons, which cause unacceptable harm and suffering. Those responsible for chemical attacks must realize that they will be held accountable because their acts are an affront to all humankind and the basic rules of civilization. We support the tireless work done by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. We are convinced that it is the responsibility of the Security Council to establish and maintain a suitable institution to investigate alleged cases of the use of chemical weapons. Let me take this opportunity to thank France for today's hosting of a high-level meeting to launch a new initiative to protect the core values underpinning the credibility of the non-proliferation regime on chemical weapons established by the Chemical Weapons Convention. Poland joined that new partnership with the sole purpose of using all the tools at our disposal to end impunity for those responsible for chemical attacks and to promote and complement existing standards and mechanisms against the use of chemical weapons. We look forward to working on this issue in the Council in the months to come. Mr. Tenya (Peru) (spoke in Spanish): The Security Council has the highly sensitive responsibility of contributing to the prevention of the use of chemical weapons, which entails identifying and prosecuting those responsible for atrocities such as the one perpetrated yesterday in Syria. S/PV.8164 The situation in the Middle East 23/01/2018 8/11 18-01889 Peru participated in the meeting convened by France today to establish a partnership to combat impunity for the use of chemical weapons, at which a declaration of principles was adopted. The document sets out a series of measures aimed at ensuring that individuals and entities responsible for the use of chemical weapons are brought to justice. During that meeting, Peru's Ambassador to France referred in particular to paragraph 3 of the terms of reference, which had been circulated in advance, wherein it is expressly stated that the purpose of the initiative is not in any way meant to replace, reproduce or supersede international inquiry and investigation mechanisms that serve the same purpose. Our Ambassador also expressed his satisfaction with those words, insofar as Peru, as a member of the Security Council and a member of the Executive Council of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, encourages the necessary action to be taken by those competent bodies. Peru condemns in the strongest possible terms the lack of accountability in the continuing incidents involving chemical weapons in Syria, for we believe it undermines international regimes on the matter and weakens peace efforts in the region. Mr. Shen Bo (China) (spoke in Chinese): China expresses its grave concern about the use of chemical weapons in Syria and extends its deepest sympathy to the Syrian people for their suffering. China's position on chemical weapons has been clear and consistent. We firmly oppose the use of chemical weapons by any country, group or individual for any purpose and under any circumstances. The use of chemical weapons is unacceptable, whenever or wherever they are used. China supports a comprehensive, objective and fair investigation into such incidents in order to arrive at a conclusion that can stand the test of time and to shed light on the facts in order to bring the perpetrators to justice. China welcomes the draft resolution circulated by the delegation of the Russian Federation that would establish a new investigative mechanism on Syrian chemical weapons. China appreciates the efforts made by Russia in the Security Council to continue to advance the work on the Syrian chemical weapons issue. China will seriously study the draft resolution and actively participate in consultations on it. It is imperative to establish a new investigative mechanism to find out the truth and to deter further use of chemical weapons in Syria. We hope that Council members will participate in the consultations in a constructive manner and strive to reach consensus on the establishment of a new mechanism. The Syrian chemical weapons issue is closely linked to a political settlement to the Syrian question, and it requires a comprehensive, balanced and integrated approach. China supports the role of the Security Council and of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons as the main channel for achieving an appropriate resolution to the Syrian chemical weapons issue. We hope that all the relevant parties will adopt a constructive attitude and seek appropriate solutions during consultations. We must maintain the unity of the Council and coordinate with the relevant parties in an effort to actively promote the political process in Syria. Mr. Llorentty Solíz (Plurinational State of Bolivia) (spoke in Spanish): Bolivia reiterates its strong, categorical condemnation of the use of chemical weapons and chemical substances as weapons as unjustifiable and criminal acts — wherever, whenever and by whomever they are committed. We believe that there can be no justification for the use of such weapons, regardless of the circumstances and of who uses them, as it constitutes a serious crime under international law and a threat to international peace and security. We emphatically condemn the reported use of chemical weapons in the city of Douma, in eastern Ghouta. That incident must be investigated in order to identify the perpetrators, bring them to justice and ensure that their actions do not go unpunished. Accordingly, we reiterate our support for the work carried out by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and its Fact-finding Mission in the Syrian Arab Republic. However, as we have stated on other occasions, we emphasize the urgent need for an investigative mechanism with a clear mandate that can carry out its assigned tasks of investigating methodically, transparently, technically, faithfully, with assistance and in a fundamentally depoliticized way. We must have a mechanism that can develop an independent, impartial, complete and conclusive investigation to hold accountalbe those responsible for such horrific crimes. We believe that, if what we want is an independent and transparent mechanism, we have the challenge of not exploiting the Security Council by bringing geopolitical interests on the ground into the Chamber. We have 23/01/2018 The situation in the Middle East S/PV.8164 18-01889 9/11 the challenge of demonstrating to the international community the unity of the Council. To that end, we must not turn the Chamber into a sounding board for warring confrontation and, even less so, transfer the immediate interests of the battlefield to this setting. In that regard, we welcome the proposal put forward by the Russian Federation today. We will study the text, and we hope that consultations will be convened as soon as possible and that they will result in the Council and the international community having on an independent investigation mechanism. It is essential that we overcome the lack of trust that exists in the Council. Furthermore, we must always bear in mind that no initiative, however well intended, should supplant our responsibilities, as established by the Charter of the United Nations. Mr. Alotaibi (Kuwait) (spoke in Arabic): The ongoing use of chemical weapons in Syria represents one of the deplorable elements of this crisis, which has been continuing for seven years. It is all the more deplorable when we see that there is an absence of justice and accountability and that there is impunity for every criminal who has contributed to and participated in such crimes against civilians. Following the attack when chemical weapons were used in Ghouta, where most of the victims were civilians, we witnessed the unity of the Council in ensuring that such a crime would not be repeated and that perpetrators would be held accountable through the adoption of resolution 2118 (2013). However, unfortunately, we note that there are still reports of chemical attacks in Syria, most recently by Mr. Jeffrey Feltman, Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, yesterday regarding a chemical attack on the city of Duma on 13 January. We would therefore like to express our disappointment that the Security Council has been unable to reach consensus on renewing the mandate of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons-United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism, which, we believe, carried out its work in a professional, impartial and independent way. As a result, the failure to renew the mandate meant the complete absence of a tool for accountability in Syria. For that reason, the perpetrators of such crimes will go unpunished and there is no guarantee of holding them, or any perpetrator of such crimes in future, accountable. The State of Kuwait has a firm, principled position strongly condemning any use of chemical weapons at any time, anywhere and by anyone, since the use of chemical weapons is a grave violation of international law. We underscore the need to hold perpetrators — individuals, entities, non-State groups or Governments — accountable. As members of the Security Council, we are responsible for maintaining international peace and security. We must therefore seek alternatives and mechanisms, agreeable to all members of the Security Council, to ensure the independence, impartiality and professionalism of any new future mechanism to ensure that criminals are held accountable. We note that there is a draft resolution before us on establishing a new mechanism. We recall the clear and decisive language in resolution 2118 (2013), which stipulates the need to hold accountable those responsible for the use of chemical weapons in Syria. In that regard, the State of Kuwait welcomes the French initiative to convene the Paris meeting on an international partnership against impunity for use of chemical weapons. Along with a number of countries, the State of Kuwait participated in that event to underscore the importance of strengthening the values of justice and accountability and to implement the principle of ending impunity. We support the international mechanisms established by the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council to gather evidence regarding any crimes related to human rights violations in Syria. In conclusion, we emphasize that it is important for the Security Council to stand united when dealing with issues that threaten international peace and security, such as the incidents mentioned in reports on the Syrian crisis, through the unanimous adoption of such resolutions as resolution 2118 (2013), on chemical weapons; resolution 2165 (2014), on the humanitarian situation; and resolution 2254 (2015), on the political track of the Syrian crisis. Mr. Tanoh-Boutchoue (Côte d'Ivoire) (spoke in French): My delegation thanks the Russian Federation for having called for this emergency meeting of the Security Council with a view to once again discussing the issue of the use of chemical weapons in general, and in Syria in particular, where, it seems, that atrocious weapon is being used. My country, which is opposed to the use of chemical weapons, ratified the Convention on the Prohibition S/PV.8164 The situation in the Middle East 23/01/2018 10/11 18-01889 of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction in order to show the world our determination to work with other international stakeholders for the complete elimination of such weapons. To that end, on this very day, 23 January, we signed in Paris the declaration of principles, issued by the meeting held at the initiative of France on the topic of combating impunity through the international partnership against impunity for the use of chemical weapons. Côte d'Ivoire extends its full support to that initiative and vehemently condemns any use of chemical weapons, regardless of the reasons or perpetrators. In firm support of the values of equity and justice, Côte d'Ivoire wishes to draw the attention of the Security Council to the need to set up a new consensus mechanism aimed at combating the use of chemical weapons. In that regard, we welcome the Russian initiative to propose the establishment, by means of a resolution, of a new mechanism. We assume that such a mechanism, like the previous one, would be tasked with identifying perpetrators of the use of chemical weapons, in general. In the specific case of Syria, the perpetrators of such acts must be identified and be held accountable for their actions. Inaction by the Council on this important issue would be a bad sign and send a message of encouragement to those who indulge in the use of chemical weapons with impunity. To conclude, my delegation calls on the Council to act in a consensus-based and coordinated manner in order to establish a new mechanism, for our action must prompt us not only to protect and to help victims, who are martyrs in the endless war in Syria, but also to work to uphold international peace and security. Mr. Ndong Mba (Equatorial Guinea) (spoke in Spanish): The use of chemical weapons, the issue we are considering is critically important to the Republic of Equatorial Guinea. We categorically repudiate and condemn their use by any country, State or non-State actor. We also condemn in the strongest terms the recent chemical-weapon attacks in Syria. With regard to the issue of who is responsible for the use of such weapons, there is no consensus among the members of the Security Council on that. We realize that the Security Council must address the issue of the use of chemical weapons in a spirit of understanding and unanimity, with a view to combating impunity, thereby sending an unambiguous message to anyone who has used such weapons or is thinking of doing so that they will be held responsible for their actions. We repeat that we categorically condemn the production, stockpiling and use of chemical and other weapons of mass destruction. If we are to take steps against those who have used such weapons, we must clearly identify the responsible parties in a way that leaves no room for doubt. That is why, given the lack of consensus among the members of the Council and the need to identify those responsible for the use of such weapons, we are of the view that the proposal that the Russian Federation has just made is worth considering as a new opportunity for conducting a fully transparent investigation whose results all Council members would have to accept, thereby fostering the unanimity and consensus within the Council that would enable it to take the necessary steps against the perpetrators of the heinous act of using chemical weapons. The President: I shall now make a statement in my national capacity as the representative of Kazakhstan. We are deeply worried about the fact that chemical weapons continue to be used in Syria. It is regrettable that this inhuman and illegal type of weapon is being used with the specific purpose of intimidating ordinary people, since it mostly affects unprotected civilians. Another discouraging fact is the lack of unity and the deepening confrontation among the parties on the chemical dossier, which complicates our ability to address this threat in an appropriate way. It is therefore urgent to start thinking about developing a new investigative tool that can effectively counter all such chemical crimes. Any delay or inaction on the part of the Council could lead to an increase in the commission of such acts in the absence of clear plans and mechanisms to end impunity. We welcome the Russian Federation's proposal to establish a new mechanism, giving us a new opportunity to look into the matter. Since we will have to start over with the creation of an investigative mechanism, we must try to get it right from the very beginning, on a basis of consensus. The mechanism should be impartial, depoliticized, professional, representative, and with a clear mandate that will preclude any doubts and ensure the credibility of its work. That does not mean that we think the previous mechanism was unfit for its purpose, but it is obvious that accountability requires a Security Council that is united in its decision-making. 23/01/2018 The situation in the Middle East S/PV.8164 18-01889 11/11 Kazakhstan is ready to contribute and to assist in finding the best way to move forward together. I now resume my functions as President of the Council. The representative of the Russian Federation has asked to make a further statement. Mr. Nebenzia (Russian Federation) (spoke in Russian): I am taking the floor to further clarify our position. It is a pity that my friend Mrs. Haley has left the Chamber. She mentioned that we convened this meeting today on short notice, for which I apologize. As I recall, however, we have frequently been convened by Mrs. Haley's call, and we are ready to do it again. Please let her know that I am doing it because I am always very pleased to see her here. Once again, everything that we heard from the United States in its statement today was about Russia. The fact that it is rejecting our proposed draft resolution from the get-go says a great deal. It once again betrays a truth that we are sadly familiar with. The United States has no need of any independent professional mechanism. It is not only betraying a truth, it is betraying itself in the eyes of the international community. Let me say straight out what I spoke about before in a rhetorical question. It was no accident that the allegations — which will remain allegations until they are confirmed — about the use of chemical weapons in eastern Ghouta emerged on the eve of some important political events for Syria, the meeting in Vienna and the Syrian national dialogue conference in Sochi. Furthermore, I will say it again, why does the United States need an investigative mechanism when both yesterday and today, before any kind of investigation, it asserted, without apparently a shadow of doubt, that it was the Syrian Government that did it? It has taken the role of both judge and prosecutor. Does the United States at least understand that it is betraying itself by this? If it genuinely wants to establish a professional, independent attributive mechanism, it should at least read the draft resolution before rejecting it. Did we not discuss a new mechanism with Council members of the Council at the conclusion of the multiple acts in the political spectacle surrounding the closure of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons-United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism? We did not time our draft resolution to coincide with any events or partnerships. However, I want to reiterate something that I spoke about at a Council meeting presided over by President Nazarbayev on 18 January, which is that no commissions, partnerships or so-called independent mechanisms in this area can be legitimate unless they are approved by the Security Council. That must be our premise. I would like to echo what the Permanent Representative of Sweden — and he was not the only one — said in his statement, which is that we must overcome our differences, engage in dialogue and try to restore the Council's lost unity. That is the aim of our proposal. The meeting rose at 4.10 p.m.
The Situation In The Middle East ; United Nations S/PV.8260 Security Council Seventy-third year 8260th meeting Wednesday, 16 May 2018, 10 a.m. New York Provisional President: Ms. Wronecka. . (Poland) Members: Bolivia (Plurinational State of). . Mr. Inchauste Jordán China. . Mr. Ma Zhaoxu Côte d'Ivoire. . Mr. Djédjé Equatorial Guinea. . M. Ndong Mba Ethiopia. . Mr. Alemu France. . Mr. Delattre Kazakhstan. . Mr. Umarov Kuwait. . Mr. Alotaibi Netherlands. . Mr. Van Oosterom Peru. . Mr. Meza-Cuadra Russian Federation. . Mr. Polyanskiy Sweden . Mr. Skoog United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland . Ms. Pierce United States of America. . Ms. Eckels-Currie Agenda The situation in the Middle East This record contains the text of speeches delivered in English and of the translation of speeches delivered in other languages. The final text will be printed in the Official Records of the Security Council. Corrections should be submitted to the original languages only. They should be incorporated in a copy of the record and sent under the signature of a member of the delegation concerned to the Chief of the Verbatim Reporting Service, room U-0506 (verbatimrecords@un.org). Corrected records will be reissued electronically on the Official Document System of the United Nations (http://documents.un.org). 18-14999 (E) *1814999* S/PV.8260 The situation in the Middle East 16/05/2018 2/12 18-14999 The meeting was called to order at 10.15 a.m. Adoption of the agenda The agenda was adopted. The situation in the Middle East The President: In accordance with rule 39 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure, I invite Mr. Staffan de Mistura, Special Envoy of the Secretary- General for Syria, to participate in this meeting. Mr. De Mistura is joining today's meeting via video-teleconference from Geneva. The Security Council will now begin its consideration of the item on its agenda. I give the floor to Mr. De Mistura. Mr. De Mistura: When I last briefed the Security Council on 9 April, it was at an emergency meeting (see S/PV.8225). On that occasion, I warned of the threats to regional and international peace and security arising from developments in or related to Syria. I know that today it is not an emergency meeting. However, the circumstances of an emergency very much remain. I do not need to remind members that tensions are high and regional and international confrontations have occurred several times. Allow me to highlight some recent events since 9 April. On 13 April, the United States, France and the United Kingdom conducted missile strikes in response to the allegations of the use of chemical weapons in eastern Ghouta. Those countries say that the strikes targeted three research and production facilities near Damascus and Homs. On 29 April, strikes were reported on Syrian Government military facilities in Hamah and Aleppo. Some media outlets attributed those strikes to Israel, alleging that those killed included Iranian personnel. Neither Israel nor Iran responded to those claims. On 8 May, strikes were reported just south of Damascus. Syrian State media attributed those strikes to Israel. Israel did not confirm that claim. Israel then said that it had detected "irregular Iranian activity" in the occupied Golan, which it put on high alert. Between 9 and 10 May, Israel carried out dozens of strikes against presumed Iranian and Syrian Government military targets across southern Syria. The Israeli authorities claim that they were responding to Iranian forces firing rockets from Syrian territory at Israeli military targets in the occupied Syrian Golan. Iran condemned the Israeli strikes and denied those claims. We are not is a position to independently verify every aspect of those incidents. However, even an incomplete picture shows the troubling trajectory of the increasingly frequent and ever more intense international confrontations over Syria, unprecedented since 1973. As the Security Council knows, the Secretary- General has followed those developments with great concern and called for restraint by all parties in order to avoid any acts that could escalate the situation and worsen the suffering of the Syrian people. The Secretary-General stressed that the United Nations has a "duty to remind Member States that there is an obligation, particularly when dealing with matters of peace and security, to act consistently with the Charter of the United Nations, and with international law in general." (S/PV.8233, p. 2) On the issue of chemical weapons, let me again echo the Secretary-General's call for the Security Council to "agree on a dedicated mechanism for ensuring effective accountability for the use of chemical weapons in Syria" (ibid.). As the Council well knows, as of now, we await the results of the ongoing investigation by the Fact-finding Mission of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons following its visit to Douma, with a report to be issued to States parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention. However, we have also seen worrying developments elsewhere in Syria. Evacuations from eastern Ghouta were similarly repeated in the eastern Qalamoun area, southern Damascus and northern rural Homs. First, on the military escalation, the pattern has been one of incoming air strikes and artillery and outgoing mortars and rockets towards Damascus. Then there was a negotiation, followed by an agreement for the evacuation of those civilians and fighters unwilling to remain under Syrian Government control or Russian Federation protection guarantees. We have also seen similar evacuation agreements 16/05/2018 The situation in the Middle East S/PV.8260 18-14999 3/12 being discussed in Idlib province but in a completely different format — the reverse format. This time we are talking about civilians and fighters in Government-controlled areas, namely, Kafraya and Fo'ah, while considering evacuations — beginning with medical evacuations — following the three-year siege and intermittent attacks from armed groups surrounding that area.Let me share with the Council a recurrent concern that I know that all members have. If civilians and fighters are simply funnelled into northern Syria — mostly into Idlib — then that might only postpone another conflict affecting many additional people, which I will discuss later. Therefore, it is important to keep close watch on future developments in Idlib province. Meanwhile, civilians continue to pay a terrible price. To be precise, 110,000 people have been evacuated to north-western Syria and Operation Euphrates Shield areas in the past two months. Many of them are reportedly traumatized and in urgent need of assistance and protection. Humanitarian partners are overwhelmed and stretched quite thin by the scale of those evacuations, but continue to do their utmost to respond to the growing needs, with the Council's assistance.Returning to the topic of Idlib, if a Ghouta scenario were to play out there, the situation could be six times worse, affecting 2.3 million people, half of whom are already internally displaced and would have nowhere else to go. But that is not purely a question of the Syrians' suffering. We fear that any substantial escalation in Idlib, Dar'a or in the north-east might also result in risks not only to Syrian civilians, but also for international peace and security. As we know, many of those areas contain external and international forces. Conflict there might entail confrontations with those forces, thereby leading us down a slippery slope towards regional or potential international conflict. Therefore, discussions at the international level on how to prevent that and on de-escalation are needed, and, although they are taking place, they also need to be very intensive.I was therefore very encouraged to see concrete discussions on de-escalation when I attended the ninth high-level Astana meeting yesterday, which covered the issue of Idlib in particular, as the three guarantors have a say and the means to avoid it. That round of discussions in Astana saw constructive discussions on how that might be achieved. While fully stressing the need to respect Syria's sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity, we saw at first-hand the parties engage actively on how to avoid a worst-case scenario in Idlib. Moreover, the working group, of which the United Nations is a member and a proactive supporter — as hundreds of thousands of people in Syria expect of us — held its second meeting on the release of detainees, abductees and bodies, and on the identification of missing persons. The members of the working group held constructive discussions on practical and concrete steps to address that key humanitarian issue. The guarantors informed us that they have secured the parties' support — which, if confirmed, is good news — for the activities taking place under the auspices of the working group, which is a positive development. As it is a matter of preliminary discussions, I hope that we will see progress with regard to that complex issue at the working group's next meeting, which we understand will be held in Ankara.De-escalation is indispensable, as the Syrians themselves are telling us, but it is only one of the ingredients necessary to move forward the political process. We also need to overcome concrete challenges to meaningfully follow through with the Geneva process so as to implement resolution 2254 (2015). As instructed by the Secretary-General, I have consulted with a broad spectrum of relevant stakeholders and proactively identified options for a meaningful relaunch of the United Nations-facilitated Geneva process. Over a period of two weeks, I conducted an exhaustive tour of consultations with members of the League of Arab States; representatives of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and Iraq; the European Union (EU) High Representative; representatives of several key European countries, Turkey, the Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic of Iran; and all members of the Council, during what I believe was a very productive and useful retreat in Sweden; United States authorities during my visit to meet with them in Washington, D.C., several days ago; and also the Syrian Government and the opposition, with whom I had constructive discussions on the sidelines of the Astana meeting over the past two days. My deputy, Mr. Ramzy, was also in the region this past weekend in continuous political contact with regional stakeholders, and my chief of political affairs, Mr. Robert Dann, is visting China as we speak to exchange views with officials of that important member of the Security Council.What did I learn from that long tour? Not surprisingly, I returned to Geneva with a mixed picture. S/PV.8260 The situation in the Middle East 16/05/2018 4/12 18-14999 Clearly, significant differences remain, but there is also much common ground and interest on the need, first, to de-escalate, secondly, to form a constitutional committee under the auspices of the United Nations, thirdly, to facilitate the establishment of a safe, calm and neutral environment — leading to our shared goals in the political process — and, fourthly, to respect Syria's sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence. However, those commonalities risk getting glossed over, especially in the absence of serious international dialogue. I will say more on that later. During my tour, my message to all was the need — now more than ever — for robust, strong, proactive and urgent dialogue and consensus at the international level to create the minimum conditions necessary for a realistic and credible political process. As we know, much water has flowed under the bridge and much has happened since resolution 2254 (2015) was adopted. We are therefore becoming increasingly realistic and know that we need a credible political process that takes into account the current situation and does not forget resolution 2254 (2015).As the Secretariat, we are not sitting idle in that regard. We are assessing a number of creative options to update, revive and advance the Geneva-based political process. Let me state for the record that the United Nations remains ever-mobilized and -ready to work on the formation of a constitutional committee in accordance with the final statement of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi. I therefore welcome the intention of the Astana guarantors to actively and regularly engage with the United Nations in Geneva so as to see through a concrete follow-up to the statement since its adoption three and a half months ago.I was also pleased to see a significant number of Member States reaffirm the primacy of the United Nations-led Geneva process, in general, and the need for a constitutional committee working under United Nations auspices, when I was at the EU-United Nations Brussels conference from 24 to 25 April. Those at the conference nearly unanimously reiterated the message that the only solution to the crisis will be political and that only such a political solution will pave the way for reconstruction efforts. Also in Brussels, we saw the entire United Nations system highlight the increasing needs of millions of Syrians, including internally displaced persons (IDPs) and neighbouring countries hosting refugees.Let me also note the important contribution of Syrian civil society in Brussels, in particular during a side event organized by the EU and my own Office. Those present did not shy away from debating with one another constructively and intensively on complex issues, such as transitional justice and sanctions. They all demanded the release of all detainees, abductees and missing persons. They all affirmed that any political solution must protect the right of refugees and IDPs. Despite their differences, Syrians — Syrian civil society — displayed a genuine commitment to dialogue and a spirit of negotiation that I hope can be replicated in the formal negotiations.In Brussels I also met with a group of Syrian women activists who stressed that not enough has been done to secure the direct participation of Syrian women in the political process. I committed to translating our collective commitment to that inclusion into concrete measures, and I will count on the Council's support to keep that promise. For instance, in future intra-Syrian talks, I will insist that the relevant number of seats be reserved exclusively for Syrian women. When I am criticized, I hope that the Council will support me. I know it will not be popular, but it needs to be done.Let me briefly touch on an issue that was raised by the civil society in Brussels and by many Syrians elsewhere who have been writing to us, that is, the possible implications of the newly adopted Law No. 10. We are quite aware of the concerns surrounding that law. We, as well as other United Nations partners, are seeking clarifications on the law's goals and repercussions, especially for refugees and IDPs who do not have access to legal documentation.Let me conclude with two bottom lines.First, de-escalation is critical between the Syrian and international stakeholders, both regional and global. We hope that the relevant players can re-establish some overarching rules of the road in that regard. We stand ready to facilitate such a discussion, with focused support from the Council and key countries for the good offices of the Secretary-General and myself.Secondly, we must revive the political process in terms of the constitutional committee, as well as in terms of some initial steps towards the establishment of a safe, calm and neutral environment. We stand ready to facilitate discussions on both. Let me stress that a critical component of either aspect of the political process is active, continuous and positive United 16/05/2018 The situation in the Middle East S/PV.8260 18-14999 5/12 Nations engagement with the Syrian parties. I repeat once again that we stand ready, today as always, to engage with the Syrian Government in Damascus. We will also continue our contacts with the opposition and Syrian civil society.To unlock and lock those two aspects, careful diplomacy is required more than ever — careful, but proactive diplomacy, including at a high level. Hence, we look with interest to the forthcoming visits to Moscow and meetings of Chancellor Merkel and, later on, President Macron with President Putin, which undoubtedly will not avoid the issue of a political process in Syria. The United Nations believes that there is an urgent need for high-level diplomacy to support de-escalation, avoid any miscalculation and ensure a genuine communication system about a sustainable end to the conflict. With the support of the Secretary-General, we will increase our own efforts to contribute to that endeavour, including by offering further ideas and —if required, which we hope it will be — bridging proposals.The President: I thank Mr. De Mistura for his briefing.I shall now give the floor to the members of the Security Council who wish to make statements.Ms. Eckels-Currie (United States of America): Since this is my first opportunity to congratulate you upon assuming the presidency, Madam President, I would like to do so at this time. I also thank Staffan for his briefing.Last week the world witnessed a new and extremely dangerous escalation in Syria. It should not surprise anyone on the Security Council that Iran was responsible. Iranian forces operating from Syrian territory launched a rocket attack against Israeli citizens — citizens of a sovereign State Member of the United Nations. The United States strongly supports Israel's right to act in self-defence. Iran's reckless and provocative acts last week prove what we have been saying: wherever Iran shows up in the Middle East, chaos follows. Last week's rocket attack against Israel is the latest in a pattern of destabilizing behaviour that is a dire threat to the region's stability.Iran's rocket attack against Israel shows something else too. It puts to bed any myths about why Iran is present in Syria, or what its true objectives might be. The fact is that Iran has installed offensive rocket and missile systems in Syria aimed at Israel. Iran has introduced those threats that were not present in Syria before the conflict; they are now. Iran, together with Hizbullah and other militias, is taking advantage of Syrian territory to establish bases and training camps. They are moving ever closer to Israel. The United States calls on Iran, Hizbullah and their other proxies to take no further provocative steps. If they do, Iran will bear full responsibility for its actions.It is also important to emphasize that Iran's actions do not serve the interests of the Iranian or the Syrian people. The Syrian people get no say in whether Iran threatens war against Syria's neighbours, but it is they who have to live with the consequences.All of us on the Security Council have an important choice to make: we can stay quiet and watch as Iran builds up the infrastructure to create another Hizbullah in Syria, or we can speak up and take steps to put real pressure on Iran to stop. For our part, the United States refuses to stay quiet. Russia in particular has a special responsibility here. Its troops are on the ground, sometimes alongside Iran's. Russia must know that Iran's provocative actions do nothing to help resolve the war in Syria. Russia must know that Iran's actions do just the opposite. They only inflame, prolong and widen the conflict.We heard once again from Staffan today that there has been very little progress on the political track. There has been no progress at all in Geneva, or following Russia's own conferences in Astana and Sochi. Since January, the United Nations was supposed assemble a new constitution drafting committee that would help kick off a new round of talks. The United Nations was supposed to have the ability to choose which people would serve on the committee, and the United Nations was supposed to be empowered to facilitate those talks. Instead, the Al-Assad regime has backtracked, stalled and then refused to cooperate.At the same time, the Syrian regime escalated its brutal military campaign. It seized eastern Ghouta, at the cost of thousands of lives and tens of thousands displaced. It used chemical weapons in Douma. Just yesterday, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons Fact-finding Mission released a report determining that chlorine was used during attacks on 4 February in Saraqib.As reported by the Fact-finding Mission, the facts of that chemical-weapons attack bear the hallmarks S/PV.8260 The situation in the Middle East 16/05/2018 6/12 18-14999 of similar attacks conducted by the Al-Assad regime. As we have said before, the United States assesses that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons well over 50 times since the start of the civil war. The Al-Assad regime, with Iran's and Russia's full support, is choosing to pursue a military solution instead of a political solution, and that goes against everything we should stand for as the Security Council.In the aftermath of eastern Ghouta, the need for a real ceasefire could not be more obvious. Already, we see the Al-Assad regime launching new attacks in Idlib and the south-west. As Staffan noted, a Ghouta scenario in Idlib would be six times worse than the horror we saw in recent months in Ghouta. Air strikes in the south-west have tripled in the last month, even though that area is part of a de-escalation zone. Russia is supposed to be a sponsor of that zone. It must urgently meet its commitments to prevent the regime from carrying out attacks and stop Iranian militias from expanding their foothold in the south.Members of the Security Council — all of us — must push the political process forward. There is Council unity behind that goal. There is a clear blueprint for a political solution in resolution 2254 (2015), which we adopted unanimously. We have to send a clear message to the Al-Assad regime and its backers: the end of the conflict can be reached only via the United Nations-led political process. There must be constitutional reform and free and fair elections under United Nations supervision. If the Al-Assad regime does not comply, we need to be prepared to impose real costs on it for its years of defiance and the devastation it has wrought in Syria. If we take those steps, we can start to change the calculus of the Al-Assad regime and its allies in Syria. We can show them that further conflict is not in their interests and that it is time for them to genuinely commit to a political solution. But as we saw last week, the longer we wait, the greater the risk of confrontation. Now is the time to act to reduce tensions and address Iran's designs in Syria. That is how we can prevent further escalation and even worse suffering. There is no time to waste.Mr. Polyanskiy (Russian Federation) (spoke in Russian): We thank Mr. De Mistura for his briefing. We can see that his personal participation in the meeting on Syria in Astana enabled him to make it a substantive one. We appreciated his call for active diplomacy, which Russia has advocated for from the very beginning. We continue to make significant efforts to facilitate a political settlement in Syria despite the undermining effects of the aggressive action by the United States, the United Kingdom and France in April against a number of civilian structures in Syria. I discerned no sympathy about what happened there in the statement by my United States colleague, despite the fact that it was a blatant breach of international law and did absolutely nothing to advance any kind of a settlement. Furthermore, her statement had an odd, confrontational tone that I felt certainly did not correspond to the message that Mr. De Mistura wanted to convey to all of us today, which is that it will be important for diplomacy to function if the peace that the Syrians have awaited for so long is to finally be established on the ground.Unlike some Security Council member States, which prefer taking unilateral measures to finding ways to solve problems, Russia is focusing on steps to genuinely improve the situation on the ground and advance the prospects for a political settlement. As Mr. De Mistura already noted, the ninth meeting of the participants in the Astana process concluded yesterday in the capital of Kazakhstan, and the guarantors adopted a joint statement. We are grateful to the leadership of Kazakhstan for its steadfast support. The meeting in Astana considered concrete measures for resolving a number of political and humanitarian issues and analysed the situation in the de-escalation zones, which play a key role in maintaining the ceasefire regime, reducing the level of violence and generally stabilizing the situation in Syria. The importance was noted of increasing efforts to help all Syrians and restore normal civilian life and, to that end, of providing fast, safe and unhindered humanitarian access and essential humanitarian and medical assistance, and creating the conditions needed to enable the safe and voluntary return of refugees and internally displaced persons to their homes, as well as people's freedom of movement.A second meeting was held of the working group on the liberation of detainees and hostages to discuss the handover of the bodies of the dead and the search for missing persons, with the participation of experts from the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross. The importance of continuing joint efforts with the aim of building trust among the conflicting parties in Syria was emphasized. The Syrian Government declared its willingness to engage with the working group and decided to appoint a special representative on issues related to its work.16/05/2018 The situation in the Middle East S/PV.8260 18-14999 7/12 In line with the provisions of resolution 2254 (2015), the meeting affirmed its determination to continuing to promote a political settlement by helping to implement the recommendations of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress held in Sochi. The consultations with the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General and the Syrian parties will continue, with a view to establishing the conditions conducive to starting the work of a constitutional committee in Geneva as soon as possible, whose parameters will have to be agreed on by the Syrians themselves. We will get nowhere without their consensus, so there is no point in proposing artificial frameworks for the process, especially if they are based on provisional plans of some kind. Thanks to the Astana process, we have succeeded in generating momentum for a political process based on intra-Syrian talks under the auspices of the United Nations, although, as we have noted, the triple alliance's aggression against the Syrian Arab Republic has significantly limited the room for manoeuvre in that regard.Concerted efforts by the guarantor countries are bringing us steadily closer to eliminating the presence of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), Jabhat Al-Nusra and other terrorist groups altogether. The recent situation in Syria has continued to be difficult. The guarantor countries' efforts are certainly not being helped by provocative initiatives from external actors, which merely strengthen radical sentiments among groups opposing the legitimate Government and fuel their reluctance to work for negotiated solutions.In Damascus, the operation to liberate the southern regions and suburbs of the capital from ISIL-affiliated groups continues, but Yalda, Babila and Bayt Saham are now fully under the Syrian authorities' control and civilian life there is returning. Russian specialists are helping the Syrian authorities to restore civilian infrastructure. Mines are being cleared, socially significant facilities are being rebuilt and electricity and water services are being restored. In eastern Ghouta, some 65,000 residents previously evacuated from the area have returned to their homes. However, in some other regions where the Syrian Government lacks access, the situation has continued to deteriorate. That is especially true of the Rukban and Al-Tuwaihina refugee camps, as well as the former ISIL capital, Raqqa, where the humanitarian situation is disastrous. Measures must be taken to rectify it without delay. The solution is simple — restore Damascus's sovereignty over those territories as soon as possible.Government forces and Palestinian volunteers, with aerial and artillery support, have continued to combat fierce resistance from terrorist detachments in the Palestinian refugee camp in Yarmouk. The militias wounded several dozen civilians in mortar strikes on residential areas in the north-east area of the camp. In the past week, the territory held by the illegal armed groups in Yarmouk has been significantly reduced.The Syrian army's assault on ISIL positions in Deir ez-Zor province has also been ramped up. ISIL's adherents have incurred considerable losses in manpower and equipment and have been driven out of an area of about 1,500 square kilometres. A large-scale operation to eliminate ISIL is being conducted in the eastern part of Syria with the aim of completely defeating the terrorists based in hard-to-reach desert areas, who have been increasing their attacks on Government forces in the Euphrates region and Homs province.We will continue the difficult work of restoring peace in Syria. Frankly, we are disturbed by some international and regional actors' disrespectful attitude to the issue of Syrian sovereignty, of which we have recently seen alarming manifestations. It is important to understand that this will not help to normalize the situation in Syria or the region as a whole. It fuels the conflict and reduces the prospects for a political settlement. For example, how can we be sure that reckless and illegal actions similar to those that occurred a month ago will not be repeated on some other trumped-up pretext? The reckless conduct of a number of international and regional players who claim to have common sense has considerably slowed progress regarding a settlement of the situation in Syria. If they cannot or will not help us with that, they should at least not interfere.In conclusion, I would like to touch briefly on the remarks by my American colleague. Basically, more than half of her statement was about Iran, not Syria, and Syria is the item on our agenda today, after all. I would also like to ask the Americans some questions we have about that. Before they blame Russia or Iran, I would like to ask what the reason is for the presence of United States forces in Syria and what their real objective is. The territories under their control have become grey areas where extremists of various stripes and real terrorists roam freely. In particular, what is going on with the several hundred ISIL followers who are being held by forces loyal to the United States under United States oversight in the region beyond the S/PV.8260 The situation in the Middle East 16/05/2018 8/12 18-14999 Euphrates? They are not being investigated, and nor are they being returned to their countries of origin. We are worried that ISIL will re-emerge in those areas when the United States withdraws from them, which it must do sooner or later.In conclusion, I would like to once again assure the Council of Russia's willingness to support any diplomatic efforts that can bring an end to the miseries of the Syrian people and peace to that long-suffering land.Mr. Ma Zhaoxu (China) (spoke in Chinese): I would like to begin by thanking Mr. De Mistura, Special Envoy of the Secretary-General for Syria, for his briefing. I appreciate his tireless efforts to find a political solution to the conflict.In recent weeks various members of the international community have made tremendous efforts to restore momentum in the political process. China welcomes the latest round of Astana talks and its joint communiqué, and salutes Russia, Kazakhstan, Turkey and Iran for their efforts. We hope that this dialogue will continue to play a positive role in helping to maintain a ceasefire in Syria and advance the Geneva negotiations.China has always maintained that a political solution is the only possible option where the issue of Syria is concerned, and that achieving that goal will require efforts on the international, regional and national fronts. First, the international community should continue to give its support to the United Nations, as the main channel for mediation, and to Mr. De Mistura's efforts to relaunch the Geneva negotiations as soon as possible, on a basis of full respect for Syria's sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity and with a view to helping the conflicting parties to engage in negotiations on political governance, the Constitution, elections and counter-terrorism. The Council should remain united in moving the Syrian political process forward.Secondly, the countries involved in the region should take the country's long-term interests and stability into consideration and play a constructive role in helping to find a political solution. China notes that there have been attacks on targets inside Syria. We hope that the parties concerned will remain calm, show restraint and work together to maintain regional peace and stability.Thirdly, both the Syrian Government and the opposition, based on concern for the future of their country and the fundamental interests of their people, should proceed to participate in the Geneva negotiations without preconditions, in accordance with the principle of a dialogue that is Syrian-owned and -led, and on the basis of resolution 2254 (2015), with a view to actively engaging in gradual efforts to reach a settlement that is acceptable to all the parties.For its part, China has been working relentlessly to find a solution. On 13 and 14 May, in the first instance of such an event being held on Syria in China, we hosted an international symposium in Shanghai on the prospects for a political settlement to the Syrian issue. It was attended by Xie Xiaoyan, China's Special Envoy for Syria, a representative of the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General, and the Special Envoys of the United Kingdom and France for Syria, as well as experts and scholars from many countries. Participants held in-depth discussions on the prospects for a solution, the factors bearing on a political settlement and the role of the international community. Our Special Envoy remains in close contact with the parties concerned in his continuing efforts to help reach a solution. Together with the rest of the international community, China stands ready to continue to play a positive and constructive role in finding a political solution to the issue.Mr. Umarov (Kazakhstan): We thank the Special Envoy for Syria, Mr. De Mistura, for his update, and we were glad to hear some encouraging notes of optimism in his briefing.Despite the numerous problems on the humanitarian and political fronts in Syria, Kazakhstan believes that it is imperative to continue to promote a settlement of the crisis while implementing resolution 2254 (2015). We are glad that at their meetings held on 14 and 15 May in Astana, the representatives of Syria's Government and opposition, along with those of the guarantor States, unanimously confirmed the importance of continuing the process. Among other issues, they addressed the importance of increasing efforts to ensure compliance with the various agreements reached during the previous eight rounds of the Astana talks. On the other hand, they also agreed that Geneva should remain the main international platform from which to seek and implement a political settlement of the Syrian crisis. It will also be important to continue to support the aims of the Astana talks and further Geneva negotiations, while ultimately merging those important platforms with the aim of achieving positive results.16/05/2018 The situation in the Middle East S/PV.8260 18-14999 9/12 We thank the Special Envoy for his consultations with various Foreign Ministers at the recent summit of the League of Arab States, as well as with Ms. Federica Mogherini, the European Union's High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. His high-level meetings in Moscow, Tehran, Riyadh and Ankara, as well as his consultations with several European ministers and senior representatives of the United States, are also commendable. We are encouraged by his summary today of his meetings and the outcomes of the Astana process, and we note his hopes for progress and his readiness to increase his own efforts and those of several of the principal stakeholders to revive the political process.We can all see that de-confliction and the precautionary measures to safeguard protected sites under humanitarian law are working. So far this year, 500 additional sites have been de-conflicted, as the process is known. Their coordinates have been voluntarily submitted through the United Nations, and today the total number of sites stands at 661.We are hearing a number of continuing questions and concerns about the outlook for Idlib, which should certainly be our top priority, simply because it has such a large population of vulnerable ordinary citizens. We agree with Mr. De Mistura that since Idlib is six times larger than eastern Ghouta, and therefore has six times more civilian residents, it is in an extremely vulnerable position. We cannot afford a war in Idlib and we therefore call on the main stakeholders with an influence on the conflicting parties to hold negotiations at the national and local levels and in the wider region in order to mitigate the potential tensions.We are impressed by the courageous stance of and the sacrifices made by the United Nations, the Red Crescent, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Norwegian Refugee Council, which are serving under the most challenging circumstances.To conclude, we also hope that the Brussels Conference, held on 24 and 25 April, will help to generate conditions conducive to the peaceful resolution of the Syrian crisis.Finally, we emphasize once again that the most important condition for the settlement of the Syrian crisis is a political process, through direct dialogue and the use of confidence-building measures among the parties, without which there can be no lasting results. We should not forget that it is the Syrians themselves who should begin to shape the future political system of the Syrian State, with the necessary legislative reforms, its territorial and administrative structure, and presidential and parliamentary elections, in accordance with resolution 2254 (2015).Mr. Inchauste Jordán (Plurinational State of Bolivia) (spoke in Spanish): We express our gratitude for the briefing that we heard from Mr. Staffan de Mistura, the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General for Syria, to whom we reiterate our support in the discharge of his duties.Once again we cannot but express our sorrow at the fact that this conflict has gone on for six years now and we are still witnessing the ongoing siege and violence suffered by the Syrian people, mainly children, who, in addition to living with the psychological aftermath of the situation, are also in urgent need of humanitarian assistance. We deplore any act of violence that puts human lives at risk and therefore call for an end to the violence and urge the parties to refrain from any hostile, provocative or unilateral actions, in order to prevent any further suffering of the Syrian people and any further destabilization of the region.We welcome the holding of the summit of the three ceasefire guarantors in Ankara, Turkey, in March. We will be focusing closely on the next summit, which will be sponsored by the Islamic Republic of Iran. Likewise, we welcome the recent Astana meeting. We deem its outcome positive, as were the agreements reached one year ago exactly, when the important de-escalation zones were established. We believe that that international initiative has served to reduce the level of violence and has facilitated, and will continue to facilitate, the path to peace and stability in Syria.We therefore call for greater coordination among the local authorities within the de-escalation zones, humanitarian agencies and the Syrian Government, which will make it possible to improve the living conditions of the local population, with a view to contributing to international efforts to end the conflict in Syria.We call once again for efforts to continue with respect to the full implementation of resolution 2401 (2018), so as to ensure safe, sustained and unhindered humanitarian access to all those who require it. The protection of the civilian population and civilian infrastructure must also be a priority within the S/PV.8260 The situation in the Middle East 16/05/2018 10/12 18-14999 framework of respect for international law and international humanitarian law.We deem imperative the voluntary return of internally displaced persons in a safe and dignified manner, as soon as the situation permits. For that to happen, demining will be vital in those areas where it is necessary. We would urge that the political dialogue agenda continue to focus on the release of detainees and abductees, as well as on the identification of missing or deceased persons.We stress the efforts made towards the voluntary return of thousands of people to eastern Ghouta and other cities north and south of Damascus and their subsequent full return. My delegation would draw the attention of the Security Council to the need to protect thousands of innocent civilians, including children and the elderly, and move them to Idlib. It is urgent and pressing that peace be maintained and any escalation of violence avoided in that area, as the aftermath could be tragic.We believe that measures must continue to be taken to reduce the level of violence on the ground, promote confidence among the parties involved, alleviate the humanitarian situation and promote ongoing initiatives aimed at finding a peaceful political solution. The process must take place on the basis of the various initiatives taken and meetings held at different levels. We therefore underscore once again the commitments made at the Syrian National Dialogue Congress, held in Sochi on 30 January, with a focus on strengthening the United Nations-led political process in the framework of the road map set out in resolution 2254 (2015), in particular through the drafting of a new constitution and the establishment of a constitutional committee, which we believe must be representative and impartial. We hope that the work of that committee, in Geneva, should start as soon as possible and should be active and dynamic and include the participation of all parties to the conflict.We welcome the good offices and mediation of the Secretary-General and his close collaboration with the members of the Security Council in the quest for a peaceful solution to the crisis in Syria.To conclude, we reject any attempt to divide or fragment Syria along ethnic lines or to foster sectarianism there. It is the Syrian people themselves who must freely decide their future and their political leadership, in the framework of their sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity, without any external pressure or interference.We reiterate that the only way to resolve the conflict in Syria is through a Syrian-owned and Syrian-led political process that is inclusive and based on consultation and dialogue and that will allow for a peaceful solution to be reached among all the parties involved.Ms. Pierce (United Kingdom): I had not intended to speak today in the Chamber, but I wanted to respond to some of the things that we have just heard. I will therefore take this opportunity to thank Staffan de Mistura and his team for all their work, which is not proving as fast or as productive as all of us would like, but I think that we are very grateful to Staffan for all his efforts. I was also interested to hear the Chinese account of the work of their envoy.We all know what needs to be done. We have had very many discussions in this Chamber and in the Consultations Room about Syria. I think that what we struggle with is how to get it done and how to take the next step, so I hope that when we leave the Chamber and go next door into closed consultations, we can actually have a proper discussion, without polemics, about what it will take to get the constitutional committee up and running; what are the concrete steps that need to be taken and how we as the Council can best facilitate and support that; and what it takes to get Idlib protected. Lots of speakers today have referred to Idlib; I think that we all know its importance, scale and significance. I would urge those Astana progenitors to do what they can to ensure that on the ground, people in Idlib are safe and that we avert a humanitarian catastrophe there. But I would like to have a proper discussion next door about how the Council can actually support that.I wanted to turn to the issue of the Syrian Government engaging with the United Nations. The Russian representative referred to backsliding from a political settlement and entrenching Syrian unwillingness for a negotiated solution. I think that those two statements are very damning, but they are not damning about us; they are damning about the Syrian regime. We really need all those with influence on Syria, including Russia and Iran, to encourage it to set aside a military strategy as a way to resolve the conflict and to engage with the United Nations across the board, so that we can get back to Geneva and to a political settlement. It is not we in the West who are stopping 16/05/2018 The situation in the Middle East S/PV.8260 18-14999 11/12 that happening. The onus is truly on Syria to follow the will of the Security Council and its resolutions and to allow the United Nations to do its work to help the people of Syria. Those are the main things I wanted to say, but I would like to touch on three more points as well, if I may.We support what the Special Envoy said about bringing women in, which I think is long overdue, and he can count on the United Kingdom's full support for that. I would also like to refer to Iran and the strikes on Israel from Syrian territory, on which we are in full agreement with the United States representative's comments and have been very vocal about in public. I also want to comment on the Russian representative's remarks about the air strikes. I will not rehearse why France, the United States and the United Kingdom took the action we did, except to say that we did it to avert a humanitarian catastrophe, and in doing so we helped to protect civilians on the ground, deterred and degraded Syria's ability to use chemical weapons and thereby upheld the global prohibition on weapons of mass destruction.While I think those things remain very important, they should not be used by anyone on the Council as a reason to let the Syrian Government off the hook where engaging with the United Nations on the political process is concerned. The political process has been essential since 2012, when the Geneva talks were started. It has been increasingly essential since then, and it continues to be essential now. I therefore hope that when we go next door we can have a very detailed discussion about how we as the Council can get back to the spirit of Sweden and actually help Staffan de Mistura and his team do something concrete to achieve that, and have no more mud-slinging.The President: In accordance with rule 37 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure, I invite the representative of the Syrian Arab Republic to participate in this meeting.I now give the floor to the representative of the Syrian Arab Republic.Mr. Mounzer (Syrian Arab Republic) (spoke in Arabic): To begin with, the delegations of the United States and the United Kingdom have tried to promote false claims justifying their aggression against sovereign States, particularly my country, Syria, with the aim of concealing their direct involvement in terrorism and their part in the responsibility for the bloodshed in Syria. I would like to say to them that the testimony, as cited in the media, of the thousands of Syrians who have escaped the blockades of armed terrorist groups in eastern Ghouta, has proved that those countries have been involved in making those citizens suffer through their support of those terrorist groups. Through their positions, their malicious acts and their illegal occupation of various areas of Syria, they have shown that, contrary to their claims, they cannot let go of their history of greed, occupation and imperialism. When speaking in the Council, they claim falsely that they are trying to find a political solution to the situation in Syria, but let me point out, briefly, that we have been able to defeat their agenda in Aleppo and eastern Ghouta, and we will be able to ensure that they cannot win in any part of my country.For the past seven years, since the beginning of the terrorist war in Syria, the United States, Britain and France have been working relentlessly to support and help conduct that war. They have also used the United Nations as a political tool to put pressure on the Syrian Government to implement their hegemonic agenda, interfere in our internal affairs and destabilize my country. They have not used the United Nations to fight terrorism and its sponsors or to help Syria overcome the suffering inflicted on it by armed terrorist groups, which should have been the goal.The Special Envoy devoted part of his statement to discussing the humanitarian situation. In that regard, I want to reiterate that the Syrian Government gives priority to providing every kind of humanitarian assistance to all Syrians in need, wherever they are in Syria. That is our duty, and we are doing our duty. The legal and constitutional obligations established under international decisions and Security Council resolutions on combating terrorism obliged my Government to undertake military operations in eastern Ghouta in order to rescue civilians from the armed terrorist groups holding them hostage and using them for years as human shields. In that regard, I want to state that contrary to some false narratives, the successful military operations conducted by the Syrian Arab Army and its allies against the armed terrorist groups controlling a number of areas that the United Nations has classified as besieged or hard to reach — along with the settlement and reconciliation agreements — have all mitigated civilians' suffering, reduced the numbers of those areas and facilitated humanitarian access to them, including eastern Ghouta.S/PV.8260 The situation in the Middle East 16/05/2018 12/12 18-14999 We deplore the fact that the United States speaks of its eagerness to reach a political agreement while it has been committing acts of aggression against my country based on lies, simply because it is working to give support to the armed groups because they have suffered losses in eastern Ghouta. It was the United States that supported Israel's aggression on 9 May when Israel was unable to protect its own proxy terrorist groups and implement its conspiracy against my country's unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity. Israel has continued its dangerous acts of aggression, which would not have been possible without the continuing unstinting support of the United States Government, because it enjoys impunity as a result of the support it has from the United States in the Security Council, enabling Israel to continue its terrorist acts threatening international peace and security in the region and the world. The Syrian Arab Republic reaffirms that through its military and armed forces it is able and ready to fend off all acts of aggression against its sovereignty and independence. However, we want to reiterate that any attempts to support this failing terrorism will not work. Such flagrant violations will not present obstacles to us in combating terrorism throughout Syrian territory.Yesterday we concluded round nine of the Astana process, and we are pleased with the results. We thank the delegations of Russia, Iran and the host country, Kazakhstan, for making the Astana process a success with regard to combating terrorism. The outcome document of the meeting stresses the unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic against any external entities that attempt to violate them.In cooperation with our friends and allies, the Syrian army has succeeded in liberating eastern Ghouta and the southern area of Damascus, making the capital and its surrounding areas safe. With the cooperation of our friends and brothers, we have also expelled the terrorists from the northern area of Homs and the southern area of Hama. Today we reaffirm that we will continue to fight terrorism and to work to liberate each and every part of our territory from terrorism and from countries that seek to undermine our sovereignty.In conclusion, the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic will spare no effort to support all genuine efforts to arrive at a political solution whereby Syrians, and only Syrians, will decide their future and make choices aimed at safeguarding Syria's sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity.The President: The representative of the United Kingdom has asked for the floor to make a further statement.Ms. Pierce (United Kingdom): I just wanted to comment on the Syrian representative's last statement, in which he said that the Syrian Arab Republic will spare no effort to arrive at a political solution. That is obviously a welcome statement. I would like to ask him if he could tell the Council, or is willing to say today, that Syria will put the same amount of effort into engaging with the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General for Syria and with the Council in order to take concrete steps to get the Geneva process to work and to get a constitutional committee off the ground. If Syria were able to make that commitment today in the Chamber, I believe that would unlock a lot of things for the Council.The President: The representative of the Syrian Arab Republic has asked for the floor to make a further statement. I now give him the floor.Mr. Mounzer (Syrian Arab Republic) (spoke in Arabic): We have said time and again that we are working with the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General for Syria. A delegation from the Syrian Arab Republic is working directly with him. We are eager, as we have said repeatedly, to find a peaceful, Syrian-led solution to the Syrian crisis.The President: There are no more names inscribed on the list of speakers. I now invite Council members to informal consultations to continue our discussion on the subject.The meeting rose at 11.25 a.m.
The Situation In The Middle East This Record Contains The Text Of Speeches Delivered In English And Of The Translation Of Speeches Delivered In Other Languages. ; United Nations S/PV.8260 Security Council Seventy-third year 8260th meeting Wednesday, 16 May 2018, 10 a.m. New York Provisional President: Ms. Wronecka. . (Poland) Members: Bolivia (Plurinational State of). . Mr. Inchauste Jordán China. . Mr. Ma Zhaoxu Côte d'Ivoire. . Mr. Djédjé Equatorial Guinea. . M. Ndong Mba Ethiopia. . Mr. Alemu France. . Mr. Delattre Kazakhstan. . Mr. Umarov Kuwait. . Mr. Alotaibi Netherlands. . Mr. Van Oosterom Peru. . Mr. Meza-Cuadra Russian Federation. . Mr. Polyanskiy Sweden . Mr. Skoog United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland . Ms. Pierce United States of America. . Ms. Eckels-Currie Agenda The situation in the Middle East This record contains the text of speeches delivered in English and of the translation of speeches delivered in other languages. The final text will be printed in the Official Records of the Security Council. Corrections should be submitted to the original languages only. They should be incorporated in a copy of the record and sent under the signature of a member of the delegation concerned to the Chief of the Verbatim Reporting Service, room U-0506 (verbatimrecords@un.org). Corrected records will be reissued electronically on the Official Document System of the United Nations (http://documents.un.org). 18-14999 (E) *1814999* S/PV.8260 The situation in the Middle East 16/05/2018 2/12 18-14999 The meeting was called to order at 10.15 a.m. Adoption of the agenda The agenda was adopted. The situation in the Middle East The President: In accordance with rule 39 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure, I invite Mr. Staffan de Mistura, Special Envoy of the Secretary- General for Syria, to participate in this meeting. Mr. De Mistura is joining today's meeting via video-teleconference from Geneva. The Security Council will now begin its consideration of the item on its agenda. I give the floor to Mr. De Mistura. Mr. De Mistura: When I last briefed the Security Council on 9 April, it was at an emergency meeting (see S/PV.8225). On that occasion, I warned of the threats to regional and international peace and security arising from developments in or related to Syria. I know that today it is not an emergency meeting. However, the circumstances of an emergency very much remain. I do not need to remind members that tensions are high and regional and international confrontations have occurred several times. Allow me to highlight some recent events since 9 April. On 13 April, the United States, France and the United Kingdom conducted missile strikes in response to the allegations of the use of chemical weapons in eastern Ghouta. Those countries say that the strikes targeted three research and production facilities near Damascus and Homs. On 29 April, strikes were reported on Syrian Government military facilities in Hamah and Aleppo. Some media outlets attributed those strikes to Israel, alleging that those killed included Iranian personnel. Neither Israel nor Iran responded to those claims. On 8 May, strikes were reported just south of Damascus. Syrian State media attributed those strikes to Israel. Israel did not confirm that claim. Israel then said that it had detected "irregular Iranian activity" in the occupied Golan, which it put on high alert. Between 9 and 10 May, Israel carried out dozens of strikes against presumed Iranian and Syrian Government military targets across southern Syria. The Israeli authorities claim that they were responding to Iranian forces firing rockets from Syrian territory at Israeli military targets in the occupied Syrian Golan. Iran condemned the Israeli strikes and denied those claims. We are not is a position to independently verify every aspect of those incidents. However, even an incomplete picture shows the troubling trajectory of the increasingly frequent and ever more intense international confrontations over Syria, unprecedented since 1973. As the Security Council knows, the Secretary- General has followed those developments with great concern and called for restraint by all parties in order to avoid any acts that could escalate the situation and worsen the suffering of the Syrian people. The Secretary-General stressed that the United Nations has a "duty to remind Member States that there is an obligation, particularly when dealing with matters of peace and security, to act consistently with the Charter of the United Nations, and with international law in general." (S/PV.8233, p. 2) On the issue of chemical weapons, let me again echo the Secretary-General's call for the Security Council to "agree on a dedicated mechanism for ensuring effective accountability for the use of chemical weapons in Syria" (ibid.). As the Council well knows, as of now, we await the results of the ongoing investigation by the Fact-finding Mission of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons following its visit to Douma, with a report to be issued to States parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention. However, we have also seen worrying developments elsewhere in Syria. Evacuations from eastern Ghouta were similarly repeated in the eastern Qalamoun area, southern Damascus and northern rural Homs. First, on the military escalation, the pattern has been one of incoming air strikes and artillery and outgoing mortars and rockets towards Damascus. Then there was a negotiation, followed by an agreement for the evacuation of those civilians and fighters unwilling to remain under Syrian Government control or Russian Federation protection guarantees. We have also seen similar evacuation agreements 16/05/2018 The situation in the Middle East S/PV.8260 18-14999 3/12 being discussed in Idlib province but in a completely different format — the reverse format. This time we are talking about civilians and fighters in Government-controlled areas, namely, Kafraya and Fo'ah, while considering evacuations — beginning with medical evacuations — following the three-year siege and intermittent attacks from armed groups surrounding that area.Let me share with the Council a recurrent concern that I know that all members have. If civilians and fighters are simply funnelled into northern Syria — mostly into Idlib — then that might only postpone another conflict affecting many additional people, which I will discuss later. Therefore, it is important to keep close watch on future developments in Idlib province. Meanwhile, civilians continue to pay a terrible price. To be precise, 110,000 people have been evacuated to north-western Syria and Operation Euphrates Shield areas in the past two months. Many of them are reportedly traumatized and in urgent need of assistance and protection. Humanitarian partners are overwhelmed and stretched quite thin by the scale of those evacuations, but continue to do their utmost to respond to the growing needs, with the Council's assistance.Returning to the topic of Idlib, if a Ghouta scenario were to play out there, the situation could be six times worse, affecting 2.3 million people, half of whom are already internally displaced and would have nowhere else to go. But that is not purely a question of the Syrians' suffering. We fear that any substantial escalation in Idlib, Dar'a or in the north-east might also result in risks not only to Syrian civilians, but also for international peace and security. As we know, many of those areas contain external and international forces. Conflict there might entail confrontations with those forces, thereby leading us down a slippery slope towards regional or potential international conflict. Therefore, discussions at the international level on how to prevent that and on de-escalation are needed, and, although they are taking place, they also need to be very intensive.I was therefore very encouraged to see concrete discussions on de-escalation when I attended the ninth high-level Astana meeting yesterday, which covered the issue of Idlib in particular, as the three guarantors have a say and the means to avoid it. That round of discussions in Astana saw constructive discussions on how that might be achieved. While fully stressing the need to respect Syria's sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity, we saw at first-hand the parties engage actively on how to avoid a worst-case scenario in Idlib. Moreover, the working group, of which the United Nations is a member and a proactive supporter — as hundreds of thousands of people in Syria expect of us — held its second meeting on the release of detainees, abductees and bodies, and on the identification of missing persons. The members of the working group held constructive discussions on practical and concrete steps to address that key humanitarian issue. The guarantors informed us that they have secured the parties' support — which, if confirmed, is good news — for the activities taking place under the auspices of the working group, which is a positive development. As it is a matter of preliminary discussions, I hope that we will see progress with regard to that complex issue at the working group's next meeting, which we understand will be held in Ankara.De-escalation is indispensable, as the Syrians themselves are telling us, but it is only one of the ingredients necessary to move forward the political process. We also need to overcome concrete challenges to meaningfully follow through with the Geneva process so as to implement resolution 2254 (2015). As instructed by the Secretary-General, I have consulted with a broad spectrum of relevant stakeholders and proactively identified options for a meaningful relaunch of the United Nations-facilitated Geneva process. Over a period of two weeks, I conducted an exhaustive tour of consultations with members of the League of Arab States; representatives of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and Iraq; the European Union (EU) High Representative; representatives of several key European countries, Turkey, the Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic of Iran; and all members of the Council, during what I believe was a very productive and useful retreat in Sweden; United States authorities during my visit to meet with them in Washington, D.C., several days ago; and also the Syrian Government and the opposition, with whom I had constructive discussions on the sidelines of the Astana meeting over the past two days. My deputy, Mr. Ramzy, was also in the region this past weekend in continuous political contact with regional stakeholders, and my chief of political affairs, Mr. Robert Dann, is visting China as we speak to exchange views with officials of that important member of the Security Council.What did I learn from that long tour? Not surprisingly, I returned to Geneva with a mixed picture. S/PV.8260 The situation in the Middle East 16/05/2018 4/12 18-14999 Clearly, significant differences remain, but there is also much common ground and interest on the need, first, to de-escalate, secondly, to form a constitutional committee under the auspices of the United Nations, thirdly, to facilitate the establishment of a safe, calm and neutral environment — leading to our shared goals in the political process — and, fourthly, to respect Syria's sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence. However, those commonalities risk getting glossed over, especially in the absence of serious international dialogue. I will say more on that later. During my tour, my message to all was the need — now more than ever — for robust, strong, proactive and urgent dialogue and consensus at the international level to create the minimum conditions necessary for a realistic and credible political process. As we know, much water has flowed under the bridge and much has happened since resolution 2254 (2015) was adopted. We are therefore becoming increasingly realistic and know that we need a credible political process that takes into account the current situation and does not forget resolution 2254 (2015).As the Secretariat, we are not sitting idle in that regard. We are assessing a number of creative options to update, revive and advance the Geneva-based political process. Let me state for the record that the United Nations remains ever-mobilized and -ready to work on the formation of a constitutional committee in accordance with the final statement of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi. I therefore welcome the intention of the Astana guarantors to actively and regularly engage with the United Nations in Geneva so as to see through a concrete follow-up to the statement since its adoption three and a half months ago.I was also pleased to see a significant number of Member States reaffirm the primacy of the United Nations-led Geneva process, in general, and the need for a constitutional committee working under United Nations auspices, when I was at the EU-United Nations Brussels conference from 24 to 25 April. Those at the conference nearly unanimously reiterated the message that the only solution to the crisis will be political and that only such a political solution will pave the way for reconstruction efforts. Also in Brussels, we saw the entire United Nations system highlight the increasing needs of millions of Syrians, including internally displaced persons (IDPs) and neighbouring countries hosting refugees.Let me also note the important contribution of Syrian civil society in Brussels, in particular during a side event organized by the EU and my own Office. Those present did not shy away from debating with one another constructively and intensively on complex issues, such as transitional justice and sanctions. They all demanded the release of all detainees, abductees and missing persons. They all affirmed that any political solution must protect the right of refugees and IDPs. Despite their differences, Syrians — Syrian civil society — displayed a genuine commitment to dialogue and a spirit of negotiation that I hope can be replicated in the formal negotiations.In Brussels I also met with a group of Syrian women activists who stressed that not enough has been done to secure the direct participation of Syrian women in the political process. I committed to translating our collective commitment to that inclusion into concrete measures, and I will count on the Council's support to keep that promise. For instance, in future intra-Syrian talks, I will insist that the relevant number of seats be reserved exclusively for Syrian women. When I am criticized, I hope that the Council will support me. I know it will not be popular, but it needs to be done.Let me briefly touch on an issue that was raised by the civil society in Brussels and by many Syrians elsewhere who have been writing to us, that is, the possible implications of the newly adopted Law No. 10. We are quite aware of the concerns surrounding that law. We, as well as other United Nations partners, are seeking clarifications on the law's goals and repercussions, especially for refugees and IDPs who do not have access to legal documentation.Let me conclude with two bottom lines.First, de-escalation is critical between the Syrian and international stakeholders, both regional and global. We hope that the relevant players can re-establish some overarching rules of the road in that regard. We stand ready to facilitate such a discussion, with focused support from the Council and key countries for the good offices of the Secretary-General and myself.Secondly, we must revive the political process in terms of the constitutional committee, as well as in terms of some initial steps towards the establishment of a safe, calm and neutral environment. We stand ready to facilitate discussions on both. Let me stress that a critical component of either aspect of the political process is active, continuous and positive United 16/05/2018 The situation in the Middle East S/PV.8260 18-14999 5/12 Nations engagement with the Syrian parties. I repeat once again that we stand ready, today as always, to engage with the Syrian Government in Damascus. We will also continue our contacts with the opposition and Syrian civil society.To unlock and lock those two aspects, careful diplomacy is required more than ever — careful, but proactive diplomacy, including at a high level. Hence, we look with interest to the forthcoming visits to Moscow and meetings of Chancellor Merkel and, later on, President Macron with President Putin, which undoubtedly will not avoid the issue of a political process in Syria. The United Nations believes that there is an urgent need for high-level diplomacy to support de-escalation, avoid any miscalculation and ensure a genuine communication system about a sustainable end to the conflict. With the support of the Secretary-General, we will increase our own efforts to contribute to that endeavour, including by offering further ideas and —if required, which we hope it will be — bridging proposals.The President: I thank Mr. De Mistura for his briefing.I shall now give the floor to the members of the Security Council who wish to make statements.Ms. Eckels-Currie (United States of America): Since this is my first opportunity to congratulate you upon assuming the presidency, Madam President, I would like to do so at this time. I also thank Staffan for his briefing.Last week the world witnessed a new and extremely dangerous escalation in Syria. It should not surprise anyone on the Security Council that Iran was responsible. Iranian forces operating from Syrian territory launched a rocket attack against Israeli citizens — citizens of a sovereign State Member of the United Nations. The United States strongly supports Israel's right to act in self-defence. Iran's reckless and provocative acts last week prove what we have been saying: wherever Iran shows up in the Middle East, chaos follows. Last week's rocket attack against Israel is the latest in a pattern of destabilizing behaviour that is a dire threat to the region's stability.Iran's rocket attack against Israel shows something else too. It puts to bed any myths about why Iran is present in Syria, or what its true objectives might be. The fact is that Iran has installed offensive rocket and missile systems in Syria aimed at Israel. Iran has introduced those threats that were not present in Syria before the conflict; they are now. Iran, together with Hizbullah and other militias, is taking advantage of Syrian territory to establish bases and training camps. They are moving ever closer to Israel. The United States calls on Iran, Hizbullah and their other proxies to take no further provocative steps. If they do, Iran will bear full responsibility for its actions.It is also important to emphasize that Iran's actions do not serve the interests of the Iranian or the Syrian people. The Syrian people get no say in whether Iran threatens war against Syria's neighbours, but it is they who have to live with the consequences.All of us on the Security Council have an important choice to make: we can stay quiet and watch as Iran builds up the infrastructure to create another Hizbullah in Syria, or we can speak up and take steps to put real pressure on Iran to stop. For our part, the United States refuses to stay quiet. Russia in particular has a special responsibility here. Its troops are on the ground, sometimes alongside Iran's. Russia must know that Iran's provocative actions do nothing to help resolve the war in Syria. Russia must know that Iran's actions do just the opposite. They only inflame, prolong and widen the conflict.We heard once again from Staffan today that there has been very little progress on the political track. There has been no progress at all in Geneva, or following Russia's own conferences in Astana and Sochi. Since January, the United Nations was supposed assemble a new constitution drafting committee that would help kick off a new round of talks. The United Nations was supposed to have the ability to choose which people would serve on the committee, and the United Nations was supposed to be empowered to facilitate those talks. Instead, the Al-Assad regime has backtracked, stalled and then refused to cooperate.At the same time, the Syrian regime escalated its brutal military campaign. It seized eastern Ghouta, at the cost of thousands of lives and tens of thousands displaced. It used chemical weapons in Douma. Just yesterday, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons Fact-finding Mission released a report determining that chlorine was used during attacks on 4 February in Saraqib.As reported by the Fact-finding Mission, the facts of that chemical-weapons attack bear the hallmarks S/PV.8260 The situation in the Middle East 16/05/2018 6/12 18-14999 of similar attacks conducted by the Al-Assad regime. As we have said before, the United States assesses that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons well over 50 times since the start of the civil war. The Al-Assad regime, with Iran's and Russia's full support, is choosing to pursue a military solution instead of a political solution, and that goes against everything we should stand for as the Security Council.In the aftermath of eastern Ghouta, the need for a real ceasefire could not be more obvious. Already, we see the Al-Assad regime launching new attacks in Idlib and the south-west. As Staffan noted, a Ghouta scenario in Idlib would be six times worse than the horror we saw in recent months in Ghouta. Air strikes in the south-west have tripled in the last month, even though that area is part of a de-escalation zone. Russia is supposed to be a sponsor of that zone. It must urgently meet its commitments to prevent the regime from carrying out attacks and stop Iranian militias from expanding their foothold in the south.Members of the Security Council — all of us — must push the political process forward. There is Council unity behind that goal. There is a clear blueprint for a political solution in resolution 2254 (2015), which we adopted unanimously. We have to send a clear message to the Al-Assad regime and its backers: the end of the conflict can be reached only via the United Nations-led political process. There must be constitutional reform and free and fair elections under United Nations supervision. If the Al-Assad regime does not comply, we need to be prepared to impose real costs on it for its years of defiance and the devastation it has wrought in Syria. If we take those steps, we can start to change the calculus of the Al-Assad regime and its allies in Syria. We can show them that further conflict is not in their interests and that it is time for them to genuinely commit to a political solution. But as we saw last week, the longer we wait, the greater the risk of confrontation. Now is the time to act to reduce tensions and address Iran's designs in Syria. That is how we can prevent further escalation and even worse suffering. There is no time to waste.Mr. Polyanskiy (Russian Federation) (spoke in Russian): We thank Mr. De Mistura for his briefing. We can see that his personal participation in the meeting on Syria in Astana enabled him to make it a substantive one. We appreciated his call for active diplomacy, which Russia has advocated for from the very beginning. We continue to make significant efforts to facilitate a political settlement in Syria despite the undermining effects of the aggressive action by the United States, the United Kingdom and France in April against a number of civilian structures in Syria. I discerned no sympathy about what happened there in the statement by my United States colleague, despite the fact that it was a blatant breach of international law and did absolutely nothing to advance any kind of a settlement. Furthermore, her statement had an odd, confrontational tone that I felt certainly did not correspond to the message that Mr. De Mistura wanted to convey to all of us today, which is that it will be important for diplomacy to function if the peace that the Syrians have awaited for so long is to finally be established on the ground.Unlike some Security Council member States, which prefer taking unilateral measures to finding ways to solve problems, Russia is focusing on steps to genuinely improve the situation on the ground and advance the prospects for a political settlement. As Mr. De Mistura already noted, the ninth meeting of the participants in the Astana process concluded yesterday in the capital of Kazakhstan, and the guarantors adopted a joint statement. We are grateful to the leadership of Kazakhstan for its steadfast support. The meeting in Astana considered concrete measures for resolving a number of political and humanitarian issues and analysed the situation in the de-escalation zones, which play a key role in maintaining the ceasefire regime, reducing the level of violence and generally stabilizing the situation in Syria. The importance was noted of increasing efforts to help all Syrians and restore normal civilian life and, to that end, of providing fast, safe and unhindered humanitarian access and essential humanitarian and medical assistance, and creating the conditions needed to enable the safe and voluntary return of refugees and internally displaced persons to their homes, as well as people's freedom of movement.A second meeting was held of the working group on the liberation of detainees and hostages to discuss the handover of the bodies of the dead and the search for missing persons, with the participation of experts from the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross. The importance of continuing joint efforts with the aim of building trust among the conflicting parties in Syria was emphasized. The Syrian Government declared its willingness to engage with the working group and decided to appoint a special representative on issues related to its work.16/05/2018 The situation in the Middle East S/PV.8260 18-14999 7/12 In line with the provisions of resolution 2254 (2015), the meeting affirmed its determination to continuing to promote a political settlement by helping to implement the recommendations of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress held in Sochi. The consultations with the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General and the Syrian parties will continue, with a view to establishing the conditions conducive to starting the work of a constitutional committee in Geneva as soon as possible, whose parameters will have to be agreed on by the Syrians themselves. We will get nowhere without their consensus, so there is no point in proposing artificial frameworks for the process, especially if they are based on provisional plans of some kind. Thanks to the Astana process, we have succeeded in generating momentum for a political process based on intra-Syrian talks under the auspices of the United Nations, although, as we have noted, the triple alliance's aggression against the Syrian Arab Republic has significantly limited the room for manoeuvre in that regard.Concerted efforts by the guarantor countries are bringing us steadily closer to eliminating the presence of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), Jabhat Al-Nusra and other terrorist groups altogether. The recent situation in Syria has continued to be difficult. The guarantor countries' efforts are certainly not being helped by provocative initiatives from external actors, which merely strengthen radical sentiments among groups opposing the legitimate Government and fuel their reluctance to work for negotiated solutions.In Damascus, the operation to liberate the southern regions and suburbs of the capital from ISIL-affiliated groups continues, but Yalda, Babila and Bayt Saham are now fully under the Syrian authorities' control and civilian life there is returning. Russian specialists are helping the Syrian authorities to restore civilian infrastructure. Mines are being cleared, socially significant facilities are being rebuilt and electricity and water services are being restored. In eastern Ghouta, some 65,000 residents previously evacuated from the area have returned to their homes. However, in some other regions where the Syrian Government lacks access, the situation has continued to deteriorate. That is especially true of the Rukban and Al-Tuwaihina refugee camps, as well as the former ISIL capital, Raqqa, where the humanitarian situation is disastrous. Measures must be taken to rectify it without delay. The solution is simple — restore Damascus's sovereignty over those territories as soon as possible.Government forces and Palestinian volunteers, with aerial and artillery support, have continued to combat fierce resistance from terrorist detachments in the Palestinian refugee camp in Yarmouk. The militias wounded several dozen civilians in mortar strikes on residential areas in the north-east area of the camp. In the past week, the territory held by the illegal armed groups in Yarmouk has been significantly reduced.The Syrian army's assault on ISIL positions in Deir ez-Zor province has also been ramped up. ISIL's adherents have incurred considerable losses in manpower and equipment and have been driven out of an area of about 1,500 square kilometres. A large-scale operation to eliminate ISIL is being conducted in the eastern part of Syria with the aim of completely defeating the terrorists based in hard-to-reach desert areas, who have been increasing their attacks on Government forces in the Euphrates region and Homs province.We will continue the difficult work of restoring peace in Syria. Frankly, we are disturbed by some international and regional actors' disrespectful attitude to the issue of Syrian sovereignty, of which we have recently seen alarming manifestations. It is important to understand that this will not help to normalize the situation in Syria or the region as a whole. It fuels the conflict and reduces the prospects for a political settlement. For example, how can we be sure that reckless and illegal actions similar to those that occurred a month ago will not be repeated on some other trumped-up pretext? The reckless conduct of a number of international and regional players who claim to have common sense has considerably slowed progress regarding a settlement of the situation in Syria. If they cannot or will not help us with that, they should at least not interfere.In conclusion, I would like to touch briefly on the remarks by my American colleague. Basically, more than half of her statement was about Iran, not Syria, and Syria is the item on our agenda today, after all. I would also like to ask the Americans some questions we have about that. Before they blame Russia or Iran, I would like to ask what the reason is for the presence of United States forces in Syria and what their real objective is. The territories under their control have become grey areas where extremists of various stripes and real terrorists roam freely. In particular, what is going on with the several hundred ISIL followers who are being held by forces loyal to the United States under United States oversight in the region beyond the S/PV.8260 The situation in the Middle East 16/05/2018 8/12 18-14999 Euphrates? They are not being investigated, and nor are they being returned to their countries of origin. We are worried that ISIL will re-emerge in those areas when the United States withdraws from them, which it must do sooner or later.In conclusion, I would like to once again assure the Council of Russia's willingness to support any diplomatic efforts that can bring an end to the miseries of the Syrian people and peace to that long-suffering land.Mr. Ma Zhaoxu (China) (spoke in Chinese): I would like to begin by thanking Mr. De Mistura, Special Envoy of the Secretary-General for Syria, for his briefing. I appreciate his tireless efforts to find a political solution to the conflict.In recent weeks various members of the international community have made tremendous efforts to restore momentum in the political process. China welcomes the latest round of Astana talks and its joint communiqué, and salutes Russia, Kazakhstan, Turkey and Iran for their efforts. We hope that this dialogue will continue to play a positive role in helping to maintain a ceasefire in Syria and advance the Geneva negotiations.China has always maintained that a political solution is the only possible option where the issue of Syria is concerned, and that achieving that goal will require efforts on the international, regional and national fronts. First, the international community should continue to give its support to the United Nations, as the main channel for mediation, and to Mr. De Mistura's efforts to relaunch the Geneva negotiations as soon as possible, on a basis of full respect for Syria's sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity and with a view to helping the conflicting parties to engage in negotiations on political governance, the Constitution, elections and counter-terrorism. The Council should remain united in moving the Syrian political process forward.Secondly, the countries involved in the region should take the country's long-term interests and stability into consideration and play a constructive role in helping to find a political solution. China notes that there have been attacks on targets inside Syria. We hope that the parties concerned will remain calm, show restraint and work together to maintain regional peace and stability.Thirdly, both the Syrian Government and the opposition, based on concern for the future of their country and the fundamental interests of their people, should proceed to participate in the Geneva negotiations without preconditions, in accordance with the principle of a dialogue that is Syrian-owned and -led, and on the basis of resolution 2254 (2015), with a view to actively engaging in gradual efforts to reach a settlement that is acceptable to all the parties.For its part, China has been working relentlessly to find a solution. On 13 and 14 May, in the first instance of such an event being held on Syria in China, we hosted an international symposium in Shanghai on the prospects for a political settlement to the Syrian issue. It was attended by Xie Xiaoyan, China's Special Envoy for Syria, a representative of the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General, and the Special Envoys of the United Kingdom and France for Syria, as well as experts and scholars from many countries. Participants held in-depth discussions on the prospects for a solution, the factors bearing on a political settlement and the role of the international community. Our Special Envoy remains in close contact with the parties concerned in his continuing efforts to help reach a solution. Together with the rest of the international community, China stands ready to continue to play a positive and constructive role in finding a political solution to the issue.Mr. Umarov (Kazakhstan): We thank the Special Envoy for Syria, Mr. De Mistura, for his update, and we were glad to hear some encouraging notes of optimism in his briefing.Despite the numerous problems on the humanitarian and political fronts in Syria, Kazakhstan believes that it is imperative to continue to promote a settlement of the crisis while implementing resolution 2254 (2015). We are glad that at their meetings held on 14 and 15 May in Astana, the representatives of Syria's Government and opposition, along with those of the guarantor States, unanimously confirmed the importance of continuing the process. Among other issues, they addressed the importance of increasing efforts to ensure compliance with the various agreements reached during the previous eight rounds of the Astana talks. On the other hand, they also agreed that Geneva should remain the main international platform from which to seek and implement a political settlement of the Syrian crisis. It will also be important to continue to support the aims of the Astana talks and further Geneva negotiations, while ultimately merging those important platforms with the aim of achieving positive results.16/05/2018 The situation in the Middle East S/PV.8260 18-14999 9/12 We thank the Special Envoy for his consultations with various Foreign Ministers at the recent summit of the League of Arab States, as well as with Ms. Federica Mogherini, the European Union's High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. His high-level meetings in Moscow, Tehran, Riyadh and Ankara, as well as his consultations with several European ministers and senior representatives of the United States, are also commendable. We are encouraged by his summary today of his meetings and the outcomes of the Astana process, and we note his hopes for progress and his readiness to increase his own efforts and those of several of the principal stakeholders to revive the political process.We can all see that de-confliction and the precautionary measures to safeguard protected sites under humanitarian law are working. So far this year, 500 additional sites have been de-conflicted, as the process is known. Their coordinates have been voluntarily submitted through the United Nations, and today the total number of sites stands at 661.We are hearing a number of continuing questions and concerns about the outlook for Idlib, which should certainly be our top priority, simply because it has such a large population of vulnerable ordinary citizens. We agree with Mr. De Mistura that since Idlib is six times larger than eastern Ghouta, and therefore has six times more civilian residents, it is in an extremely vulnerable position. We cannot afford a war in Idlib and we therefore call on the main stakeholders with an influence on the conflicting parties to hold negotiations at the national and local levels and in the wider region in order to mitigate the potential tensions.We are impressed by the courageous stance of and the sacrifices made by the United Nations, the Red Crescent, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Norwegian Refugee Council, which are serving under the most challenging circumstances.To conclude, we also hope that the Brussels Conference, held on 24 and 25 April, will help to generate conditions conducive to the peaceful resolution of the Syrian crisis.Finally, we emphasize once again that the most important condition for the settlement of the Syrian crisis is a political process, through direct dialogue and the use of confidence-building measures among the parties, without which there can be no lasting results. We should not forget that it is the Syrians themselves who should begin to shape the future political system of the Syrian State, with the necessary legislative reforms, its territorial and administrative structure, and presidential and parliamentary elections, in accordance with resolution 2254 (2015).Mr. Inchauste Jordán (Plurinational State of Bolivia) (spoke in Spanish): We express our gratitude for the briefing that we heard from Mr. Staffan de Mistura, the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General for Syria, to whom we reiterate our support in the discharge of his duties.Once again we cannot but express our sorrow at the fact that this conflict has gone on for six years now and we are still witnessing the ongoing siege and violence suffered by the Syrian people, mainly children, who, in addition to living with the psychological aftermath of the situation, are also in urgent need of humanitarian assistance. We deplore any act of violence that puts human lives at risk and therefore call for an end to the violence and urge the parties to refrain from any hostile, provocative or unilateral actions, in order to prevent any further suffering of the Syrian people and any further destabilization of the region.We welcome the holding of the summit of the three ceasefire guarantors in Ankara, Turkey, in March. We will be focusing closely on the next summit, which will be sponsored by the Islamic Republic of Iran. Likewise, we welcome the recent Astana meeting. We deem its outcome positive, as were the agreements reached one year ago exactly, when the important de-escalation zones were established. We believe that that international initiative has served to reduce the level of violence and has facilitated, and will continue to facilitate, the path to peace and stability in Syria.We therefore call for greater coordination among the local authorities within the de-escalation zones, humanitarian agencies and the Syrian Government, which will make it possible to improve the living conditions of the local population, with a view to contributing to international efforts to end the conflict in Syria.We call once again for efforts to continue with respect to the full implementation of resolution 2401 (2018), so as to ensure safe, sustained and unhindered humanitarian access to all those who require it. The protection of the civilian population and civilian infrastructure must also be a priority within the S/PV.8260 The situation in the Middle East 16/05/2018 10/12 18-14999 framework of respect for international law and international humanitarian law.We deem imperative the voluntary return of internally displaced persons in a safe and dignified manner, as soon as the situation permits. For that to happen, demining will be vital in those areas where it is necessary. We would urge that the political dialogue agenda continue to focus on the release of detainees and abductees, as well as on the identification of missing or deceased persons.We stress the efforts made towards the voluntary return of thousands of people to eastern Ghouta and other cities north and south of Damascus and their subsequent full return. My delegation would draw the attention of the Security Council to the need to protect thousands of innocent civilians, including children and the elderly, and move them to Idlib. It is urgent and pressing that peace be maintained and any escalation of violence avoided in that area, as the aftermath could be tragic.We believe that measures must continue to be taken to reduce the level of violence on the ground, promote confidence among the parties involved, alleviate the humanitarian situation and promote ongoing initiatives aimed at finding a peaceful political solution. The process must take place on the basis of the various initiatives taken and meetings held at different levels. We therefore underscore once again the commitments made at the Syrian National Dialogue Congress, held in Sochi on 30 January, with a focus on strengthening the United Nations-led political process in the framework of the road map set out in resolution 2254 (2015), in particular through the drafting of a new constitution and the establishment of a constitutional committee, which we believe must be representative and impartial. We hope that the work of that committee, in Geneva, should start as soon as possible and should be active and dynamic and include the participation of all parties to the conflict.We welcome the good offices and mediation of the Secretary-General and his close collaboration with the members of the Security Council in the quest for a peaceful solution to the crisis in Syria.To conclude, we reject any attempt to divide or fragment Syria along ethnic lines or to foster sectarianism there. It is the Syrian people themselves who must freely decide their future and their political leadership, in the framework of their sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity, without any external pressure or interference.We reiterate that the only way to resolve the conflict in Syria is through a Syrian-owned and Syrian-led political process that is inclusive and based on consultation and dialogue and that will allow for a peaceful solution to be reached among all the parties involved.Ms. Pierce (United Kingdom): I had not intended to speak today in the Chamber, but I wanted to respond to some of the things that we have just heard. I will therefore take this opportunity to thank Staffan de Mistura and his team for all their work, which is not proving as fast or as productive as all of us would like, but I think that we are very grateful to Staffan for all his efforts. I was also interested to hear the Chinese account of the work of their envoy.We all know what needs to be done. We have had very many discussions in this Chamber and in the Consultations Room about Syria. I think that what we struggle with is how to get it done and how to take the next step, so I hope that when we leave the Chamber and go next door into closed consultations, we can actually have a proper discussion, without polemics, about what it will take to get the constitutional committee up and running; what are the concrete steps that need to be taken and how we as the Council can best facilitate and support that; and what it takes to get Idlib protected. Lots of speakers today have referred to Idlib; I think that we all know its importance, scale and significance. I would urge those Astana progenitors to do what they can to ensure that on the ground, people in Idlib are safe and that we avert a humanitarian catastrophe there. But I would like to have a proper discussion next door about how the Council can actually support that.I wanted to turn to the issue of the Syrian Government engaging with the United Nations. The Russian representative referred to backsliding from a political settlement and entrenching Syrian unwillingness for a negotiated solution. I think that those two statements are very damning, but they are not damning about us; they are damning about the Syrian regime. We really need all those with influence on Syria, including Russia and Iran, to encourage it to set aside a military strategy as a way to resolve the conflict and to engage with the United Nations across the board, so that we can get back to Geneva and to a political settlement. It is not we in the West who are stopping 16/05/2018 The situation in the Middle East S/PV.8260 18-14999 11/12 that happening. The onus is truly on Syria to follow the will of the Security Council and its resolutions and to allow the United Nations to do its work to help the people of Syria. Those are the main things I wanted to say, but I would like to touch on three more points as well, if I may.We support what the Special Envoy said about bringing women in, which I think is long overdue, and he can count on the United Kingdom's full support for that. I would also like to refer to Iran and the strikes on Israel from Syrian territory, on which we are in full agreement with the United States representative's comments and have been very vocal about in public. I also want to comment on the Russian representative's remarks about the air strikes. I will not rehearse why France, the United States and the United Kingdom took the action we did, except to say that we did it to avert a humanitarian catastrophe, and in doing so we helped to protect civilians on the ground, deterred and degraded Syria's ability to use chemical weapons and thereby upheld the global prohibition on weapons of mass destruction.While I think those things remain very important, they should not be used by anyone on the Council as a reason to let the Syrian Government off the hook where engaging with the United Nations on the political process is concerned. The political process has been essential since 2012, when the Geneva talks were started. It has been increasingly essential since then, and it continues to be essential now. I therefore hope that when we go next door we can have a very detailed discussion about how we as the Council can get back to the spirit of Sweden and actually help Staffan de Mistura and his team do something concrete to achieve that, and have no more mud-slinging.The President: In accordance with rule 37 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure, I invite the representative of the Syrian Arab Republic to participate in this meeting.I now give the floor to the representative of the Syrian Arab Republic.Mr. Mounzer (Syrian Arab Republic) (spoke in Arabic): To begin with, the delegations of the United States and the United Kingdom have tried to promote false claims justifying their aggression against sovereign States, particularly my country, Syria, with the aim of concealing their direct involvement in terrorism and their part in the responsibility for the bloodshed in Syria. I would like to say to them that the testimony, as cited in the media, of the thousands of Syrians who have escaped the blockades of armed terrorist groups in eastern Ghouta, has proved that those countries have been involved in making those citizens suffer through their support of those terrorist groups. Through their positions, their malicious acts and their illegal occupation of various areas of Syria, they have shown that, contrary to their claims, they cannot let go of their history of greed, occupation and imperialism. When speaking in the Council, they claim falsely that they are trying to find a political solution to the situation in Syria, but let me point out, briefly, that we have been able to defeat their agenda in Aleppo and eastern Ghouta, and we will be able to ensure that they cannot win in any part of my country.For the past seven years, since the beginning of the terrorist war in Syria, the United States, Britain and France have been working relentlessly to support and help conduct that war. They have also used the United Nations as a political tool to put pressure on the Syrian Government to implement their hegemonic agenda, interfere in our internal affairs and destabilize my country. They have not used the United Nations to fight terrorism and its sponsors or to help Syria overcome the suffering inflicted on it by armed terrorist groups, which should have been the goal.The Special Envoy devoted part of his statement to discussing the humanitarian situation. In that regard, I want to reiterate that the Syrian Government gives priority to providing every kind of humanitarian assistance to all Syrians in need, wherever they are in Syria. That is our duty, and we are doing our duty. The legal and constitutional obligations established under international decisions and Security Council resolutions on combating terrorism obliged my Government to undertake military operations in eastern Ghouta in order to rescue civilians from the armed terrorist groups holding them hostage and using them for years as human shields. In that regard, I want to state that contrary to some false narratives, the successful military operations conducted by the Syrian Arab Army and its allies against the armed terrorist groups controlling a number of areas that the United Nations has classified as besieged or hard to reach — along with the settlement and reconciliation agreements — have all mitigated civilians' suffering, reduced the numbers of those areas and facilitated humanitarian access to them, including eastern Ghouta.S/PV.8260 The situation in the Middle East 16/05/2018 12/12 18-14999 We deplore the fact that the United States speaks of its eagerness to reach a political agreement while it has been committing acts of aggression against my country based on lies, simply because it is working to give support to the armed groups because they have suffered losses in eastern Ghouta. It was the United States that supported Israel's aggression on 9 May when Israel was unable to protect its own proxy terrorist groups and implement its conspiracy against my country's unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity. Israel has continued its dangerous acts of aggression, which would not have been possible without the continuing unstinting support of the United States Government, because it enjoys impunity as a result of the support it has from the United States in the Security Council, enabling Israel to continue its terrorist acts threatening international peace and security in the region and the world. The Syrian Arab Republic reaffirms that through its military and armed forces it is able and ready to fend off all acts of aggression against its sovereignty and independence. However, we want to reiterate that any attempts to support this failing terrorism will not work. Such flagrant violations will not present obstacles to us in combating terrorism throughout Syrian territory.Yesterday we concluded round nine of the Astana process, and we are pleased with the results. We thank the delegations of Russia, Iran and the host country, Kazakhstan, for making the Astana process a success with regard to combating terrorism. The outcome document of the meeting stresses the unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic against any external entities that attempt to violate them.In cooperation with our friends and allies, the Syrian army has succeeded in liberating eastern Ghouta and the southern area of Damascus, making the capital and its surrounding areas safe. With the cooperation of our friends and brothers, we have also expelled the terrorists from the northern area of Homs and the southern area of Hama. Today we reaffirm that we will continue to fight terrorism and to work to liberate each and every part of our territory from terrorism and from countries that seek to undermine our sovereignty.In conclusion, the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic will spare no effort to support all genuine efforts to arrive at a political solution whereby Syrians, and only Syrians, will decide their future and make choices aimed at safeguarding Syria's sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity.The President: The representative of the United Kingdom has asked for the floor to make a further statement.Ms. Pierce (United Kingdom): I just wanted to comment on the Syrian representative's last statement, in which he said that the Syrian Arab Republic will spare no effort to arrive at a political solution. That is obviously a welcome statement. I would like to ask him if he could tell the Council, or is willing to say today, that Syria will put the same amount of effort into engaging with the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General for Syria and with the Council in order to take concrete steps to get the Geneva process to work and to get a constitutional committee off the ground. If Syria were able to make that commitment today in the Chamber, I believe that would unlock a lot of things for the Council.The President: The representative of the Syrian Arab Republic has asked for the floor to make a further statement. I now give him the floor.Mr. Mounzer (Syrian Arab Republic) (spoke in Arabic): We have said time and again that we are working with the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General for Syria. A delegation from the Syrian Arab Republic is working directly with him. We are eager, as we have said repeatedly, to find a peaceful, Syrian-led solution to the Syrian crisis.The President: There are no more names inscribed on the list of speakers. I now invite Council members to informal consultations to continue our discussion on the subject.The meeting rose at 11.25 a.m.
DIRECT FEEDBACK STRATEGY IN THE TEACHING OF WRITING Army Vista Casmi Septianik English Education Department, Language and Art Faculty, Surabaya State University. email: armyvistacs@yahoo.co.id Prof. Dr. Susanto, M.Pd. English Education Department, Language and Art Faculty, Surabaya State University. Abstrak Penelitianinibertujuanuntukmendiskripsikanpenerapanstrategi Direct Feedback oleh guru untukmengajarmenulispadasiswakelassepuluh di sekolahmenengahatas Surabaya.Dalam proses pengajaranmenulisini guru menggunakanempattahapdalampenerapanstrategi Direct Feedback. Merekaadalahtahapperencanaan, penyusunan, pengeditan, danhasilakhirterbaru.Padatahapperencanaan, guru memberikanpenjelasandanpengungkapanpendapattentangapa yang akan di lakukandalampelajaranmenuliskepadasiswa. Setelahitu guru memintakepadasiswauntukmerencanakandanmenuliskan ide secarabebas yang berkaitandengan topic teks recount dalampengajaranmenulis. Dalamtahap yang keduayaitupenyusunan, guru memintakepadasiswauntukmengembangkan ide merekakedalamsuatuparagraf.Kemudiansetelahsiswaselesaimengembangkan ide dalamparagraf, guru memintasiswauntukmengkoreksikembalitulisanmerekadengancaradikoreksiolehtemansebangku. Tahap yang ketigaadalahtahapdalampengeditan.Dalamtahapini guru memberikanpengkoreksiandarihasiltulisansiswasetelahmendapatkanpengkoreksianolehtemansebangkudenganmenggunakan Direct Feedback strategibaiksecaralisanatautulisan.Yang teakhiradalahtahaphasilakhirterbaru.Dalamtahapini guru memintasiswauntukmengumpulkanhasilakhirtulisanmerekasetelahmendapatkankoreksidaritemansebangkudan Direct Feedback dari guru dalampertemuanberikutnya. Penelitimenggunakandeskriptifkualitatifdalamdesainpenelitian, karenatujuandaripenelitianiniadalahuntukmenggambarkankegiatan guru selamapelaksanaan Direct Feefbackstrategidalampengajaranmenulis.Penelitihanyamemilihpadasalahsatu guru bahasainggris yang mengajar di sekolahmenengahatas di salahsatukota di Surabaya. Data dalampenelitianinidiperolehdarihasilobservasi yang menggambarkanpenerapan Direct Feedback strategidalambentukpengkoreksiantulisansiswa.Data di analisisuntukmenjawabsemuapertanyaanpenelitian.Penulismenulissemuainformasitentangsegalasesuatu yang terjadiselama proses kegiatanbelajarmengajardalambentukcatatan yang panjang. Hasildanpembahasanadalah, pertamaadalahtahappenerapan Direct Feedback strategihanyaterfokusdalam proses kegiatanbelajarmengajar. Dalamtahapinipenerapan Direct Feedback dibagimenjadiempattahapanyaitutahapperencanaan, penyusunan, pengeditan, danhasilakhirterbaru.Dalampemberian feedback guru menggunakanempatperandalam proses iniyaitu guru sebagaipembacaataupartisipasi, sebagai guru menulisataupenuntun, sebagaiahlitatabahasa, dansebagaipengkoreksi. Dalamtahap yang keduaadalahtahappenerapan Direct Feedback strategiuntukmengkoreksitulisansiswadalambentukkesalahantatabahasa.Dalamsesiini, guru masukdalamtahappengeditandanmelakukanperannyasebagaiahlitatabahasa.Yang ketigaadalahtahappenerapan Direct Feedback strategiuntukmengkoreksitulisansiswadalambentukperbendaharaan kata.Dalamsesiini, guru masukdalamtahappengeditandanmelakukanperannyasebagaipengkoreksi.Padatahapankeempatatauterakhiradalahtahappenerapan Direct Feedback strategiuntukmengkoreksitulisansiswadalambentukpenggunaanparagrafing, pengejaan kata dan capitalization.Dalamsesiini, guru masukdalamtahappengeditandanmelakukanperannyasebagaipengkoreksi. Dari hasil proses kegiatanbelajarmengajarmenulistersebut, penulisdapatmenarikkesimpulanbahwa Direct Feedback strategisesuaiuntuksiswadalamkegiatanbelajarmengajarmenuliskarenadenganstrategiitu guru dapatmembantukesulitansiswasepertimembantumengurangikesalahansiswadalamkegiatanmenulis. Saran bagi guru adalahuntuklebihsadardalampenggunaanwaktudanbagipeneliti lain dapatmelakukanpenelitianserupadalamaspek lain danbisamenggunakanpenambahanpemberian feedback dalamkategorikontendanorganisation. Kata Kunci: Direct Feedbcak, Strategi, KegiatanMenulis. Abstract This study aims to describe the application of the strategy of Direct Feedback by teachers to teach writing to the students in the tenth grade of high school in Surabaya. In the process of teaching writing the teacher uses four stages in the implementation of Direct Feedback strategy. They are planning, drafting , editing , and the latest final versions. In the planning stage, the teacher gives an explanation and brainstorming to the students regarding what they are going to do in writing lessons. After that, the teacher asked the students to plan and write their ideas freely that are related to the topic in teaching writing of recount text. In the second stage, is drafting activity. Here the teacher asked the students to develop their ideas into a paragraph. Then, after the students finished developing their idea into a paragraph, the teacher asked the students to re- writing their work by using peer correction. The third stage is editing. In this stage the teacher gave the students' correction of their work after getting friends correction inpeer correction with the Direct Feedbackstrategy either in orally or in writing. For the last stage is final version. In this stage, the teacher asked the students to submit their final product after getting corrections from their friends and Direct Feedback from the teacherin the next meeting. The researcher used a descriptive qualitative research design, because the purpose of this study is to describe the activities of the teacher during the implementation of the Direct Feefback strategies in teaching of writing. The researcher chooses the one of English teacher who teachesin high school in one of the cities in Surabaya. The data in this study weretaken from the observation that illustrates the application of direct feedback correction strategy in the form of student writing. The data were analyzed descriptively to answer the research questions. The writerwrote all the information about everything that happened during the teaching and learning process in the form of long notes. The results and discussion are, in the first stage of the implementation ofDirect Feedback strategy is only focused in the process of teaching and learning activities. In the implementation of Direct feedback is divided into four stages, they are planning, drafting, editing, and the last final version. In providing feedback the teacher use four roles in this process, they are the teacher as reader or participation, as teacher writing or guide, as a grammarian, and as a evaluator. In the second stage is the implementation stage of the Direct Feedback strategies for correcting students' writing in the form of grammatical errors. In this term the teacher in editing stage and she act her role as grammarian. The third is the implementation stage of the Direct Feedback strategies for correcting students' writing in the form of vocabulary. In this stage the teacher in editing stage and she act her role as evaluator. In the fourth and final stage is the implementation stage of the Direct Feedback strategies for correcting students' writing in the form paragrafing usage , spelling words and capitalization. In this stage the teacher in editing stage and she act her role as evaluator. From those results of the process of teaching-learning in writing, the writercan draw the conclusion that Direct Feedback strategy is appropriate for the of students in learning activities because the teacher can help the student's difficulties such as helping to decrease the students'mistakes in their essays. Suggestions are to the teacher and other researchers. For the teacher has aware to time and for other researchers who will conduct this similar studies but in other aspects they can use the additional corrections of feedback on the content and organization categories. Keywords: Direct Feedback, Strategy, Writing Activities. Introduction In Merrill's Component Display Theory verifies feedback as the most important part in Secondary Presentation feedback may takes place during practice and/or elaboration stages. (Merrill 2002) states that feedback has also been long acknowledged as the most essential form of learner guidance. To confirm further of the important position of feedback, Andrews and Goodson (1980) state that feedback is included in one of the purposes of systematic instructional design that is to improve evaluation process "by means of the designated components and sequence of events, including feedback and revision events, inherent in models of systematic instructional design". In this case, feedback as strategy applied by the teacher is the important position to improve the students evaluation or when teaching learning process during practice and revisions in class. Feedback is also an important component of the formative assessment process. Here, formative assessment gives information to teachers and students about how students' writing relate to classroom learning goals. One of the strategies use by the teacher in giving formative assessment is by using direct feedback. Direct feedback is a strategy which provides feedback to students to help them correct their errors by providing the correct linguistic form or linguistic structure of the target language (Ferris, 2006). This technique requires the teacher to give direct comment or answer to the student when noticing a grammatical mistake made by crossing out an incorrect or unnecessary word, phrase, or morpheme; inserting a missing or expected word, phrase, or morpheme; and by providing the correct linguistic form above or near the erroneous (Ellis, 2008 ; Ferris, 2006). Bitchener et al., (2005) and Ferris (2003) add that Direct feedback is usually given by teachers, upon noticing a grammatical mistake, by providing the correct answer or the expected response above or the linguistic or grammatical error. From those statements, direct feedback can be used by the teacher to help the students' difficulties such as using appropriate, accurate and complete responses, correct spelling and punctuation, ensuring minimum word limit, grammatical accuracy, range of sentence structure, and range of vocabulary in writing activity. Direct feedback as a strategy is appropriate for students in beginner level or in situation when the students get errors in their works that are not easy to do self-correction such as sentence structure and word choice, or it can be useful when the teachers want to direct the student attention to their error patterns that require the student correction. The effectiveness of direct correction has been proven on several previous studies. Chandler (2003) reported the results of her study involving 31 ESL students on the effects of direct and indirect feedback strategies on students' revisions. She found that direct feedback was the best way for producing accurate revisions and preferred by the students as it was the fastest and the easiest way for them to make revisions. Others, the most recent study on the effects of direct corrective feedback involving 52 ESL students in New Zealand was conducted by Bitchener and Knoch (2010) where they compared three different types of direct feedback (direct corrective feedback, written, and oral metalinguistic explanation; direct corrective feedback and written metalinguistic explanation; direct corrective feedback only) with a control group. They found that each treatment group outperformed the control group and there was no significant difference in effectiveness among the variations of direct feedback in the treatment groups. From the above statements, it can be concluded that direct feedback is effective to be used in teaching writing. Although direct feedback is effective to be used, there is a difficulty when the teacher uses it in large class environment. The teacher needs much time to give feedback to the students. Clements et al. (2010) state that direct methods in providing feedback do not tend to have results which are commensurate with the effort needed from the teachers to draw the students' attention to surface errors. From the information above it can happen because the teacher doesn't give students an opportunity to think or to do anything. Therefore to overcome the above problem, the teacher needs to understand the writing steps to avoid time-consuming. Writing should be taught in a specific time in order to enable the students to write an acceptable English composition. Then, in teaching writing, the teacher can focus either on the product of writing or on the writing process itself (Harmer, 2001:257). It means that, the teacher can manage the students written by using three steps before teaching writing because by doing that the teacher can more focus on the product or the process of writing itself. Here there are three steps in writing, they are: In the pre-writing, whilst-writing, and post-writing. In the pre-writing, the teacher asks the students to: select the topic, provide specific amount of time needed to complete their writing task, brainstorm their ideas, and organize their outline. In the whilst-writing, the teacher asks the students to make draft and ask them to submit their work when they finish. In post-writing, the teacher gives the students revision regarding their work. By understanding the preceding steps, the teacher can manage the time during teaching learning activity. In one of the school in Surabaya, there is a teacher who use direct feedback strategy to teach writing. In her result, she finds advantages by using direct feedback as a strategy to teach writing, such as the students get creative, enjoy, and enthusiastic. By this method, the students become creative it is showed when the teacher revises the student's work. The teacher finds that the students frequent to use new words. Moreover, the students feel enjoy when the teacher revise their work without looked nervous. The last, the students are eager to ask and re-write their revision. Although there are several advantages, the teacher does not give further explanation how to use the technique in teaching learning activity. Brookhart (2008) states that giving feedback is crucial aspect in the writing process because it plays a central role in learning this skill. Thus, from the information above, the researcher is interested to conduct research about the use direct feedback strategy to teach writing. From the information above, the most three problematic grammatical errors made by the students are prepositions, text, and past tense verbs (Bitchener et al., 2005; Ellis et al., 2008; Sheen, 2007). Most of the student's mistakes in writing is about grammar. It is the teacher role to use strategy in direct feedback because it will be useful to use it to reduce or help the students' mistakes in writing skill. One topic about student' views toward the teacher feedback on their written errors showed in studies: Chenowith, Day, Chun, &Luppescu (1983); Cohen (1987); Cohen &Cavalcanti (1990); Ferris (1995); Ferris & Roberts (2001); Ferris et al. (2000); Hedgcock&Lefkowitz (1994); Komura (1999); Leki (1991 ); Radecki& Swales (1988); and Rennie (2000). It has consistently reported that students want such error feedback. This is the teacher's advantages, because most of students want such error feedback from the teacher. The teacher can give the students' stages of process writing feedback in revising and editing stages. According to Ferris and Roberts (2001), the most popular type of feedback is underlining with description, followed by direct correction, and underlining is the third. That's kinds of ways make the teacher to get much attention from the students in applying direct feedback strategy in teaching of writing. The phenomena shows that most teachers prefer focus on the product of writing to focus on the process of writing. As a result, the competition that the students write is poor in terms of the overall categories in ESL Composition Profile including content, organization, vocabulary, language use, and mechanics. It occurs since the teacher does not provide guidance through the process of writing and considers writing as a finished piece of competition. In fact, writing is not only the matter of composition as a finished piece of writing, but also the evaluation of the writing process. Therefore, in order to enable the students to write an acceptable English composition, the teacher has better focus on the process approach in which the process of writing is involved. Process approach is considered as the appropriate method to teach writing in which it pays serious attention to the various activities which are believed to promote the development of skilled language use (Nunan, 1991:86). Furthermore, Raimes in Richars (2005:305-509), in principled process approach, the product of writing, accuracy, and grammar are important. It shows that if the teacher focuses on the process of writing when he or she teaches writing, it does not mean that he or she merely focuses on the writing process itself, but also on the quality of the final product. Therefore, the process of writing is considered as the appropriate method to teach writing since it enables the students to write an acceptable English competition. From those, the researcher tends interested to observe this phenomenon by emerging a question that is "to what extent does the teacher apply direct feedback in writing?" The researcher was trying to analyze the activities during the teaching and learning process that using Direct Feedback as strategy. According to those reasons the researcher did a research according to the following research questions To what extent does the teacher apply direct feedback to correct student's grammatical errors in writing? To what extent does the teacher apply direct feedback to correct student's vocabularies in writing? To what extent does the teacher apply direct feedback to correct student's mechanics in writing? This study is conducted to describe only focused on the implementation of Direct Feedback strategy in teaching of writing. Writing is a part of learning process besides listening, speaking, and reading. According to Petty and Jensen (1980:399) writing is an activity that creates ideas or opinions in a composition by using writing convention: it is ideas though, feeling expressed in written way. This is in line with Nunan (2003:88) views that writing is the mental work of inventing ideas, thinking about how to express them into statements and paragraphs that will be clear to the reader. It means that writing is combination of some words to deliver the ideas in written language. Besides that, writing is also a language skill that is used to communicate indirectly. It means that the written language is not used to communicate face to face. According to Broughton et al (1980), writing is different from speaking because it involves an activity that is both private and public. here it means writing is considered a private activity because when the writer write or arrange a composition, he or she works individually, but it is also considered as a public activity because the result of his or her writing is intended for an audience. Others, according to Boughy (1997), writing is considered as a tool for the creation of ideas and the merger of the linguistic system by using it for communicative objectives in an interactive way. From this opinion writing indirectly the successful transmission of ideas from a writer to a reader via text and this exchange of information becomes an effective means to motivate and encourage the development of the students in language skills. Harmer (2007: 325-327) stated that there are four stages in the writing process: they are planning, drafting, editing, and final version. In this study the researcher will use Harmer' concept: Planning In the planning stage the teacher arranges the students to plan their work before making a draft by exploring the ideas and information regarding the topic. Reading and discussing, thinking critically and interpreting, and brainstorming are examples of exploring. Boas (2011) says that planning stage is used for brainstorming ideas which are related to their lives and what they want to write.Moreover, in planning the teacher encourage the students to make an outline that includes thesis statement and supporting ideas which then are developed into an essay. Drafting The second stage is draftingwhere the students develop the outline into a whole essay. In this stage, the teacher asks the students to write anything on their mind to compose the essay in form of the rough draft without thinking the regularity of their writing. Editing The third stage is editing, where the students revise their rough draft. In editing, the teacher encourages the students to revise their draft by considering several aspects, such as: the relevancy between thesis statement and the topic, the topic paragraph should be used in beginning of the paragraph, and the content should relate with the thesis statement. Or also the students can check the content, grammar, vocabulary, mechanics, and so on.Moreover, producing a cohesive another coherent essay is a must and can only be done by enlarging the argument or opinion, and ideas to make an elaborate explanation that is coherent from one to another. Final Version The last one is final version, where the teacher asks the students to compose their draft carefully, find, and edit their grammatical, lexical, and mechanical errors before submitting their work. In this stage, the teacher must ensure the students that their final works are free from previous errors since it can affect the content of their final product. But the students still have chance to rethink what they have written and go back to editing stage or even planning stage. Like Harmer (2012:129) states that writing stages are like writing cycle, if it is necessary to add ideas or edit their writing, we can go back to the previous stage or stages. But if it does not need to edit, the students can do their writing final version. Feedback can be classified according to the following: The performer (the provider) of feedback (teacher, peer, self and CALL Computer Assisted Language Learning), the timing of feedback (delayed and immediate feedback) and the form of feedback (direct and indirect feedback), the method of performance of feedback (oral and written feedback), the concentration on a specific item in feedback (grammar, spelling and etc.), the stage of process writing feedback and the effect of feedback (feedback in revising, editing stages). The purpose of this study will be explained to two types of the teacher's written feedback. Here the types, they are: Direct and Indirect feedback. The first type of the teacher's written feedback is direct feedback. Danny and Randolph & Karen (2010) Altena& Pica (2010) Direct teacher feedback simply means that the teacher provides the students with the correct form of their errors or mistakes whether this feedback is provided orally or written. It shows them what is wrong and how it should be written, but it is clear that it leaves no work for them to do and chance for them to think what the errors and the mistakes are. The second type of the teacher's written feedback is indirect feedback. In this type, there are two types of feedback coded indirect feedback and uncoded indirect feedback. As for the first type "coded indirect feedback", the teacher underlines the errors or mistakes for the students and then the teacher writes the symbol above the targeted error or mistake and then the teacher gives the composition to the student to think what the error is as this symbol helps the student to think. In the second type, the uncoded indirect feedback, the teacher underlines or circles the error or the mistake and the teacher doesn't write the correct answer or any symbols and the student thinks what the error is and corrects. Teacher is one of the sources of feedback. In providing feedback, writing teachers have at least four roles: as a reader or respondent, as a writing teacher or guide, as a grammarian, and as an evaluator. As Keh (1990) and Hedgcock and Leftkowitz (1996) suggest at least four roles that writing teachers play while providing written feedback to students: a reader or respondent, a writing teacher or guide, a grammarian, and an evaluator or judge. For the first roles, is about the teacher as a reader or as a respondent. In this role, the teachers respond to the content and they may show agreement about an idea or content of the text. Teachers may provide positive feedback such as "You made a good point" or "I agree with you" without giving any suggestion or correction. The second is the teacher as a writing teacher or as a guide. That is, teachers may show their concern about certain points or confusing or illogical ideas in students' text. In this case, teachers still maintain their role as a reader by only asking for clarification or expressing concerns and questions about certain points in the text without giving any correction. They may, however, refer students to strategies for revision such as choices of problem solving or providing a possible example. The third is the teacher as a grammarian. The teacher writes comments or corrective feedback with reference to grammatical mistakes and relevant grammatical rules. Teachers may provide a reason as to why a particular grammatical form is not correct or not suitable for a certain context such as choice of tense, use of article, or preposition. In this case, the teacher may also give elaborate explanation of grammatical rules to help students improve their text. As a grammarian, teacher can provide different function and strategies of feedback. One of the functions of feedback is to provide error correction or corrective feedback. Corrective feedback generally aims at addressing grammatical errors on students' writing. In addressing grammatical errors on students' writing, teachers can employ different strategies of providing feedback such as direct feedback strategy. Direct feedback, which is a strategy to help the students correct their errors by providing the correct form of the target language. Teacher feedback can also be provided with explicit corrective comments, that is by not only indicating an error but also providing the correct form with explicit grammatical explanation or linguistic rules of the target language. The last in fourth roles, is the teacher as an evaluator or judge. It is very common that many writing teachers may act only as an evaluator whose main role is to evaluate the quality of students' writing as an end product of a writing process (Arndt, 1992) and grade students' writing based on their evaluation. Discrepancies in findings, or in interpreting these findings, have sparked a debate in the last 15 years on whether corrective feedback is effective or ineffective. The debate was initiated by Truscott (1996) who unalterably holds that feedback, in the form of grammatical error correction, is neither effective nor useful, and even harmful for student learning. Therefore, he suggests that corrective feedback should be abandoned. In contrary, Chandler (2003) and Ferris (1999) argue that corrective feedback is effective and helpful in reducing the errors on students' essays. More recent studies also lend support, providing evidence in favor of corrective feedback Bitchener (2008); Bitchener et al. (2005);Ellis et al. (2008). Based on the findings of their studies, they maintain that teacher corrective feedback is effective and helpful for students in improving grammatical accuracy in writing their essays. From the above informations, it can be concluded that direct feedback is effective to be used in teaching writing. Teaching writing using direct feedback is considered as an important since it gave the teacher chances to increase the students ability in writing by using learned-centered style. Since previous statements have considered that learned-centered style in form of peer or group work is preferred than compositions because it offers interaction and sharing ideas between students. However, before implementing the strategy the teacher should make the process steps before starting applying direct feedback as strategy in teaching writing. The implementation of Direct Feedback strategy in teaching writing recount text should include writing process; they are planning, drafting, editing, and final version Harmer (2007: 325-327). Based on those concept, the implementation of Direct Feedback strategy in teaching writing recount text in the class have some activities to do. They are: The teacher explains the nature of recount text, it start from the purpose, the function, the generic structure, and the language features to the students by some modification by using brandstorming or etc. The teacher also gives example of recount text to the students in order to make the students understand with the teacher's explanation and example of how to make mind mapping. The teacher gives the students some topics to write recount text. The teacher asks the students to make such like mind mapping as the planning stage. The students make mind mapping to write down their ideas they want to write it individually. After the students make mind mapping on their recount text, the teacher asks them to exchange their work in pairs. They can give comments, questions, suggestions, and corrections about the content, organization, vocabulary, language use, and mechanic on their partner mind mapping to compose into recount text draft. Then each student can write their recount text draft based on their friend questions, suggestions, comments, and corrections. The next activity is sharing. In this case, the teacher calls some students randomly one by oneto come forward to show their recount text by writing their text into white board. Therefore, the other students get patient too and also learn which one is not appropriate word, the mechanics, or the content by giving comments orsuggestions. And the most necessary, the teacher givesDirect Feedback to their recount text. Teacher gives direct feedback by giving explicit corrective comments, symbols, or underlining. Ellis et al. (2006) suggest that explicit corrective comments can take two forms: (a) explicit correction in which teacher response clearly indicates what is incorrect and provides the correct form, or (b) metalinguistic feedback which explains grammatical or linguistic rules. Lyster and Ranta (1997) define metalinguistic feedback as "comments, information, or questions related to the well-formedness of the learner's utterance without explicitly providing the correct form" (p. 47). Finally, the students submit their recount text result as the final version to the teacher on the next meeting. METHODS Based on the research problems and the objective of the study, the researcher used descriptive qualitative method. Descriptive qualitative studies simply describe phenomena. Descriptive method describes and interprets what exists.The purpose of this study is to describe to what extent the teacher applies direct feedback to correct student's grammatical errors in writing, to describe to what extent the teacher applies direct feedback to correct student's vocabularies in writing, and to describe to what extent the teacher applies direct feedback to correct student's mechanics in writing. According to Cohen, et al (2007:461), the aims of descriptive qualitative are to describe, to summarize, to prove, to examine the application and to operate the same problems in different contexts. The purpose of this study is to describe the teaching learning process in the form of words not in the form of numbers, because this study is descriptive qualitative. Moreover, Bogdan and Biklen (1992:28) state that the data collected should be in the form of words or pictures rather than numbers. The data in this study described in the form of words, sentences, or paragraphs to describe the implementation, the students' responses, and the students recount writing text result using Direct Feedback strategy in teaching writing recount text.Descriptive qualitative method means that the researcher only goes to the field, finds some data, states research question, collect some data, analyze the data and finally reports it. The data is the problem which is found in the field. The problem means that the condition found in the field is not like the condition expected. The subject of the study is an English teacher who teach in a high school of Surabaya. The researcher chose the subject because one of the teachers had implemented Direct Feedback method in the teaching writing in her class.Cohen, et al (2007:461) states that descriptive qualitative focuses on smaller numbers of people than quantitative research.Therefore, the researcher only chooses an English teacher who teaches English in X-IPA 10 class. The setting of the study was the place where the researcher conducted the study. The researcher was conducting the study at SMAN 15 Surabaya which is located in Jl. Menanggal selatan no. 103 Surabaya, the class of X-IPA-10 year 2013 and 2014. These class consist of 36 students, 16males and 20females. This research conducted in the classroom where the teacher hadusedDirect Feedback strategy in teaching writing recount text. Furthermore, the classroom is provide by facilities which support the learning activivities, such as White board, LCD, AC, Computer, sound, television and a laptop. The students have arranged the chairs and tables well in order to make them study easily. Data is very important for this study because from by using data the researcher knew the result of her study through this data, and the data were answer the research questions. In this study the researcher do not use questionnaire, it is to avoid dishonesty and to anticipate that the subjects would not complete the questions. The data of the study taken from the teaching learning process that done by the teacher who using direct feedback as strategy in teaching writing in the classroom. To get the data, the researcher wrote field notes to observe the teacher's activities when giving direct feedback in the teaching and learning process. The data represented in the post activity of the teacher when giving the students direct feedback while learning in the classroom. There were three kinds of qualitative data to answer the research questions of this study. The first data were the description of teachers' expressions and comments while giving correction about grammatical errors and direct feedback to the students. (1) (1) Teacher : Teacher : Okay, I will check the Savira's text. By the way, for the grammatical errors she did some mistakes. For example: in the first paragraph line 1 "I had a terrible and tiring day last weekend", here (a) it should be omitted. In paragraph one Line 2 "In the morning, I was waking up at 5 a.m. and prayedsubuh", if in the beginning you use waking as a verb so second verb prayed should be using (–ing) to. So it should be praying. Next, in line 5 "we must joined" it should be write "join", because must be followed by Verb1. Last, in line 11 you wrote "my other key" it should be used "the". Next, for Afanin's text. Okay you did same with Safira's text in grammatical errors. For example: you wrote "after that, me and my mother cooked some food for lunch", it should be used we. Then for the sentence "I went to bookstore to boughtsome book", it should be buy because you have use went as your verb. Last for "I do my homework" it should be written did. These data were used to answer the first research question "to what extent does the teacher apply direct feedback to correct student's grammatical errors in writing?". The second data were the description of teachers' expressions and comments while giving correction about vocabularies and direct feedback to the students. (2) (2) Teacher : Teacher : And for vocabulary, it just for the first paragraph line 3 "I accompanied my mother (.)to shop" between my mother and to it should be add "go". For the last paragraph, "InSunday morning" remembers it should be on just like Ataya did before. But, so far I think your word choices were good. And talk about "like yesterday" I think it should be wrote the day before. This is correction for your vocabulary. It is also in sentence "I accompanied my mother to (.) the market" here it should be add go to, and also like we went (.) to the mall" it should be added go. These data were used to answer the second research question "to what extent does the teacher apply direct feedback to correct student's vocabularies in writing?". The third data were the description of teachers' expressions and comments while giving correction about mechanics and direct feedback to the students. (3) (3) Teacher : Teacher : So the last correction is about mechanics. It showed in line 16 "I was watching television" it should be added (a) between watching and television. "I was watching a television". Over all your writing are good Safira. So keeps on this track but you can explore more. Okay, that's very good. Okay then, pay attention to the mention things like "some vegetables, like carrot , tomato, spinach , onion , garlic , ginger , curcuma, and many more and also bought some fish, shrimp, and chicken."Here you have decided space from kind of vegetables itself and others thing. You should write some vegetables, they are likes carrot, tomato, spinach, onion, garlic, ginger, curcuma, etc. We also bought more, such as fish, shrimp, and chicken. And for your mechanics, there are lot mistakes about your punctuation. Such like in the first paragraph "last weekend ( , ) I had a lot of activities". You used comma but you add space after weekend, it should be not space after weekend. Double space is not necessary guys. So the good one is like last weekend, I had a…. Okay, for your right spelling and capitalization are good, but please pay attention about your punctuation and your paragraphing.yah? Is it clear for you guys? These data were used to answer the third research question "to what extent does the teacher apply direct feedback to correct student's mechanics in writing?". The source of data for this study was the teacher who use direct feedback strategy to correct the students mistakes in the teaching and learning process. Data collection technique means how the researcher collects data. In this study the researcher collected the data by conducting observation field notes as a qualitative. Bogdan and Biklen in Moleong (2005: 209) stated field note is written note about what was heard, seen, thought and had been around in order to collect as well as reflect the data in qualitative research. Here, the researcher done non-participant observation. It means that she does not participate directly and influence in the teaching and learning process. The writer wrote all of information about everything that happening during the teaching and learning process in the form of long note. Here is the observation that was done by the teacher: Observation, in this research the researcher used observation field notes. She used this observation because she wanted to find out the application of the teaching and learning process in the classroom of their recount writing. The researcher did this observation by writing and record all of the activities of the teacher and the students while direct feedback is implemented. In this research, all the data obtained through observation field notes were analyzed inductively in order to answer research questions stated in chapter one. After collecting the data then the researcher did the next step, that was analyzed the data. This is the qualitative study thus the data analyzed inductively, in words rather than in numbers. The steps of data analysis have done during the data collection technique: 1) Organized the data during the observation, and then decided what have to be reported. 2) After analyzing the data, the researcher described the data by classifying them into parts based on the problems of the study. 3) The researcher tried to make conclusion. They showed whether the use of direct feedback strategy was suitable or not with the theory. In addition, by analyzing the data obtained, the researcher was written and recorded the teacher activity when direct feedback strategy is applied in the classroom. It included the teacher correction about grammatical errors, vocabularies and mechanics. RESULT AND DISCUSSIONS The result and discussions is the answer of the problems based in introductions. The data were taken through the observation and only focused on the teacher activities during the implementation of Direct Feedback strategy in the teaching and learning process. The Implementation of Direct Feedback Strategy The data were obtained through the observation that was focused in the teachers' activities during the implementation of direct feedback strategy in the teaching and learning process. The implementation of the research was done only in one meeting. The implementation of Direct Feedback strategy method was divided into four stages, they are planning, drafting, editing, and final version. Then in providing feedback, the teacher at least has four roles such as a reader or respondent, as a writing teacher or guide, as a grammarian, and as an evaluator. The observation was conducted on September 30th, 2013. The subject of the study is an English teacher who teaches in a high school of Surabaya. The researcher chose the subject because one of the teacher's had implemented Direct Feedback method in the teaching writing in her class. Therefore, the researcher only chooses an English teacher who teaches English in X-IPA 10 class. Actually there were 36 students in this class, but three students were absent without any reason or information. Therefore, there were 33 students who consist of 16 male's students and 20 female's students in class X-IPA 10. The teacher started the class with opening session, for instance, greeting the students, checking the attendance list, and asking the students to prepare the lesson. The teacher did not introduced the researcher in front of the students, because of the teacher did not need the students to feeling nervous or uncomfortable if she explained about the researcher who want to record the activities in the beginning until the end of the lesson. The Applying of Direct Feedback Strategy to Correct Student's Grammatical Errors in Writing The result from the observation show that the teacher had been explained the student mistakes' about grammar. It showed when the teacher gives feedback with explicit corrective comments; she was not only indicating an error but also providing the correct form with explicit grammatical explanation or linguistic rules of the target language. As Ellis et al. (2006) suggest that explicit corrective comments can take two forms: (a) explicit correction in which teacher response clearly indicates what is incorrect and provides the correct form, or (b) metalinguistic feedback which explains grammatical or linguistic rules. So, here the teacher has applied direct feedback as strategy in writing to correct the student's grammatical errors. In the previous studies that providing explicit corrective comments through explanation of grammatical rules or metalinguistic information is advantageous for students in the long run, that it raises students' grammatical awareness, and engages students in problem-solving activities to discover the correct forms see Bitchener et al (2005), Ellis et al. (2006), Ferris &Hedgcock (2005), Nagata (1997), Varnosfadrani&Basturkmen (2009). The findings of the current study, in line with other previous studies, clearly indicate that teacher corrective feedback is useful and effective in helping ESL/EFL students in reducing their grammatical errors not only in subsequent revisions but also in the new essay. Furthermore, providing teacher corrective feedback in the form of indirect feedback followed by direct feedback accompanied with explicit corrective comments help students correct their grammatical errors more effectively than other feedback strategies, especially compared to direct feedback strategy. By doing so, the students got the essay way to edited or revised their works because they got some corrections and suggestions from their friends in pairs and from the teacher when the teacher gave them direct feedback. Jacobs et al (1997:20) says that the students can share to the other groups in front of the class and the students can edit their recount text writing depend on their friends comments, suggestions, corrections about the content, organization, vocabulary, language use, and mechanic in writing recount text. The Applying of Direct Feedback Strategy to Correct Student's Vocabularies in Writing Based on the result which are gained from the analyzed of data,the teacher had took examples from Safira and Afanin Text's. It showed that the teacher had corrected the students' mistakes' about vocabularies. In vocabulary component, those were two students who considered as write less mistakes in their writing text. As (Ellis, 2008; Ferris, 2006), stated that direct feedback may be done in various ways such as by striking out an incorrect or unnecessary word, phrase, or morpheme; inserting a missing or expected word, phrase, or morpheme; and by providing the correct linguistic form above or near the erroneous form, usually above it or in the margin. It means that, the teacher had correct the students' mistakes by doing some ways to correct their vocabularies, such as by striking out an incorrect or unnecessary word, phrase, or morpheme; and inserting a missing or expected word, phrase, or morpheme. It is been shown when the teacher corrects Safira's text. She corrected her mistakes by inserting a missing word. And from Afanin's text, she gave by striking out an incorrect or unnecessary word like yesterday to be the day before. From the above correction, it is clear that the teacher applied direct feedback strategy to correct the students' vocabularies by using that ways. So that is the essays way to encourage the students to get the motivation because the teacher not only giving them such corrective correction but they also know what else their mistakes by using self-correction in the next time. The Applying of Direct Feedback Strategy to Correct Student's Mechanics in Writing In these criteria, the students had few errors of spelling, capitalization, and paragraphing. It means that the students were occasional errors of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing but the meaning was not obscured. From the data analyzed indicate that the teacher correct the students' mistakes in term of the mechanics. After the teacher giving those students text's direct feedback correction, she always asked to the students any question or also suggestion. Based from those results which are gained from analysis of the data, the researcher concluded that the teacher did her implementation of direct feedback strategy method that was divided into four stages, they are planning, drafting, editing, and final version. Also in providing feedback, the teacher at least did her four roles such as a reader or respondent, as a writing teacher or guide, as a grammarian, and as anevaluator. From those, it can be concluded that the teacher had applied Direct Feedback to correct the student's essays that includes three elements; they are grammatical errors, vocabularies, and mechanics. Ideally, the teacher feedback should address to all aspects of student texts such as content, ideas, organization, rhetorical structure, grammar, and mechanics. Because it will consume much time, so the teacher only focused to correct on the students grammatical errors, vocabularies and mechanics. It was supported by Ferris (2003b) notes that teachers' priorities for student writing as well as feedback provision have changed over time from focusing mostly on sentence-level correction as reported in the 1980s Cumming (1985), Kassen (1988), Sommers (1982), Zamel (1985) to more aspects of student writing including ideas, organization, grammar, and mechanics in the 1990s Ferris (1995-1997), Ferris, Pezone, Tade, &Tinti (1997) Kepner (1991), Hedgcock&Lefkowitz (1994). However, providing comprehensive or unfocused feedback on all errors on students' writing can be time-consuming and exhaustive for both teachers and students because it corrects all of the errors in students' work and can be considered extensive Ellis, Sheen, Murakami, & Takashima (2008). By doing these strategy, the teacher had find out that most of the students were did mistakes in the grammatical errors. But, for the vocabularies and mechanics, the students did fewer mistakes in their essays. CONCLUSSION AND SUGGESTION Conclusion In this study, there are two conclusions got from the result of the study that are obtained from the observation, they are: (1) Direct feedback strategy can be used as teaching technique in teaching writing recount text to the tenth grade students of SMAN in Surabaya. The implementation of direct feedback as strategy in teaching writing of recount text divided into four stages, those are: Planning stage, in planning stage the teacher had given brainstorming and arranged the students to plan their work by exploring the ideas and information regarding to the topic. The teacher also had encouraging the students to make an outline that included thesis statement and supporting ideas which were developed into an essay. As Boas (2011) states that planning stage is used for brainstorming ideas which are related to their lives and what they want to write. Drafting stage, in drafting stage the teacher had asked the students to write their ideas into the essay in form of draft. This stage where the students developed the outline into a whole essay. Editing stage, in editing stage before the teacher gave direct feedback; she had corrected the student's essay and let the students to change their works in pairs. Because in this term, the students had a chance to discuss and get comment or suggestion from their partner Jacobs et.al (1997:14). After that, the teacher applied direct feedback strategy by giving some correction from the student's essay one by one in front of the class. Final version stage, in final version the teacher had given the students direct feedback and the students had shared their draft in front of the class. It included feedback from the teacher and from the students; comments or suggestions. Then the teacher let the students had to edit and submit the final version of their recount text on next meeting. (2) The use of Direct Feedback strategy could help the tenth grade students of SMAN in Surabaya in learning writing recount text. It showed from the editing stage, when the teacher applied Direct Feedback to correct the student's essays in front of the class that includes three elements; they were grammatical errors, vocabularies, and mechanics, she found out that most of the students did the same mistakes. It came from the grammatical errors. For the vocabularies and mechanics, the students did fewer mistakes in their essays. The students also were getting enthusiastic when the teacher asked them to write a recount text based on the theme and their own experience, because the students could be more focus in writing recount text than usual (Kagan, 2004). As a result, direct feedback strategy was appropriate for the students in teaching and learning writing. Because the students usually got errors in their works and they were not easy to do self-correction such as sentence structure or word choice. From those, by using direct feedback the teacher could help the student's difficulties such as using appropriate, accurate and complete responses, correct spelling and punctuation, ensuring minimum word limit, grammatical accuracy, range of sentence structure, and range of vocabulary in writing activity. And by using direct feedback the teacher could decreasing the students' mistakes in writing activity. As noted by Cardelle and Corno (1981), the more feedback students receive, the better they understand what they need to do to correct their mistakes. It also prove by Kulhavy (1977) the understanding of why they make mistakes and how to correct such mistakes helps students correct their mistakes and increase their achievement. It means that the student who receives feedback would have information about which parts of their texts need to be corrected and improved. Carless (2006) confirms that students who receive feedback during the writing process have a clearer sense of how well they are performing and what they need to do to improve. As feedback is meant for helping students narrow or close the gap between their actual ability and the desired performance Brookhart (2003). Teachers are responsible for helping students develop their ability to reach their learning goals through teachers' feedback. Suggestion Based on the data interpretation and the previous conclusion, the researcher has some suggestions to the teachers and the other researcher. The researcher constructs her suggestions as follows: (1) The teacher has to minimize the time consuming when she check the attendance the students. It means that the teacher should not call the student's name one by one. (2) In the process of teaching, the teacher should know and understand the students' characteristics. It means that the teacher does not give the students too much explaining or reminding them. (3) The researcher would like to invite next researchers who conduct the similar study to make improvement on this study, such as using the same field but different subjects. It means they can use the other subjects. (4) For the teacher and other researcher, the writer suggest to gives feedback for correct the content and organization. REFERENCES Arndt, V. (1992). Response to writing: Using feedback to inform the writing process. In M. N. Brock and L. Walters (Eds.), Teaching composition around the Pacific Rim: Politics andpedagogy (90-116). Avon, UK: Multingual Matters. Altena, l& Pica, T. (2010). The Relevance of Second Language Acquisition to Written Feedback on Advanced Second Language Writing. Unpublished PhD, University of Pennsylvania.3414220. Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of SecondLanguage Writing, 17, 102-118. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009). The relative effectiveness of different types of directwritten corrective feedback. System, 37, 322-329. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). The Contribution of Written Corrective Feedback toLanguage Development: A Ten Month Investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31(2),193-214 Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of correctivefeedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 191-205. Carless, D. (2006). Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 219-233. Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in theaccuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing,12, 267-269. Cramer, S., et al. (2008). Online or Face-to-Face? Which Class to Take. Voices from the Middle, (2), 25. Elashri, I. I. (2013). The Impact of the Direct Teacher Feedback Strategy on the EFL Secondary Stage Students' Writing performance. Mesir: Mansoura University. Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused andunfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context.System, 36, 353-371. Ferris, D. (2003b). Responding to writing. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing, (pp. 119-140). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Ferris, D. R. (2004). The "Grammar Correction" debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime…?). Journal of SecondLanguage Writing, 13, 49-62. Ferris, D. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland and F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Context and issues (pp. 81-104). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Ferris, D. R., & Hedgcock, J. S. (2005). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, and practice (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Harmer, J. (2007). The Practice of English Language Teaching. Fourth Edition, UK: Cambridge. Jacobs, G. M., Curtis, A., Braine, G., & Huang, S. Y. (1998). Feedback on student writing: Taking the middle path. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(3), 307-317. Jacobs, H., Zinkgraf, S., Wormuth, D., Hartfiel, V. F., & Hughey, J. (1981). Testing ESLComposition: A practical approach. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Lee, I. (2003). L2 writing teachers' perspectives, practices and problems regarding errorfeedback. Assessment Writing, 8, 216-237. Keh, C. L. (1990). Feedback in the writing process: A model and methods for implementation.ELT Journal, 44(4), 294-304. Lee, I. (2008). Understanding teachers' written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondaryclassrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 69-85. Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form incommunicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 37-66. Merrill, D. M. (1994). Instructional design theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: EducationalTechnology Publications. Merrill, D. M. (2002). Instructional strategies and learning styles: Which takes precedence?In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design andtechnology (99-106). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc. Nunan, D. (. (2003). Practice English Language Teaching. New York: Mc. Graw Hill Education. Othman, N.B. (2005). Feedback Lesson on Writing Assessment with Four Different Scoring Strategies. Malaysia: Pendidikan Sultan Idris University. Purnawarman, P. 2011. Impacts of Different Types of Teacher Corrective Feedback in Reducing Grammatical Errors on ESL/EFL Students' Writing. Virginia: Polytechnic Institute and State University. Randolph, T & Lea, K. (2010).A study of Teacher Feedback in Small Groups with Weekly Writing Assignments. Unpublished, Ed.D. Dissertation, Trevecca Nazarene University, 3413061. Sujoko. 1989. Error Analysis. Surakarta: Sebelas Maret University Press. Taken from http://www.whitesmoke.com/the-stages-of-writing, Retrived July 26, 2013 at 12.20.p.m.
IMPLEMENTASI KEBIJAKAN PEMILIHANKEPALA DAERAH DAN WAKIL KEPALA DAERAHKABUPATEN YAHUKIMO PROVINSI PAPUA TAHUN 2011OLEH : JOHN SIFFY MIRINNIM : 98083332ABSTRAKModel pemilihan kepala daerah secara langsung dalam sistem pemerintahan di Indonesia memasuki babak baru, dan amanat UUD 1945 pasal 18a dan secara khusus tentang model pemilihan di Provinsi Papua sebagai satu – satunya model pemilihan unik dalam era demokrasi modern. Negara mengakui dan menghormati satuan – satuan pemerintahan daerah yang bersifat khusus atau bersifat istimewa yang diatur dengan undang – undang dasar 1945 ayat ( 2 ) . Dalam peraturan tersebut negara mengakui dan menghormati kesatuan – kesatuan masyarakat hukum adat beserta hak – hak tradisionalnya sepanjang masih hidup dan sesuai dengan perkembangan masyarakat dan prinsip negara kesatuan Republik Indonesia yang diatur dalam undang – undang.Kekhususan yang dimiliki oleh propinsi Papua ini khususnya di wilayah Kabupaten Yahukimo menyangkut pemilihan Kepala daerah banyak menunjukan kekhususannya dibandingan dengan wilayah lain. Hal ini sangat menarik untuk diteliti lebih lanjut, untuk mendapatkan bagaiman fenomena yang terjadi di wilayah ini.Hal ini penting untuk mendapatkan gambaran tentang bagaimana proses demokrasi yang berkembang di wilayah-wilayah yang diberikan kekhususan dibandingkan dengan wilayah lain yang ada di Indonesia. Dengan diperolehnya gambaran tersebut diharapkan dapat dibuat beberapa rekomendasi guna kepentingan perkembangan demokrasi itu sendiri.Penelitian ini dilakukan di Kabupaten Yahukimo dimana pada beberapa waktu lalu baru selesai melakukan pemilihan kepala daerah dan wakil kepala daerah. Penelitian ini dilakukan dengan menggunakan metode kualitatif dengan mendeskripsikan berbagai proses yang terjadi pada saat pemilihan tersebut berlangsung.Pelaksanaan pesta demokrasi (Pemilukada ) di Kabupaten Yahukimo telah dilakanakan sesuai tahapan pemilukada namun masih terdapat permasalahan dimana proses demokrasi sedikit tercoreng, dengan terjadinya konflik yang walaupun sudah diselesaikan di pengadilan namun bibit konflik belum dapat dihilangkan sepenuhnya.Kata Kunci : Implementasi kebijakan, Pemilihan Kepala Daerah.PENDAHULUANA. Latar Belakang.Model pemilihan kepala daerah secara langsung dalam sistem pemerintahan di Indonesia memasuki babak baru, sesuai dengan asas negara kesatuan republik Indonesia sila ke – 4, kerakyatan yang dipimpin oleh hikmat kebijakanaan dalam permusyawatan perwakilan rakyat dan amanat UUD 1945 pasal 18a dan secara khusus tentang model pemilihan di Provinsi Papua sebagai satu – satunya model pemilihan unik dalam era demokrasi modern adalah konsistusional sesuai amanat UUD 1945 pasal 18b ayat ( 1 ) . Negara mengakui dan menghormati satuan – satuan pemerintahan daerah yang bersifat khusus atau bersifat istimewa yang diatur dengan undang – undang dasar 1945 ayat ( 2 ) . Negara mengakui dan mengahormati kesatuan – kesatuan masyarakat hukum adat beserta hak – hak tradisionalnya sepanjang masih hidup dan sesuai dengan perkembangan masyarakat dan prinsip negara kesatuan Republik Indonesia yang diatur dalam undang – undang. ( Dilla Candra Kirana, 2012:18 - 20 )Menurut Agustino, sejumlah alasan perubahan sistem pemilihan kepala daerah dari dipilih oleh DPRD menjadi dipilih langsung oleh masyarakat adalah karena mekanisme pemilihan secara langsung akan menghadirkan legitimasi yang lebih kuat bagi kepala daerah berbanding dengan pemilihan oleh DPRD, melibatkan partisipasi politik masyarakat secara nyata, dan mengukuhkan akuntabilitas pemimpin kepada rakyatnya. Ketiga konsep alasan tersebut diikat oleh satu konsep yaitu mengukuhkan demokrasi diaras local.( Ikhsan Darmawan, 2013:149-140)Sistem Pemilihan demokrasi modern diatur dalam undang – undang dan secara teknis pelaksanaan Pemilukada mengacu tentang pemberhentian, pengangkatan, pemilihan dan pengesahan kepala daerah, mengacu pada bab III, pasal 4 ayat 3 pemilihan sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (3), dilaksanakan secara demokratis berdasarkan asas langsung, umum, bebas, rahasia, jujur, dan adil. ( PP no.06 tahun 2005:2), sekalipun secara teknis tata cara dalam pelaksanaan mengandung asas LUBER namun praktek implementasi di masyarakat adat Papua memiliki model pemilihan masyarakat adat mengandung asas langsung umum bebas transparan ( LUBET ), pemilihan dengan carakesepakatan masyarakat telah mendapat legitimasi dari makamah sebagaimana termuat dalam pertimbangan hukum mahkamah konsistusi dalam putusan perkara Pemilihan Legislatif nomor 47-81/PHPU.A-VII/2009, tanggal 9 juni 2009 pada paragraph (3.24) yang antara lain mempertimbangkan:"menimbang bahwa mahkamah dapat memahami dan menghargai nilai budaya yang hidup di kalangan masyarakat papua yang khas dalam menyelenggarakan pemilihan umum dengan cara atau sistem "kesepakatan warga" Musyawarah atau "aklamasi") yang telah diterima masyarakat Yahukimo tersebut, karena jika dipaksakan pemilihan umum sesuai peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku dikwatirkan akan timbul konflik di antara kelompok-kelompok masyarakat setempat.mahkamah berpen-dapat, agar sebaiknya mereka tidak dilibatkan atau dibawa ke sistem persaingan atau perpecahan di dalam dan antar kelompok yang dapat mengganggu tatanan budaya masyarakat adat.( http://www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id )Dalam rangka pelaksanaan Pemilukada Kabupaten Yahukimo komisi pemilihan umum Yahukimo mengacu pada peraturan KPU no.06 tahun 2008. Pemilihan kepala daerah di Kabupaten Yahukimo dengan terbitkan surat keputusan rapat pleno KPU Kabupaten No.274/25/KPU-YHKM/VIII/2010.( SK : KPU Kabupaten Yahukimo,2011)Pemilihan kepala daerah secara langsung memberikan warna dan nilai tersendiri dalam tatanan hidup masyarakat dengan menyertakan rakyat Yahukimo secara langsung untuk menentukan pemimpin ideal didaerah sesuai keinginan rakyat, maka masyarakat dengan bebas menyatakan pendapat.Di sini kedaulatan rakyat benar - benar dihargai dan legitimasi pemimpin yang dihasilkan lebih kuat kedudukannya dibandingkan dengan pemilihan secara perwakilan. Dalam Pemilukada pada hakekatnya merupakan pembelajaran pendidikan politik bagi rakyat sesuai amanat konsistusi dalam rangka memberikan pendidikan politik semua elemen wajib memberikan pendidikan politik yang sehat, Sehingga masyarakat mampu memotivasi diri dan memahami tujuan memberikan hak politiknya tanpa mengorbankan kepentingannya.Dengan pola pikir dan pola tindak rakyat harus diarahkan pada kesadaran untuk bagaimana memahami dan mengerti akan arti sebuah demokrasi dalamdinamika politik berpolitik secara rasional,santun dan beretika menentukan pemimpin berkarakter dengan pilihan yang terbaik mampu membawa perubahan dalam kelangsungan pembangunan.B. Rumusan MasalahBertolak dari latar belakang diatas maka dirumuskan masalah penulisan ini adalah:1. Bagaimana dan seberapa besar implementasi kebijakan Pelaksanaan Pemilukada dapat terlaksana seperti sistem pemilihan demokrasi langsung yang menganut asa langsung, umum, bebas dan rahasia (LUBER).2. Mengapa masyarakat adat daerah terpencil pedalaman Papua Kabupaten Yahukimo lebih cenderungan menyalurkan hak politiknya dengan menganut asas Langsung,umum bebas dan transparan (LUBET) ?3. Model Pemilihan masyarakat adat dalam demokrasi modern dipandang sebagai tindakan inkonsistusional versus konsistusional di indonesia?C. Tujuan Penelitian1. Untuk memperoleh gambaran sejauhmana korelasi sebab akibat implementasi kebijakan dan output kebijkan yang mana masyarakat adat memahami sistem pemilihan asas luber dan factor apa yang mengaruhi pemilih lebih cenderung memilih sistem noken dan ikat merupakan inkonsistusional atau konsistusional ?2. Mengetauhi faktor apa yang mempengaruhi perilaku elit politik local dalam pola pikir dan pola tindak pemilih dan lembaga penyelenggara.3. Mengetahui sejauh mana Pemilukada dapat terlaksana tanpa meninggalkan benih konflik pemilukada?D. Manfaat Penelitian1. Secara teoritis, hasil penelitian ini diharapkan dapat memberikan sumbangan pemikiran teoritis bagi penelitian selanyutnya mengenai perilaku pemilih, penyelenggara dan model pemilihan yang tata carapemilihan mengandung nilai sosial budaya, norma adat dan agama dikota Yahukimo.2. Secara praktis, diharapkan akan menjadi masukan berharga bagi lembaga penyelenggara, elit politik nasional dan elit politik lokal di daerah untuk memberikan pendidikan politik yang santun, bermartabat tanpa menciptkan konflik dengan melaksanakan pesta demokrasi yang adil dan bermartabat sesuai prinsip nilai demokrasi, sehingga bermanfaat bagi kelangsungan pemilukada masa akan datang agar dilaksanakan secara demokratis menuju masyarakat damai sejahtera.3. Dalam proses pengambilan kebijakan masalah sistem pemilihan di masyarakat adat di tanah Papua, seyognya melakukan regulasi aturan yang maknai kekhususan, menghormati nilai budaya local dalam sistem pemilihan di Indonesia, upaya ini mendorong nilai – nilai kearifikan lokal yang dijamin oleh amanat konsistusi yang belum secara konsisten dilaksanakan karena sejumlah peraturan daerah belum dibuat secara maksimal, oleh karenanya dipandang penting untuk menerapkan undang – undang yang mencerminkan jati diri orang Papua didalam negara kesatuan republik Indonesia.TINJAUAN PUSTAKAA. Konsep Implementasi Kebijakan1. Pengertian Implementasi kebijakanImplementasi kebijakan merupakan tahap yang sangat penting dalam proses kebijakan publik. Suatu kebijakan harus diimplementasikan agar mempunyai dampak atau tujuan yang diinginkan bisa tercapai. Implementasi kebijakan dipandang dalam pengertian luas merupakan alat administrasi publik dimana aktor, organisasi, prosedur, teknik serta sumber daya diorganisasikan secara bersama-sama untuk menjalankan kebijakan guna meraih dampak atau tujuan yang diinginkan tersebut.Menurut Kamus Webster yang dikutip oleh Solichin Abdul Wahab adalah:"Konsep implementasi berasal dari bahasa inggris yaitu to implement. Dalam kamus besar webster, to implement (mengimplementasikan) berati to provide the means for carrying out (menyediakan sarana untuk melaksanakan sesuatu); dan to give practical effect to (untuk menimbulkan dampak/akibat terhadap sesuatu)". (Webster dalam Wahab, 2005:64).Jadi sesuatu yang dilakukan untuk menimbulkan dampak atau akibat itu dapat berupa undang- undang, peraturan pemerintah pengganti undang – undang , keputusan peradilan dan kebijakan yang dibuat oleh lembaga-lembaga pemerintah dalam kehidupan kenegaraan.Solichin Abdul Wahab mendefinisikan implementasi kebijakan secara umum yaitu : "Implementasi adalah tindakan-tindakan yang dilakukan baik oleh individu-individu, pejabat-pejabat, atau kelompok - kelompok pemerintah atau swasta yang diarahkan pada tercapainya tujuan-tujuan yang telah digariskan dalam keputusan kebijakan"(1997:63).Sedangkan Implementasi kebijakan menurut guru besar ilmu administrasi UNPAD, Prof. H. Tachjan dalam bukunya Implementasi Kebijakan Publik menyimpulkan bahwa : "Implementasi kebijakan publik merupakan proses kegiatan administratif yang dilakukan setelah kebijakan ditetapkan/ disetujui. Kegiatan ini terletak di antara perumusan kebijakan dan evaluasi kebijakan. Implementasi Kebijakan mengandung logika yang top-down, maksudnya menurunkan / menafsirkan alternatif – alternatif yang masih abstrak atau makro menjadi alternatif yang bersfat konkrit atau mikro" (2006: 25)Dari uraian di atas diperoleh suatu gambaran bahwa, implementasi kebijakan publik merupakan proses kegiatan administratif yang dilakukan setelah kebijakan ditetapkan/disetujui. Kegiatan ini terletak di antara perumusan kebijakan dan evaluasi kebijakan. Implementasi kebijakan mengandung logika yang top-down, Sedangkan format kebijakan mengandung logika botton up, dalam arti proses ini diawali dengan pemetaan kebutuhan publik atau pengakomodasian tuntutan lingkungan lalu diikuti dengan pencarian dan pemilihan alternatif cara pemecahannya, kemudian diusulkan untuk ditetapkan sebagai acuan dalam implementasi kebijakan yang bisa diterima oleh public.Pembuatan kebijakan di satu sisi merupakan proses yang memiliki logika bottom-up, dalam arti proses kebijakan diawali dengan penyampaian aspirasi, permintaan atau dukungan dari masyarakat. Sedangkan implementasi kebijakan di sisi lain di dalamnya memiliki logika top-down, dalam arti penurunan alternatif kebijakan yang abstrak atau makro menjadi tindakan konkrit atau mikro (Wibawa, 1994: 2).Grindle (1980: 7) menyatakan, implementasi merupakan proses umum tindakan administratif yang dapat diteliti pada tingkat program tertentu. Sedangkan Van Meter dan Horn (Wibawa, dkk., 1994: 15) menyatakan bahwa implementasi kebijakan merupakan tindakan yang dilakukan oleh pemerintah dan swasta baik secara individu maupun secara kelompok yang dimaksudkan untuk mencapai tujuan. Grindle (1980: 7) menambahkan bahwa proses implementasi baru akan dimulai apabila tujuan dan sasaran telah ditetapkan, program kegiatan telah tersusun dan dana telah siap dan telah disalurkan untuk mencapai sasaran.Menurut Lane, implementasi sebagai konsep dapat dibagi ke dalam dua bagian. Pertama, implementation = F (Intention, Output, Outcome). Sesuai definisi tersebut, implementasi merupakan fungsi yang terdiri dari maksud dan tujuan, hasil sebagai produk dan hasil dari akibat. Kedua, implementasi merupakan persamaan fungsi dari implementation = F (Policy, Formator, Implementor, Initiator, Time).Penekanan utama kedua fungsi ini adalah kepada kebijakan itu sendiri, kemudian hasil yang dicapai dan dilaksanakan oleh implementor dalam kurun waktu tertentu (Sabatier, 1986: 21-48).Implementasi kebijakan menghubungkan antara tujuan kebijakan dan realisasinya dengan hasil kegiatan pemerintah. Hal ini sesuai dengan pandangan Van Meter dan Horn (Grindle, 1980: 6) bahwa tugas implementasi adalah membangun jaringan yang memungkinkan tujuan kebijakan publik direalisasikan melalui aktivitas instansi pemerintah yang melibatkan berbagai pihak yang berkepentingan (policy stakeholders).2. Perspektif Implementasi KebijakanImplementasi kebijakan publik dapat dilihat dari beberapa perspektif atau pendekatan. Salah satunya ialah implementation problems approach yang diperkenalkan oleh Edwards III (1984: 9-10). Edwards III mengajukan pendekatan masalah implementasi dengan terlebih dahulu mengemukakan dua pertanyaan pokok, yakni: (i) faktor apa yang mendukung keberhasilan implementasi kebijakan? dan (ii) faktor apa yang menghambat keberhasilan implementasi kebijakan? Berdasarkan kedua pertanyaan tersebut dirumuskan empat faktor yang merupakan syarat utama keberhasilan proses implementasi, yakni komunikasi, sumber daya, sikap birokrasi atau pelaksana dan struktur organisasi, termasuk tata aliran kerja birokrasi. Empat faktor tersebut menjadi kriteria penting dalam implementasi suatu kebijakan.Komunikasi suatu program hanya dapat dilaksanakan dengan baik apabila jelas bagi para pelaksana. Hal ini menyangkut proses penyampaian informasi, kejelasan informasi dan konsistensi informasi yang disampaikan. Sumber daya, meliputi empat komponen yaitu staf yang cukup (jumlah dan mutu), informasi yang dibutuhkan guna pengambilan keputusan, kewenangan yang cukup guna melaksanakan tugas atau tanggung jawab dan fasilitas yang dibutuhkan dalam pelaksanaan.Disposisi atau sikap pelaksana merupakan komitmen pelaksana terhadap program. Struktur birokrasi didasarkan pada standard operating prosedure yang mengatur tata aliran pekerjaan dan pelaksanaan kebijakan.Untuk memperlancar implementasi kebijakan, perlu dilakukan diseminasi dengan baik. Syarat pengelolaan diseminasi kebijakan ada empat, yakni: (1) adanya respek anggota masyarakat terhadap otoritas pemerintah untuk menjelaskan perlunya secara moral mematuhi undang-undang yang dibuat oleh pihak berwenang;(2) adanya kesadaran untuk menerima kebijakan. Kesadaran dan kemauan menerima dan melaksanakan kebijakan terwujud manakala kebijakan dianggap logis; (3) keyakinan bahwa kebijakan dibuat secara sah; (4) awalnya suatukebijakan dianggap kontroversial, namun dengan berjalannya waktu maka kebijakan tersebut dianggap sebagai sesuatu yang wajar.Menurut Mazmanian dan Sabatier (1983: 5), terdapat dua perspektif dalam analisis implementasi, yaitu perspektif administrasi publik dan perspektif ilmu politik. Menurut perspektif administrasi publik, implementasi pada awalnya dilihat sebagai pelaksanaan kebijakan secara tepat dan efisien. Namun, pada akhir Perang Dunia II berbagai penelitian administrasi negara menunjukkan bahwa ternyata agen administrasi publik tidak hanya dipengaruhi oleh mandat resmi, tetapi juga oleh tekanan dari kelompok kepentingan, anggota lembaga legislatif dan berbagai faktor dalam lingkungan politis.Perspektif ilmu politik mendapat dukungan dari pendekatan sistem terhadap kehidupan politik. Pendekatan ini seolah-olah mematahkan perspektif organisasi dalam administrasi publik dan mulai memberikan perhatian terhadap pentingnya input dari luar arena administrasi, seperti ketentuan administratif, perubahan preferensi publik, teknologi baru dan preferensi masyarakat. Perspektif ini terfokus pada pertanyaan dalam analisis implementasi, yaitu seberapa jauh konsistensi antara output kebijakan dengan tujuannya.Ripley memperkenalkan pendekatan "kepatuhan" dan pendekatan "faktual" dalam implementasi kabijakan (Ripley & Franklin, 1986: 11). Pendekatan kepatuhan muncul dalam literatur administrasi publik. Pendekatan ini memusatkan perhatian pada tingkat kepatuhan agen atau individu bawahan terhadap agen atau individu atasan. Perspektif kepatuhan merupakan analisis karakter dan kualitas perilaku organisasi.Menurut Ripley, paling tidak terdapat dua kekurangan perspektif kepatuhan, yakni: (1) banyak faktor non-birokratis yang berpengaruh tetapi justru kurang diperhatikan, dan (2) adanya program yang tidak didesain dengan baik. Perspektif kedua adalah perspektif faktual yang berasumsi bahwa terdapat banyak faktor yang mempengaruhi proses implementasi kebijakan yang mengharuskan implementor agar lebih leluasa mengadakan penyesuaian. Kedua perspektif tersebut tidak kontradiktif, tetapi saling melengkapi satu sama lain. Secaraempirik, perspektif kepatuhan mulai mengakui adanya faktor eksternal organisasi yang juga mempengaruhi kinerja agen administratif.Kecenderungan itu sama sekali tidak bertentangan dengan perspektif faktual yang juga memfokuskan perhatian pada berbagai faktor non-organisasional yang mempengaruhi implementasi kebijakan (Grindle, 1980: 7).Berdasarkan pendekatan kepatuhan dan pendekatan faktual dapat dinyatakan bahwa keberhasilan kebijakan sangat ditentukan oleh tahap implementasi dan keberhasilan proses implementasi ditentukan oleh kemampuan implementor, yaitu: (1) kepatuhan implementor mengikuti apa yang diperintahkan oleh atasan, dan (2) kemampuan implementor melakukan apa yang dianggap tepat sebagai keputusan pribadi dalam menghadapi pengaruh eksternal dan faktor non-organisasional, atau pendekatan faktual.3. Model Implementasi KebijakanMenurut Sabatier (1986: 21-48), terdapat dua model yang berpacu dalam tahap implementasi kebijakan, yakni model top down dan model bottom up. Kedua model ini terdapat pada setiap proses pembuatan kebijakan. Model elit, model proses dan model inkremental dianggap sebagai gambaran pembuatan kebijakan berdasarkan model top down. Sedangkan gambaran model bottom up dapat dilihat pada model kelompok dan model kelembagaan. Sabatier (1983: 5), terdapat dua perspektif dalam analisis implementasi, yaitu perspektif administrasi publik dan perspektif ilmu politik. implementasi pada awalnya dilihat sebagai pelaksanaan kebijakan secara tepat dan efisien.Model yang dikembangkan Hogwood dan sabiter (wibawa,1995), model yang disusun atas dasar proses implementasi kebijakan sebagai suatu proses ditegaskan bahwa dalam tahapan implemtasi kebijakan terdapat tiga variable bebas yang dapat berpengaruh (1) mudah atau tidaknya masalah yang dikendalikan,(2) kemampuan kebijakan untuk menstrukturkan proses implementasi (3).Variabel diluar kebijaksanaan yang mempengaruhi proses implementasi.Menurut Grindle (1980: 6-10) memperkenalkan model implementasi sebagai proses politik dan administrasi. Model tersebut menggambarkan prosespengambilan keputusan yang dilakukan oleh beragam aktor, dimana keluaran akhirnya ditentukan oleh baik materi program yang telah dicapai maupun melalui interaksi para pembuat keputusan dalam konteks politik administratif. Proses politik dapat terlihat melalui proses pengambilan keputusan yang melibatkan berbagai aktor kebijakan, sedangkan proses administrasi terlihat melalui proses umum mengenai aksi administratif yang dapat diteliti pada tingkat program tertentu.Tujuan implementasi kebijakan diformulasi ke dalam program aksi dan proyek tertentu yang dirancang dan dibiayai. Program dilaksanakan sesuai dengan rencana. Implementasi kebijakan atau program – secara garis besar – dipengaruhi oleh isi kebijakan dan konteks implementasi. Keseluruhan implementasi kebijakan dievaluasi dengan cara mengukur luaran program berdasarkan tujuan kebijakan.Pada aspek pelaksanaan, terdapat dua model implementasi kebijakan publik yang efektif, yaitu model linier dan model interaktif (lihat Baedhowi, 2004: 47). Pada model linier, fase pengambilan keputusan merupakan aspek yang terpenting, sedangkan fase pelaksanaan kebijakan kurang mendapat perhatian atau dianggap sebagai tanggung jawab kelompok lain. Keberhasilan pelaksanaan kebijakan tergantung pada kemampuan instansi pelaksana. Jika implementasi kebijakan gagal maka yang disalahkan biasanya adalah pihak manajemen yang dianggap kurang memiliki komitmen sehingga perlu dilakukan upaya yang lebih baik untuk meningkatkan kapasitas kelembagaan pelaksana.Berbeda dengan model linier, model interaktif menganggap pelaksanaan kebijakan sebagai Berbeda dengan model linier, model interaktif menganggap pelaksanaan kebijakan sebagai proses yang dinamis, karena setiap pihak yang terlibat dapat mengusulkan perubahan dalam berbagai tahap pelaksanaan.Hal itu dilakukan ketika kebijakan publik dianggap kurang memenuhi harapan stakeholders. Ini berarti bahwa berbagai tahap implementasi kebijakan publik akan dianalisis dan dievaluasi oleh setiap pihak sehingga potensi, kekuatan dan kelemahan setiap fase pelaksanaannya diketahui dan segera diperbaiki untuk mencapai tujuan. Pada gambar 03 terlihat bahwa meskipun persyaratan input sumberdaya merupakan keharusan dalam proses implementasi kebijakan, tetapihal itu tidak menjamin suatu kebijakan akan dilaksanakan dengan baik. Input sumberdaya dapat digunakan secara optimum jika dalam proses pengambilan keputusan dan pelaksanaan kebijakan terjadi interaksi positif dan dinamis antara pengambil kebijakan, pelaksanaan kebijakan dan pengguna kebijakan (masyarakat) dalam suasana dan lingkungan yang kondusif.Jika model interaktif implementasi kebijakan di atas disandingkan dengan model implementasi kebijakan yang lain, khususnya model proses politik dan administrasi dari Grindle, terlihat adanya kesamaan dan representasi elemen yang mencirikannya. Tujuan kebijakan, program aksi dan proyek tertentu yang dirancang dan dibiayai menurut Grindle menunjukkan urgensi fase pengambilan keputusan sebagai fase terpenting dalam model linier implementasi kebijakan. Sementara itu, enam elemen isi kebijakan ditambah dengan tiga elemen konteks implementasi sebagai faktor yang mempengaruhi aktivitas implementasi menurut Grindle mencirikan adanya interaksi antara pengambil kebijakan, pelaksana kebijakan dan pengguna kebijakan dalam model interaktif.Begitu pula istilah model proses politik dan proses administrasi menurut Grindle, selain menunjukkan dominasi cirinya yang cenderung lebih dekat kepada ciri model interaktif implementasi kebijakan, juga menunjukkan kelebihan model tersebut dalam cara yang digunakan untuk mengukur keberhasilan implementasi kebijakan, beserta output dan outcomesnya.Selain model implementasi kebijakan di atas Van Meter dan Van Horn mengembangkan Model Proses Implementasi Kebijakan. (Tarigan, 2000: 20). Keduanya meneguhkan pendirian bahwa perubahan, kontrol dan kepatuhan dalam bertindak merupakan konsep penting dalam prosedur implementasi. Keduanya mengembangkan tipologi kebijakan menurut: (i) jumlah perubahan yang akan dihasilkan, dan (ii) jangkauan atau ruang lingkup kesepakatan mengenai tujuan oleh berbagai pihak yang terlibat dalam proses implementasi.Tanpa mengurangi kredibilitas model proses implementasi kebijakan dari Van Meter dan Van Horn terlihat bahwa elemen yang menentukan keberhasilan penerapannya termasuk ke dalam elemen model proses politik dan administrasimenurut Grindle. Kata kunci yakni perubahan, kontrol dan kepatuhan termasuk dalam dimensi isi kebijakan dan konteks implementasi kebijakan. Demikian pula dengan tipologi kebijakan yang dibuat oleh keduanya termasuk dalam elemen isi kebijakan dan konteks implementasi menurut Grindle. Tipologi jumlah perubahan yang dihasilkan termasuk dalam elemen isi kebijakan dan tipologi ruang lingkup kesepakatan termasuk dalam konteks implementasi.Implementasi kebijakan pada era sebelum tahun 1970-an masih belum memperoleh perhatian yang serius dari para administrator publik, walaupun studi mengenai kebijakan publik sudah mulai berkembang pada dasawarsa 1950-an, sebagaimana dikemukakan oleh Edwards III melalui kajian pada pemerintahan Amerika Serikat. Pada tahun 1970-an, barulah muncul permasalahan berkaitan dengan pelaksanaan dan penerapan kebijakan, sebagaimana dikemukakan Edwards III (1980 :9-10), sebagai berikut: ". four critical factors or variabels in implementing public policy: communication, resourcess, dispositions or attitudes, and bureaucratic structure". Keempat faktor atau variabel tersebut merupakan gejala mengapa suatu kebijakan yang telah dirumuskan tidak tercapai sesuai dengan tujuan dalam implementasinya? Keempat faktor atau variabel penyebab tidak terimplementasikanya kebijakan atau program tersebut dapat dijelaskan sebagai berikut:1. Komunikasi (communication), merupakan dimensi penting bagi administrator publik dalam mengimplementasikan kebijakan, khususnya untuk pencapaian efektivitas program melalui transmisi personel yang tepat, jelasnya perintah yang diinstruksikan oleh atasan dalam pelaksanaan dilapangan, dan kekonsistenan pelaksana keputusan atau program oleh semua pelaksana maupun atasan pemberi instruksi.Ada 3 aspek penting dalam dimensi komunikasi ini, yaitu menyangkut indikator:Setiap wilayah yang menjadi kebijakannya akan menyesuaikan dengan prioritas kebijakan yang berbeda-beda. Baik menyangkut perbedaan komitmen, dan cara-cara yang berbeda dalam menangulangi permasalahanya, sebagaimana di kemukanan oleh Edwards III (1980:116), di bawah ini:"Different bereaucratic units are likely to have different views on policies. Intra and interagency disagreements inhibit cooperation and hider implementaion. Within a sigle policy area, each relevant agency probably has different priorities, different commitments, and defferent methods of handling problems".Perubahan pegawai birokrasi pemerintahan merupakan hal sulit, dan hal ini tidak menjamin bahwa proses implementasi kebijakan akan berjalan dengan baik. Teknik yang potensial untuk merubah permasalahan implementator tetap dapat menjalankan kebijakan sesuai dengan tujuan yaitu merubah sikap para implementator melalui manipulasi insentif-insentif,sebagaimana di kemukanan oleh Edwards III (1980:116), di bawah ini:"Changing the personel in government bereaucracies is difficult, and it does not ensure that the implementation process will proceed smoothly. Another potential technique to deal with the problem of implementor' dispositions is to alter dispositions of existing implementors through the manipulation of incentives".Kecenderungan-kecenderungan dalam implementasi kebijakan menekankan bagaimana kesulitan suatu implementasi kebijakan atau program mendapatkan permasalahan yang dilakukan oleh para implementator birokrasi pemerintah sendiri dalam mengimplementasikan kebijakan dengan adanya penafsiran kebijakan dari unit atas sampai unit pelaksana.2. Struktur Birokrasi (bureuacratic structure).Birokrasi mempunyai peranan penting dalam implementasi kebijakan walaupun merupakan organisasi yang besar dan komplek, organisasi yang dominan dan mampu untuk melaksanakan setiap kebijakan atau program, serta tidak ada organisasi sekuat birokrasi yang mampu bertahan dalam keadaan situasi apapun (survive) bagaimanapun pengaruh ekternal mempengaruhinya, bahkan Edwards III menegaskan birokrasi jarang mati.Ada dua karakteristik dalam struktur birokrasi menurut pandangan Edwards III, yaitu:a. Standard Operating Procedures (SOP), yaitu berkaitan dengan:1) masalah-masalah sosial dan urusan publik;2) instruksi yang dominan pada tahap-tahap yang berbeda; dan3) tujuan yang berbeda berada pada lingkungan yang luas dan komplek.SOP pada dasarnya merupakan tatanan prosedur kerja birokrasi dalam melaksanakan fungsi dan tugasnya, yang secara internal birokrasi dapat mengatur sumber-sumber yang dimilikinya, baik berkaitan dengan sumber daya manusia, waktu, sarana dan prasarana.b. Fragmentation (fragmentasi), yaitu berkaitan dengan:1) survive ialah kekuatan untuk tetap bertahan hidup; dan2) bukan pilihan-pilihan netral dalam suatu kebijakan.Fragmentasi merupakan kemampuan birokrasi dalam menghadapi faktor-faktor ekternal yang dapat mempengaruhi birokrasi, baik berupa infrastruktur (LSM, partai politik, maupun lembaga-lembaga profesi) dan supra struktur (legislatif, eksekutif, maupun lembaga kenegaraan lainya)Pada sisi lain Edwards III menegaskan juga bahwa dari empat faktor yang berpengaruh terhadap implementasi kebijakan terjadi adanya interaksi yang langsung dan tidak langsung diantara beberapa faktor tersebut, sebagaimana di kemukakannya, bahwa:"Interactions between factors: Aside from directly affecting implementation, however also inderectly affect it through their impact on each other. In other words, communications affect to resources, disposition, and bureaucratic structures, which in turn influence implementation"(Edwards III, 1980:147).Model yang dikemukan oleh Edwards III ini sifatnya top down dan cocok diimplementasikan pada level birokrasi yang terstruktur pada suatu lembagapemerintahan, dalam hal ini setiap level hirarchi mempunyai peran sesuai dengan fungsi dalam penjabaran kebijakan yang akan dilaksanakan dan akan memudahkan terhadap implementasi suatu kebijakan pada masing-masing level birokrasi, yaitu mulai dari tingkat departemen (pemerintah pusat), pemerintah propinsi, pemerintah kabupaten/kota, sampai ketingkat pelaksana dilapangan. Model ini akan efektif bila perumusan kebijakan yang dibuatnya memperhatikan dan memprediksikan implementasi kebijakan yang akan dilaksanakan. Hal iniuntuk menghindari terjadinya rintangan dan hambatan dalam implementasi yang disebabkan oleh karena kekurang jelasan kebijakan dan kurangnya representatif terhadap keinginan masyarakat atau para pihak yang akan terkena oleh kebijakan tersebut.Model yang dikemukan oleh Edwards III ini sifatnya top down dan cocok diimplementasikan pada level birokrasi yang terstruktur pada suatu lembaga pemerintahan, dalam hal ini setiap level hirarchi mempunyai peran sesuai dengan fungsi dalam penjabaran kebijakan yang akan dilaksanakan dan akan memudahkan terhadap implementasi suatu kebijakan pada masing-masing level birokrasi, yaitu mulai dari tingkat departemen (pemerintah pusat), pemerintah propinsi, pemerintah kabupaten/kota, sampai ketingkat pelaksana dilapangan.C. Kerangka PemikiranPemilukada Kabupaten Yahukimo secara langsung merupakan proses penentuan pemimpin didaerah ini ,Pemilihan pemimpin ideal dipilih langsung oleh masyarakat sesuai dengan peraturan perundang - undangan yang telah diatur. Pemilihan dimaksud diatur dalam tata cara dan mekanisme yang dapat dikemas dalam sebuah peraturan petunjuk teknis pelaksaan oleh Komisi pemilihan umum. Dalam pelaksanaan Pemilukada, beberapa tokoh masyarakat adat berperan aktif dalam hal mengarahkan masyarakat sesuai motif dan keinginan tokoh ,keikutsertaan tokoh dalam pemilihan Bupati dan wakil Bupati menjadi peran central.Diera baru bergesernya, sistem masa lalu yang sangat sentralistik telah digeser ke dalam sistem yang lebih demokratis. Dengan runtuhnya rezim orde baru pada tahun 1998 melalui peran mahasiswa, di tandai dengan masuknya era reformasi, masa ini adalah masa pembaharuan di semua dimensi kehidupan. Dengan bergesernya sistem pengedalian politik yang sangat sentralistik kini adanya restorasi dalam konteks wawasan demokrasi terpatas,.Dengan adanya amandemen undang – undang No. 22 tahun 1999 kemudian diamandemen menjadi UU No. 32 tahun 2004 tentang otonomi daerah dan pemilihan kepala daerah secara langsung. Sehingga memungkin partisipasi masyarakat dalam pelaksanaannya, dalam Sistem pemilihan kepala daerah secara langsung melaluisatu tindakan sosialisasi oleh lembaga penyelenggara, elit politik, tokoh masyarakat dan Peran media dalam pelaksanaan Pemilukada .Dalam konteks Pemilukada di Kabupaten Yahukimo, perilaku memilih sangatlah di pengaruhi olehPeran elit politik local menggunakan jasa tokoh masyarakat untuk memuluskan kepentingan politik. Perilaku pemilih didorong secara paksa oleh tokoh masyarakat yang sudah lama tinggal di kota Yahukimo atau tahu informasi atau termakan issue saat berada di kota memberikan dampak dalam penentuan hak Politik sebagai representasi dari masyarakat. Peran tokoh adat ,tokoh agama dan peran pemuda yang memiliki kemampuan mengorganir, memobilisasi, serta mengarahkan pemilih.Tokoh memeiliki pengaruh daerah sesungguhnya berperan untuk memberikan wawasan tentang arti sebuah demokrasi atau sosialisasi tata cara pencoblosan, namun kecendurungan mengarahkan masyarakat untuk menentukan hak politik sebelum hari H. Model pengarahan hampir dipastikan sesuai pesan elit politik, disini kecendurungan menciptakan konflik.Peran tokoh masyarakat tersebut diharapkan dapat menjadi model aktif dalam pengembangan menjadi kunci dan sebagai pengendali konflik diranah lokal. Pengendalian konflik Pemilukada dalam masyarakat tentunya memerlukan peranan tokoh masyarakat dengan semangat kearifan lokal serta semangat kedaerahan yang tinggi dan demokratis yang mengedepanlan nilai-nilai pluralisme agar tercipta harmoni sosial dalam masyarakat.Untuk mempengaruhi pemilih biasanya ada pemaksaan, intimidasi. Ini terlihat dari terlibatnya beberapa tokoh masyarakat dalam masa kampanye kecenderungan fanatisme kesukuan menjadi penentu pemilih seperti;suku Yalleanang adalah satu etnis Suku Kimyal, Meek, UKAM dan Momuna, sedangkan kelompok suku etnis Yali yaitu Yali selatan,Yali utara, Ngalik dan Hubla.METODE PENELITIANA. Desain PenelitianPendekatan yang dipergunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah pendekatan kualitatif, dengan metode analisis deskriptif. Pada dasarnya desain deskriptifkualitatif disebut pula dengan kuasi kualitatif (Bungin, 2009). Maksudnya, desain ini belumlah benar-benar kualitatif karena bentuknya masih dipengaruhi oleh tradisi kuantitatif, terutama dalam menempatkan teori pada data yang diperolehnya. Format deskriptif kualitatif bertujuan untuk menggambarkan, meringkaskan berbagai kondisi, berbagai situasi, atau berbagai fenomena realitas sosial yang ada, kemudian berupaya untuk menarik realitas ke permukaan sebagai suati ciri, kharakter, sifat, model, tanda, atau gambaran tentang kondisi, ataupun fenomena tertentu. Format ini tidak memiliki ciri seperti air (menyebar di permukaan), tetapi memusatkan diri pada suatu unit tertentu dari berbagai fenomena. Dengan ciri yang seperti ini, maka memungkinkan penelitian ini bersifat mendalam dan "menusuk" ke sasaran penelitian. Dengan demikian penelitian deskriptif kualitatif lebih tepat jika digunakan untuk masalah-masalah yang membutuhkan studi mendalam seperti permasalahan tingkah laku, masalah respons masyarakat terhadap objek tertentu, serta permasalahan implementasi kebijakan publik di masyarakat. Adapun unit yang diteliti dalam penelitian deskriptif kualitatif adalah individu, kelompok atau keluarga, masyarakat dan kelembagaan sosial atau pranata sosial.Unit individu adalah masalah-masalah individu, orang per orang, sedangkan unit kelompok atau keluarga. Sedangkan unit kelompok atau keluarga, yaitu bisa satu kelompok atau satu keluarga.Masyarakat adalah suatu desa, kecamatan, beberapa kecamatan, beberapa kotamadia dan seterusnya tergantung pada konsep masyarakat yang digunakan (Bungin, 2009). Tentang penelitian kualitatif selanjutnya Croswell (1994:147) menjelaskan sebagai berikut :"Qualitative research is interpretative research as such the biases, values and judgment of the researches become state explicitly in the research report. Such opennes is considered to be usefull and positive"Menurut Moleong (1997) kemudian, metode penelitian kualitatif adalah prosedur penelitian yang akan menghasilkan data deskriptif berupa kata tertulis atau lisan dari orang-orang dan perilaku yang diamati. Penelitian kualitatif lebih menghendaki arah bimbingan penyusunan teori substantif berdasarkan data.Pilihan terhadap metode kualitatif adalah merujuk pada pemikiran Strauss dan Corbin (1990) yaitu ;"qualitative method can be used to uncover and understand what lies behind any phenomenon about which little is yet known.qualitative methods van give the indicate details of phenomenon that are difficult to convey with quantitative methods".Pemilihan pendekatan kualitatif adalah untuk menjawab masalah penelitian yaitu; untuk dapat memperoleh jawaban tentang mengapa banyak terjadi masalah alam implementasi Pemilukada langsung Bupati dan Wakil Bupati Kabupaten Yahukimo Provinsi Papua.1) Bagaimanakah sesungguhnya kebijakan Pemilukada langsung diimplementasikan. Penggunaan pendekatan kualitatif dalam penelitian ini akan mampu memberikan informasi yang mendalam dan akurat sehingga akan membantu proses interpretasi informasi dan data yang diperoleh.2) Pendekatan kualitatif yang memberikan penekanan pada metode epsitimologik akan mampu melahirkan reformulasi dan rekonseptualisasi teori implementasi kebijakan, baik itu dilakukan dari perspektif objek yang diteliti dan perspektif peneliti sendiri, melalui integrasi pendekatan etik dan emik sebagaimana paradigma kualitatif modern.Melalui proses ini maka akan dihasilkan proposisi hipotetik baru melalui interpretasi interaksi antara atribut dan propertise yang selanjutnya digunakan untuk membangun kategori dan memberikan eksplanasi terhadap fenomena yang diteliti.Dengan demikian aktivitas penelitian dicirikan oleh kegiatan mengumpulkan, menggambarkan dan menafsirkan data tentang situasi yang dialami, hubungan tertentu, kegiatan, pandangan, sikap yang ditunjukkan atau tentang kecenderungan, yang tampak dalam proses yang sedang berlangsung, atau pertentangan yang meruncing serta kerjasama yang dijalankan.Dengan menggunakan desain ini, maka akan dapat diperoleh gambaran fenomena, fakta, sifat serta hubungan fenomenal tentang implementasi kebijakan Pemilukada Langsung di kabupaten Yahukimo secara utuh dan multi dimensional, sehingga dapat dilakukan kategorisasi dan perumusan hipotesis sebagai temuan penelitian.B. Jenis Data.Data yang diolah dalam penelitian ini adalah data primer dan data sekunder. Data primer adalah data yang langsung direkam di lapangan melalui wawancara mendalam dan yang didapat melalui observasi yang dilakukan oleh peneliti sendiri. Sementara itu data sekunder adalah data olahan atau data telah dipublikasikan secara resmi yang didapat dari berita media, dokumentasi dan arsip lembaga terkait lainnya.1) Data Primer.Data primer dalam penelitian ini adalah data dan informasi yang diperoleh secarala langsung dari para informan.2) Data Sekunder.Data sekunder dalam penelitian ini adalah seluruh data yang berkaitan dengan aturan penyelenggaraan Pemilukada, data dan dokumen tertulis tentang proses dan hasil penyelenggaraan, serta data-data yang diperoleh dari masyrakat.C. Teknik Pengumpulan, Pencatatan dan Pengolahan Data.Adapun metode pengumpulan data yang dipilih untuk penelitian ini adalah wawancara mendalam (in depth-interview). Pada dasarnya wawancara mendalam yang dilakukan dalam penelitian ini merupakan wawancara tidak berstruktur, meskipun disiapkan pula pedoman untuk melakukan wawancara.Menurut Bungin (2009) bahwa :"Wawancara terstruktur sebagaimana yang lazim dalam tradisi survey adalah kurang memadai, yang diperlukan adalah wawancara tak berstruktur yang bisa secara leluasa melacak ke berbagai segi dan arah guna mendapatkan informasi yang selengkap mungkin dan semendalam mungkin".Selain Bungin, Mulyana (2001) menjelaskan tentang hal ini sebagai berikut:"Wawancara tidak terstruktur sering juga disebut wawancara mendalam, wawancara intensif, wawancara kualitatif, dan wawancara transparan (opended interview), wawancara etnografis. wawancara tidak terstruktur mirip dengan percakapan informal. Wawancara tidak terstruktur bersifat luwes, susunan pertanyaannya dan susunan kata-kata dalam setiap pertanyaan daoat diubah oadasaat wawancara, dan disesuaikan dengan kebutuhan dan kondisi saat wawancara, termasuk karakteristik sosial budaya (agama, suku, gender, usia, tingkat pendidikan, pekerjaan, dan lain sebagainya) dari responden yang dihadapi".D. Informan Penelitian.Adapun yang menjadi informan dalam penelitian ini adalah :a. Elit Politik Kabupaten Yahukimo.b. Lembaga Pengawas Pemilukada Kabupaten Yahukimo Provinsi Papua.c. Para Tim Sukses dari masing-masing calon.d. tokoh masyarakat dari tiap distrik yang berada di kabupaten Yahukimo.e. Para petugas panitia pemilihan distrik TPS, dan KPPS di tiap distrik di Kabupaten Yahukimo.E. Instrumen Penelitian.Instrumen penelitian yang dipergunakan dalam proses pengumpulan data melalui wawancara tak berstruktur dan ketika pengamatan, adalah peneliti sendiri dengan menggunakan alat bantu seperti alat perekam suara (tape recorder), alat rekam visual (video recorder), alat tulis, serta lap top untuk menyimpan data hasil penelitian. Adapun materi wawancara dan pengamatan adalah diperluas dari berbagai variabel yang dikemukakan dalam hipotesis kerja.F. Arena dan Situasi Penelitian.Setting dalam penelitian ini adalah arena dan situasi dimana proses wawancara dan observasi dilaksanakan. Pola ini adalah merujuk pada apa yang dikemukakan oleh Miles dan Huberman dalam Creswell (1994:149) yaitu bahwa the setting (where the research will take place). Selanjutnya area penelitian adalah area dari kegiatan sehari-hari dari para informan penelitian, sebagaimana dijelaskan oleh Emerson dalam Newman (1973: 343) bahwa field research is the study of people acting in the natural courses of their activites. Oleh karenanya lapangan dari penelitian ini akan lebih banyak berada di kantor KPU dan kantor Panwaslu kabupaten Yahukimo. Pengamatan lainnya adalah di distrik yang ada.G. Prosedur Penelitian, Pengumpulan dan Analisis Data.Prosedur dalam penelitian ini adalah sebagai berikut :1) Tahap pra penelitian. Yaitu menyusun rancangan penelitian, menentukan lokasi penelitian, penilaian kondisi fisik area penelitian, penentuan para narasumber atau informan, menyiapkan perlengkapan penelitian dan mempersiapkan diri untuk dapat masuk dan menyesuaikan dengan lingkungan dan pola kehidupan dari objek penelitian. Ini dibutuhkan dalam konteks untuk membangun kepercayaan dari objek yang akan diteliti, serta mendorong kepada nuansa akademik.2) Tahap Pengumpulan dan Analisis data. Pada tahap ini data dan informasi yang diperoleh, direduksi atau dipilah-pilah, kemudian dilakukan focusing dan penyederhanaan terhadap catatan lapangan. Reduksi dilakukan dengan cara membaca transkrip, hasil wawancara, catatan pengamatan atu dokumen yang akan dianalisis. Selanjutnya adalah membuat catatan atau memo atas data, ringkasan serta mengelompokkan data dan kemudian dibuatkan partisi. Setelah tahap ini selesai maka akan dilakukan penampilan data. Ini merupakan tahapan yang penting, karena setelah data yang berupa kumpulan data dan informasi yang terorganisir ditampilkan, maka selanjutnya adalah penarikan kesimpulan. Pada dasarnya tampilan data adalah berupa teks, gambar, grafik, tabel, bagan dan teks naratif atau berbentuk kutipan-kutipan. Selanjutnya kegiatan ini akan diakhiri dengan perumusan kesimpulan, meskipun penarikan kesimpulan sudah dilakukan semenjak data pertama terkumpul. Kesimpulan akhir adalah pada saat tahap pengumpulan data telah selesai dilakukan.3) Tahap Penulisan Laporan Penelitian. Penulisan laporan akhir adalah memuat temuan penelitian, tetapi selain itu juga menguraikan hasil interpretasi dan eksplanasi temuan-temuan penelitian dan penarikan kesimpulan penelitian, verifikasi, perumusan dalil-dalil dan rekomendasi akademik, serta rekemonedasi pragmatis yang terkait dengan tujuan dan manfaat penelitian.4) Setelah ke tiga langkah di atas selesai dilaksanakan, maka kemudian akan dilakukan interpretasi dan eksplanasi tentang pola interaksi antar kategori, antar properties, dan antar atribut, sehingga pada gilirannya akan menghasilkan suatu pola hubungan pengaruh antara fenomena yang diselidiki. Langkah selanjutnya adalah seluruh temuan fakta yang ada diinterpretasikan sesuai dengan kategori, properties dan atribut yang diperoleh menurut perspektif yang ditetapkan berdasarkan rujukan kerangka berpikir dan tinjauan pustaka. Interpretasi kualitatif adalah juga diarahkan pada peneuan pola interaksi antar fenomena pemberdayaan.5) Tahap terakhir dari bagian ini adalah penarikan kesimpulan yaitu menarik proposisi atau dalil-dalil atau hipotesis tertentu berdasarkan kecenderungan interaksi yang terjadi antar atribut. Pada dasarnya kesimpulan yang diarahkan sebagai jawaban masalah penelitian, akan menjelaskan pola korelasi antara kategori dan properties.H. Pemeriksaan Keabsahan Data.Menurut Bungin (2009), di dalam penelitian kuantitatif uji validitas dan uji realibilitas dapat dilakukan terhadap alat penelitian untuk menghindari ketidakvalidan dan ketidaksesuaian instrumen penelitian, sehingga data yang diperoleh dari penyebaran instrumen itu dapat dianggap sudah valid dan sesuai dengan data yang diinginkan. Akan tetapi dalam penelitian kualitatif ke tiga hal tersebut terus "mengganggu" dalam proses-proses penelitiannya.Menurut Miles dan Huberman (1992 :423-468), pemeriksaan keabsahan data sangat diperlukan dalam pendekatan kualitatif demi kesahihan dan keandalan serta tingkat kepercayaan terhadap data yang terkumpul. Validitas dan Reabilitas data perlu diuji melalui teknik pemeriksaan keabsahan data, taktik menguji dan memastikan temuan. Oleh karenanya perlu dibangun sebuah mekanisme untuk mengatasi keraguan terhadap setiap hasil penelitian kualitatif. Burgess dalam Bungin (2009) menyebutkannya sebagai strategi penelitian ganda" sementara Denzin dalam Creswell (1994:174) menyebutkannya sebagai "triangulasi", sementara Bungin sendiri menyebutkannya sebagai meta-metode.Pada dasarnya teknik umum pengujian keabsahan data dilakukan dengan menggunakan teknik triangulasi. Menurut Denzem "the term triangulation, a term borrowed from navigation and military strategy, to argue for the combination od methodologies in the study of the same phenomenon". Dalam kaitannya dengan penjelasan Denzem ini, Jick juga dalam Creswell (1994) menjelaskan sebagai berikut : the concept of triangulation was based on the assumption that any bias 1inherent in when used in conjunction with other data resources, investigator and methods.I. Lokasi dan Jadwal Penelitian.Lokasi dari penelitian ini dilakukan di distrik Dekai ibukota Kabupaten Yahukimo Provinsi Papua, Dan juga di beberapa distrik yang banyak bermasalah. Selain itu lokasi penelitian juga akan bersifat luwes, menyesuaikan dengan keberadaan dari para informan. Ini dilakukan untuk mendapatkan informasi yang mendalam tentang berbagai masalah riil di masyarakat, serta terhadap berbagai keluhan yang disampaikan oleh masyarakat. HASIL PENELITIAN DAN PEMBAHASANA. Gambaran Umum Tentang Tahapan PemilukadaBerdasar hasil temuan di lokasi penelitian menunjukan bahwa peran elit politik lebih dominan mempengaruhi lembaga penyelenggara,panwas dan pemilih pada pemilukada tahun 2011.Pelaksanaan Pemilukada di kabupaten Yahukimo pada tanggal 18 januari 2011 rakyat menentukan hak memilih pasangan calon nomor urut 3 sesuai dengan tata pemilihan masyarakat yang disepakati, menetapkan dan mengambil sumpah janji untuk melaksanakan pelaksanaan program pembangunan 5 (lima) tahun periode 2011 – 2016.Setiap pasangan yang ingin berkompetisi dalam Pemilukada di Kabupaten Yahukimo, sejumlah elit politik daerah mengambil keputusan dari hati nurani bertindak mencalonkan diri, sebelum pelaksanaan tahapan Pemilukada pada tanggal 18 Agusutus 2010 beberapa tokoh masyarakat, tokoh agama, danpolitisi daerah mendeklarasikan diri ketika jadwal tahapan diumumkan terlihat setiap profil calon Bupati terlihat sibuk mencari sponsor dan partai politik dengan motivasi membuat superdeal internal politik dengan pengusaha lokal, mencari dana berkedok hibah, diakui pula bahwa ketidakseimbangan antara ambisi, kesempatan dan kemampuan tersebut melekat pada wajah kandidat seperti : mental rohani dan sosial, skil individu dan kemapanan finansial.Namun terkait salah satu kandidat incumbent (Dr. Ones Pahabol, SE,MM) dan pasangan Calon Wakil Bupati Drs. Robby Longkutoy,MM, adalah Sekda Kabupaten Yahukimo. Pasangan ini terlihat percaya diri memenangkan Bupati periode 2011 - 2016, kecenderungan kandidat diatas melakukan konstalasi politik secara massif, sistematis dan terstruktur sejak seleksi KPU pergantian antar waktu atas pelanggaran kode etik KPU sebelumnya.Ketika deklarasikan pasangan calon setiap tim sukses membuat political strategy salah satunya membuat rapor penilaian pasangan calon yang hendak dipaketkan. potret saat persiapan pencalonan pasangan calon melakukan strategi politik membuat superdeal internal politik dengan partai politik pendukung mengeluarkan sejumlah uang untuk mengikat komitmen dukungan mendapat rekomendasi dengan nilai 1 kursi di DPRD Kabupaten Yahukimo dengan nilai nominal tertentu.Dalam pencalonan ada beberapa partai politik mempunyai motivasi dan penilaian sendiri seperti Partai Pemenang Pemilu tahun 2009 di Kabupaten, Partai Golkar mendapat kursi di DPRD sebanyak 22 kursi mengusung Incumbent adalah Ketua Partai Golkar memenuhi syarat lebih dari 15%, Nmun memiliki kemampuan meloby Partai Politik seperti partai keadilan sejahtera (PKS) 1 kursi di DPRD dari partai 1 kursi di DPR dan beberapa partai non shet. Dan partai demokrat 1 kursi di DPRD, memberikan rekomendasi ke incumbent pasangan Ones – Robby.Kecenderungan pasangan kandidat nomor urut no. 1 gagal membujuk partai Demokrat, PKS, PNI, sehingga mengalami hambatan saat pencalonan. membuat proses diplomasi yang dilakukan tim political strategy dari partai PAN yang memiliki 3 kursi di DPRD. Membangun komunikasi dengan partai lain namun tidak mencapai kata sepakat sehingga partai PAN paketkan pasangan dari PDIPyang memiliki 3 kursi di DPRD untuk memenuhi 15%.( Lima belas persen), Kebijakan Pemilihan Kepala Daerah dan Wakil Kepala Daerah memilih makna dan nilai yang akan disajikan tulisan ini sebagai berikut :1. PencalonanDalam tahapan pelaksanaan pemilukada sesuai surat keputusan KPU kabupaten Yahukimo No. 274 -25/KPU-YHKM/VII/2010, pasangan calon kepala daerah dan Wakil Kepala dilaksanakan mulai terhitung tanggal 29 Oktober – 5 November 2010, dengan beberapa sesuai mekanisme sesuai aturan teknis pelaksanaan Pemilukada. Pengumuman pasangan calon yang memenuhi persyaratan telah diumumkan KPU melalui media cetak dan elektronik pada tanggal 2 – 5 Desember 2010 dan Penentuan dan Penetapan Pasangan Calon menetapkan 3 kandidat. Dalam Keputusan Lembaga Penyelenggara Calon Perseorangan dinyatakan tidak memenuhi persyaratan teknis sehingga pasangan calon yang tidak lolos pasangan bernama :Alpius Mohi, S.Pak dan Elpius Hugy, S.Sos.Msi menyatakan protes dan upaya hukum namun tidak diakomodasi sebagai pasangan calon kandidat Bupati dan Wakil Bupati.Pelaksanaan Pemilukada dilaksanakan dalam suasana tidak aman dan terkendali karena ada kelompok kandidat pasangan yang dikalahkanoleh pasangan incumbent dari awal prediksi semua kalangan sirna, dan membawa dampak terhadap dinamika demokrasi di Indonesia.2. Peran Tokoh Masyarakat dalam Pemilukada.Peranan tokoh masyarakat tersebut kemudian mendapat perhatian berbagai partai politik besar guna sebagai mesin pendongkrak suara pada setiap daerah Pemilihan, tetapi tidak sedikit pula tokoh masyarakat yang berpengaruh juga menolak untuk bergabung dengan partai politik, setelah melakukan penelitian penulis melihat ada seorang tokoh agama yang kurang tertarik bergabung dalam sebuah partai politik. Peran elit politik mempengaruhi tokoh masyarakat sangat tinggi dimana tindakan masyarakat memilih psangan bukan karena Visi dan Misi kandidat bersangkutan. Untuk menuju kursi 01 Yahukimo konstalisi politik yang dibangun masing -masing kandidat beragram,misalnya kandidat 01,membangun jaringan lewat etnis suku karena mayoritas pemilih etnis Suku nomor urut lebihdominan disbanding kandidat nomor urut 2 dan nomor 3 dari satu etnis yang sama.Dalam proses persiapan pemilukada peran elit politik lebih dominan pada waktu tahapan seleksi anggota komisi pemilihan untuk pergantian antar waktu atas pencopotan 5 anggota KPU lama atas sikap dan perilaku anggota KPU Yahukimo yang telah melanggar kode etik dan tidak pada peraturan perundang – undangan yang berlaku.Peran elit politik dalam satu mata rantai yang sulit dipisahkan pada waktu seleksi semua calon mendorong orang pilihan atau jagoan untuk pengamanan suara. Proses seleksi didominasi perilaku elit politik emosional dan rasional menjadi scenario atau strategy politik tepat dimana tahapan seleksi pengaruh incumbent sampai ke KPUD Provinsi Papua yang seharusnya KPU Papua lolos sesuai kapasitas namun yang lolos seleksi adalah orang yang diusung incumbent,sedangkan yang diusung melalui elit politik lain tidak lolos.Peran elit politik mempengaruhi KPUD Yahukimo pada saat pendaftaran Pasangan calon Kandidat Bupati dan Wakil Bupati sangat terasa dimana jual –beli partai pendukung dengan kontrak perjanjian antara Pimpinan Partai Politik kabupaten dengan Provinsi dan Pusat seperti : transaksi cash,kontrak permanen selama lima tahun melalui paket proyek.dalam hal sumber pemodal cost politik lebih dominan diantara pasangan 3 calon dengan melakukan superdeal internal politik.Pengaruh eliti politik local dalam pelaksanaan pemilukada sangat proaktif baik melalui pengkondisian PPD,KPU,PANWAS dan manfaatkan peran tokoh Adat,tokoh gereja,tokoh pemuda,tokoh agama ,tokoh perempuan dan intelektual. Fakta objektif peran elit politik Yahukimo melibatkan tokoh masyarakat untuk berperan memperjuangkan menjadi kepala daerah sangat tinggi , peranan tokoh masyarakat bersentuhan langsung dengan pemilih dan jurus ini sangat jitu untuk sistem politik di daerah. Sehingga dari hasil penelitian selama dikota bermotto damai sejahtera tersebut dalam studi tentang implemntasi kebijakan dalam pemilukada ditemukan beberapa hal yaitu; peran tokoh masyarakat mengindikasikan bahwa beberapa tokoh masyarakat berperan dalam pemilihan, diantaranya tokoh adat, Ketua Lembaga Masyarakat Adat (LMA), tokoh pemuda seperti kKomite nasional Pemuda Indonesia,organisasi pemuda Gereja dan tokohintelektual atau mahasiswa dan pimpinan dedominsasi gereja yang memiliki peranan fital dalam proses Pemilukada yang berlangsung .Menurut Ramlan Surbakti bahwa ; kepemimpinan dari seorang tokoh yang disegani dan dihormati secara luas oleh masyarakat dapat menjadi faktor yang menyatukan suatu bangsa-negara.Tokoh-tokoh masyarakat sebagai perwakilan kepentingan dari 7 antara laian: suku Yali, Hubla, Kimyal, Momuna, Meek, Una, Ngalik di Yahukimo mereka proaktif berkomunikasi untuk mendapat uang cost politik,elemen tokoh mendistribusi sembako dan uang namun dalam penyaluran ada transparan diumumkan di gereja ada juga ada yang tidak tarnsfran kecenderungan beberapa tidak tranfran jadi gesekan social antar warga/pemilih cost politik ini biasa H2 atau serangan fajar.Kurangnya kesadaran rakyat rendah karena penerapan (Voter education) atau pendidikan pemilih dan sosialisais tata cara pemilukada yang kurang dari KPUD,LSM dan elit politik local Begitu pentingnya sebuah kesadaran dan partisipasi masyarakat dalam proses Pemilihan Kepala Daerah, memungkinkan terciptanya suatu sistem pemilihan umum yang demokratis, jujur dan adil agar tercipta pula tatanan tokoh masyarakat yang lebih baik.Partisipasi tokoh masyarakat dalam momentum Pemilukada langsung menjadi landasan dasar bagi bangunan demokrasi. Bangunan demokrasi tidak akan kokoh manakala kualitas partisipasi masyarakat diabaikan. Karena itu, proses demokratisasi yang sejatinya menegakkan kedaulatan rakyat menjadi semu dan hanya menjadi ajang rekayasa bagi mesin-mesin politik tertentu.Eksistensi tokoh masyarakat mempengaruhi sikap pemilih sebagai perwujudan perilaku elit upaya masyarakat itu sendiri sebagaimana halnya penelitian yang telah lakukan di kabupaten Yahukimo bahwa identifikasi perilaku elit politik dengan latar belakang pengetahuan yang terbatas, tidak mendidik masyarakat adat didaerah sangat terpencil.3. Tahapan Masa KampanyePelaksanaan kampanye perorangan calon dilaksanakan dengan beberapa tahapan seperti pertemuan peserta pemilukada yang difasilitasi oleh lembaga penyelenggara ,oleh Panwas dan Pihak Kepolisian daerah kabupaten Yahukimoyang berlangsung pada tanggal 17 Desember 2010, dalam pertemuan tersebut mendeklarasikan komitmen siap menang dan siap kalah yang dinyatakan dalam bentuk tertulis. Sesuai mekanisme tahapan jadwal pelaksanaan kampanye dilaksanakan mulai tanggal 28 Desember 2010 – 13 Januari 2011 ( 14 hari ). Pemaparan visi-misi kandidat kepala daerah dan wakil kepala daerah adalah salah satu cara mempengaruhi pemilih untuk memberikan hak politiknya.Dalam kampanye 3 kandidat masing-masing meyakinkan visi dan misi pasangan calon menuju pemimpin ideal yang mampu menjawab permasalahan sudah pasti mengerti pasangan mana saja yang mempunyai pola pikir dan pola tindak positif untuk 5 tahun pembangunan jilid II yang telah dikampanyekan dengan tindakan profesional yang dapat dijabarkan dalam perencanaan tepat sasaran. Program jangka pendek 100 hari kerja, program jangka menengah dan program jangka panjang belum terlihat dan tergambar disusun sesuai kemampuan APBD hal ini tidak mencerminkan visi dan misi pasangan calon kepala daerah dan wakil kepala daerah antara lain :1. Konsep pendidikan yang sangat bermutu.2. Pelayanan kesehatan yang layak.3. Program pemberdayaan ekonomi kerakyatan.4. Pembangunan infrastruktur yang berkualitas.5. Penegakkan hukum dan pengakuan hak adat.6. Pelayanan budaya birokrasi modern yang mendukung birokrasi (good government).Dari beberapa aspek pemaparan visi dan misi pasangan calon yang disaksikan melalui media elektronik TOP TV menyiarkan secara langsung tergambar pasangan calon nomor urut 1. Pasangan ABISA menyiapkan visi dan misi secara lengkap dan dicetak melalui percetakan : Gramedia Jakarta : ISBN : 978-602-97662-0.2 : 100 hlm. Namun pasangan nomor urut 2 dan nomor urut 3 hanya disiapkan visi dan misi pada lembar kertas, dan terlihat ketidakmatangan menyiapkan materi, kemungkinan pandangan kandidat merasa ciri pemilih masyarakat Yahukimo adalah pemilih tradisional sehingga dipandang tidak sistematis menyiapkan strategi lain untuk mempengaruhi pemilih.Pelaksanaan kampanye berlangsung di 51 distrik dengan cara dan strategi masing-masing pasangan calon untuk meyakinkan pemilih. Peran elit politik mempengaruhi tokoh masyarakat sangat dominan dimana sikap antusias masyarakat di distrik terhadap pasangan calon nomor urut 1 mendapat mayoritas dukungan dibanding kandidat nomor urut 2 dan 3, hal ini mendapat respon dari kandidat nomor dengan kampanye dan melakukan semua cara untuk memenagkan pasangan calon Tim Kampanye dan Tim Seleksi lebih berperan di setiap distrik.Tahapan pembersihan atribut dan alat peraga kampanye dilaksanakan 15 s/d 17 Januari khusus di distrik Dekai dilaksanakan oleh Panwas, PPS dan KPPS. Sebelum memasuki hari tenang pada tanggal 15 – 17 Januari 2011.(Abock Adsobne Busup ,Ishak Salak 2010 :11 )4. Masa TenangPengawasan pada saat masa tenang tanggal 15 s/d 17 Januari 2011 tidak optimal dilaksanakan karena kandidat telah berperan aktif mengawal suara di daerah potensi suara seperti pasangan kandidat nomor urut 3 atas nama Dr.Ones Pahabol, SE,MM, di distrik Nalca yang memiliki jumlah suara 5.265 suara. Sedangkan pasangan calon wakil kepala daerah pasangan nomor 3 di distrik Silimo memiliki potensi suara 9.865 suara menjadi daerah penentu kemenangan suara kandidat nomor urut 3.5. Pemungutan Suara dan Penghitungan SuaraPelaksanaan pemungutan suara dilaksanakan pada tanggal 18 Januari 2011, pada pukul 08.00 – 13.00 sesuai jadwal tahapan KPU. Namun ada sejumlah distrik seperti distrik Nepsan dilaksanakan pada tanggal 17 Januari 2011. Pemungutan suara di TPS oleh KPPS serta rekapitulasi hasil perhitungan suara oleh PPK mengadakan pleno di tingkat distrik dan menyerahkan sertifikat hasil rekapitulasi suara dimaksud mayoritas distrik di Kabupaten Yahukimo tidak dapat dilakukan sesuai jadwal tahapan karena dipengaruhi beberapa faktor ; tekanan dari Tim Sukses masing-masing kandidat, penjemputan Panwas, Ketua PPD dan aparat keamanan pada tanggal 19 Januari 2001 sebelum melakukan pleno,diumumkan hasil perolehan secara lisan melalui SSB tertentu mempengaruhi tahapan selanjutnya.6. Rekapitulasi hasil Perhitungan SuaraPenyusunan berita acara dan rekapitulasi hasil penghitungan suara di tingkat Kabupaten serta penetapan pasangan calon terpilih dilaksanakan pada hari Senin tanggal 24 bulan Januari 2011 dengan mencatat berbagai hal seperti :7. Penetapan Calon TerpilihBerdasarkan jadwal tahapan Pengumuman Pasangan Calon terpilih dijadwalkan 27 s/d 29 Januari namun dipercepat dengan pertimbangan tekhnis tertentu sehingga dapat menetapkan pada tanggal 25 Januari 2011 memutuskan dan menetapkan perolehan suara sebagai berikut :didaerah, itu kemudian jauh dari apa yang menjadi cita-cita demokrasi itu sendiri.B. Sistem Pemilihan di Kabupaten Yahukimo1. Model Pemilihan Demokrasi Modern ( LUBER )Pemilihan sistem "noken" dan "ikat" pada pesta demokrasi pemilihan umum kepala daerah (pemilukada) di Kabupaten Yahukimo sudah di mulai sejak tahun 2005. Pemilihan sistem "noken" lebih banyak dikenal di suku Yali, Kimyal. Momuna Ukam Hubla dan suku Mek kecuali distrik dekai 11 TPS dan distrik Kurima Kelurahan Heroma menggunakan asas LUBER,berikut 2 sistem pemilihan di Yahukimo.2. Model Pemilihan Masyarakat Adat (LUBET )a. Sistem NokenSistem pemilihan ini merupakan alternative kedua dalam proses menentukan pilihan Pemilihan sistem noken secara teknis seperti ini; semua pemilih yang mendapat kartu pemilih datang ke TPS. kemudian, didepan bilik disiapkan noken kosong dan diats noken ada foto pasangan calon. jumlah noken yang digantung disesuaikan dengan jumlah pasangan calon Bupati, ketika dipastikan semua pemilih dari kampung yang bersangkutan hadir di TPS, selanjutnya KPPS meng-umumkan kepada pemilih (warga) bahwa bagi pemilihyang mau memilih kandidat A berbaris di depan noken nomor urut satu atau seterusnya sesuai nomor urut dan memasang foto calon bersangkutan. setelah pemilih berbaris / duduk didepan noken maka KPPS langsung menghitung jumlah orang yang berbaris di depan noken, atau cara lain bagikan surat suara dan mengisi tanpa condereng lalu diisi di noken yang diinginkan kalau misalnya 100 orang saja maka hasil perolehannya adalah 100 ( seratus ) suara. Jikalau misalnya semua pemilih dari TPS kampung yang bersangkutan baris di depan noken nomor urut dua maka semua suara dari TPS kampung yang bersangkutan "bulat" untuk nomor urut dua.setelah itu KPPS langsung buat berita acara dan sertifikasi hasil perhitungan suara yang ditandatangani oleh KPPS dan diplenokan di Distrik. pemilihan seperti ini dilakukan pada bulan januari. hanya saja kelemahannya, sistem pemilihan seperti ini tidak rahasia dan transparan di depan umum, LUBER yaitu langsung, umum, bebas rahasia (LUBER ) dan langsung, umum, bebas rahasia transparan.(LUBET)Kecendurungan diarahkan oleh elit politik dan Tokoh masyarakat, PPD/KPPS, Surat suara sisa dibagikan ke pemenang. Solusi isi noken adalah alternative kedua setelah tokoh masyarakat dan pemilih berkumpul H2 untuk sistem ikat namun deadlock atau tidak sependapat antara tim sukses maka sepakati bersama melakukan opsi ini. Lembaga Penyelenggara dan semua kompanen merasa bahwa manfaat secara turun – temurun memiliki manfaat namun diera baru namun dalam sistem demokrasi modern mengunakan sistem Noken:Menghemat biaya logistik karena semua menggunakan pesawat muatan kapasitas kecil, Letak geografis yang sangat variatif, Manfaat ganda fungsi noken dalam demokrasi modern menghormati nilai budaya untuk mengenal jati diri bagi mereka.Pemilihan Sistem IkatPemilihan sistem "ikat" dilakukan 51 distrik di Yahukimo, sistem ini sesuai kesepakatan semua pihak pilihan ikat secara teknis pelaksanaannya, bahwa sebelum hari "H" ata
Guinea-Bissau (S/2018/110) ; United Nations S/PV.8188 Security Council Seventy-third year 8188th meeting Saturday, 24 February 2018, noon New York Provisional President: Mr. Alotaibi. . (Kuwait) Members: Bolivia (Plurinational State of). . Mr. Inchauste Jordán China. . Mr. Ma Zhaoxu Côte d'Ivoire. . Mr. Tanoh-Boutchoue Equatorial Guinea. . Mr. Ndong Mba Ethiopia. . Mr. Alemu France. . Mr. Delattre Kazakhstan. . Mr. Umarov Netherlands. . Mr. Van Oosterom Peru. . Mr. Meza-Cuadra Poland. . Ms. Wronecka Russian Federation. . Mr. Nebenzia Sweden . Mr. Skoog United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland . Mr. Hickey United States of America. . Mrs. Haley Agenda The situation in the Middle East This record contains the text of speeches delivered in English and of the translation of speeches delivered in other languages. The final text will be printed in the Official Records of the Security Council. Corrections should be submitted to the original languages only. They should be incorporated in a copy of the record and sent under the signature of a member of the delegation concerned to the Chief of the Verbatim Reporting Service, room U-0506 (verbatimrecords@un.org). Corrected records will be reissued electronically on the Official Document System of the United Nations (http://documents.un.org). 18-05017 (E) *1805017* S/PV.8188 The situation in the Middle East 24/02/2018 2/14 18-05017 The meeting was called to order at 2.10 p.m. Adoption of the agenda The agenda was adopted. The situation in the Middle East The President (spoke in Arabic): In accordance with rule 37 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure, I invite the representative of the Syrian Arab Republic to participate in this meeting. The Security Council will now begin its consideration of the item on its agenda. Members of the Council have before them document S/2018/146, which contains the text of a draft resolution submitted by Côte d'Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, France, Kuwait, the Netherlands, Peru, Poland, Sweden, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America. I now give the floor to members of the Council who wish to make statements before the voting. Mr. Skoog (Sweden): Sweden and Kuwait earlier this week put forward a draft resolution to respond to the desperate calls of the United Nations and the humanitarian community in Syria for a cessation of hostilities for an initial period of 30 days, in order to allow for much-needed humanitarian relief. We have been working intensely with all Council members to operationalize the concrete requests of the United Nations, the humanitarian community and, above, all the civilian population on the ground. We have done our utmost to accommodate Council members' concerns. It is now time for the Council to unanimously shoulder its responsibility and show that meaningful action is possible. The key components in our draft resolution are a nationwide cessation of hostilities for at least 30 days, weekly United Nations humanitarian aid convoys to all areas in need, and immediate emergency medical evacuations. The United Nations convoys and evacuation teams are ready to go. The draft resolution also calls for the immediate lifting of sieges of populated areas, including eastern Ghouta. It reiterates its demand, reminding in particular the Syrian authorities that all parties have an obligation to act in accordance with international law to protect civilians and hospitals and other medical facilities. The draft makes an exception for military operations directed against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, Al-Qaida, the Al-Nusra Front and other terrorist groups designated by the Security Council. This in no way relieves the parties to the conflict in Syria from upholding their obligations under international law at all times, including the principles of distinction, proportionality and precaution. The draft resolution is not a comprehensive peace deal on Syria; its aim is purely humanitarian. There are already ceasefire agreements in force for the areas where fighting has escalated the most. They need to be complied with. There are existing monitoring mechanisms that can be utilized. The role of the Council is to push the parties to the conflict to comply with the proposed cessation of hostilities in order to urgently enable needed alleviation of suffering for the people of Syria. If the draft resolution is adopted today, it can de-escalate violence, save lives, alleviate suffering and break the deadlock on humanitarian access and sieges. Since the first call for a cessation of hostilities, the situation has gotten dramatically worse, particularly in eastern Ghouta, as we have heard from the Secretary- General and from Under-Secretary-General Mark Lowcock. After seven years of war, the situation for innocent civilians in Syria has never been worse. But we have an opportunity to turn things around today to avert the disaster unfolding before our eyes. The draft resolution before the Council represents a resolute and very urgent attempt for the Council to take decisive and meaningful action. Today, we count on each and every member to do the right thing. The President (spoke in Arabic): The Council is ready to proceed to the vote on the draft resolution before it. I shall put the draft resolution to the vote now. A vote was taken by show of hands. In favour: Bolivia (Plurinational State of), China, Côte d'Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, France, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Netherlands, Peru, Poland, Russian Federation, Sweden, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America The President (spoke in Arabic): The draft resolution received 15 votes in favour. The draft resolution has been adopted unanimously as resolution 2401 (2018). 24/02/2018 The situation in the Middle East S/PV.8188 18-05017 3/14 I shall now make a statement in my capacity as representative of Kuwait. I associate myself with the statement just made by the Permanent Representative of Sweden on our behalf. The unanimous adoption today of resolution 2401 (2018), following lengthy and intensive negotiations, demonstrates that the penholders, Kuwait and Sweden, are keen to ensure unanimity on this important humanitarian resolution. The resolution renews hope in the Security Council's ability to be unified and speak in one voice, sending a clear and explicit message that it rejects any violations of the Charter of the United Nations. I wish to thank all Member States that voted in favour of the resolution, which includes key and specific demands in response to the appeals of the international community, the most important of which are as follows. First, it demands that all parties cease fire without delay throughout Syria for a minimum of 30 days. Secondly, it allows the United Nations and its partners to immediately undertake medical evacuations safely and unconditionally. Thirdly, it requires all parties to ensure the unimpeded and safe access of all humanitarian and medical workers. Fourthly, it calls on all parties to lift the siege of populated areas, including eastern Ghouta. We are totally convinced that, while the resolution may not end the humanitarian suffering in Syria at once, it is a positive message that the Council today is solidary and united to end this humanitarian suffering and hostilities right away. The biggest task now is to ensure the implementation of the provisions of the resolution in order to save civilian lives in Syria and deliver their humanitarian needs immediately. The Security Council still has a great deal to do so as to end this tragic crisis in Syria, which is about to complete its seventh year. The resolution that we have adopted today is only an interim solution, as a political solution in Syria is the only way to achieve a comprehensive settlement of the crisis and meet the aspirations of the brotherly Syrian people, in accordance with relevant Security Council resolutions, especially resolution 2254 (2015) and the 2012 Geneva communiqué (S/2012/522, annex). The State of Kuwait stresses the importance of reaching an agreement among Council members to prevent any attempt to obstruct a draft resolution aimed at stopping flagrant violations of human rights. Kuwait supports the code of conduct proposed by the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency group, whereby Council members would pledge not to obstruct draft resolutions that address crimes against humanity, genocide and war crimes. We also support the Mexican-French initiative calling on restraint in the use of the veto in the event of serious violations of human rights, based on our commitments to abide by the four Geneva Conventions and their Protocols, international humanitarian law and the outcomes of the 2016 World Humanitarian Summit. We call for engagement on general humanitarian issues, such as the delivery of humanitarian aid, the evacuation of the sick and injured, and humanitarian truce, as procedural issues. In order to prevent the recurrence of such tragedies and the great suffering of humankind, the veto must not be used in such instances. I now resume my functions as President of the Security Council. I give the floor to the other members of the Council that wish to make statements. Mrs. Haley (United States of America): I want to thank the penholders, Sweden and Kuwait, for their work, their sacrifice and their time in the negotiations. As we look at the negotiations, I think it is also important that we bring the Council some of the voices of the Syrian people in eastern Ghouta, who have suffered so much while waiting for the Security Council to act. A doctor treating patients in a makeshift hospital described the conditions she is facing: "We are mental and emotional wrecks. There is nothing more we can do. We are bled dry." In a haunting video, the doctor walks into a room with a crying mother as she says, "I am waiting for my son to die. At least he will be free of pain. I was just making bread for him when the roof fell in. He is going straight to heaven. At least in heaven there is food." Another message we received yesterday which I think was relayed to Council members in the closed consultations, but which I think it is important to repeat again — was an emergency call from a doctor in eastern Ghouta, who said: "We have a horrible situation here. We are being targeted with all kinds of weapons, non-stop. We lack everything: water, food, medical supplies, S/PV.8188 The situation in the Middle East 24/02/2018 4/14 18-05017 shelter. This is a disaster. Everyone is just waiting to die." Today, the Security Council finally took a step towards addressing these devastating levels of human suffering in Syria. The United States wants nothing more than to see the ceasefire in resolution 2401 (2018) implemented immediately across the country. It is critical that the Al-Assad regime and its allies comply with our demand to stop the assault on eastern Ghouta and immediately allow food and medicine to reach everyone who needs it. All of us on the Council must do our part to press the Al-Assad regime as hard as we can to comply. But we are late to respond to this crisis — very late. On Wednesday, the Secretary-General made an emotional plea for an immediate ceasefire in Syria to allow the very basic necessities to get to the people. Kuwait and Sweden had a version of the resolution ready to go for a vote, but Russia called for a delay. On Thursday, in an effort to stall, Russia called for an open meeting on the humanitarian situation in Syria. At that meeting (S/PV.8186), 14 members of the Council were ready to impose a ceasefire, but Russia obstructed the vote again. And then yesterday, the Council sat around for hours, ready to vote, only to have Russia delay it again. Every minute the Council waited on Russia, the human suffering grew. Getting to a vote became a moral responsibility for everyone, but not for Russia, not for Syria, and not for Iran. I have to ask: why? At least 19 health facilities have been bombed since Sunday. As they dragged out the negotiations, the bombs from Al-Assad's fighter jets continued to fall. In the three days it took us to adopt the resolution, how many mothers lost their kids to the bombing and the shelling? How many more images did we need to see of fathers holding their dead children? All for nothing, because here we are voting for a ceasefire that could have saved lives days ago. And after all of this time, hardly anything has changed in the resolution except a few words and some commas. The Syrian people should not have to die waiting for Russia to organize its instructions from Moscow or to discuss them with the Syrians. Why did the Council allow this? There is no good reason we should not have done this Wednesday, or Thursday, or Friday. We may not know the faces that we are talking about. We may not know their names, or these people, but they know us. And we all failed them this week. I guess there is unity in that. Today, Russia has belatedly decided to join the international consensus and accept the need to call for a ceasefire, but only after trying every possible way to avoid it. The resolution marks a moment of Council unity that we must seize and maintain beyond the 30-day timeframe. We hope that the resolution will be a turning point, where Russia will join us in pushing for a political settlement to this conflict and take action to re-establish real accountability for the use of chemical weapons in Syria. Progress starts by adhering to the ceasefire with no excuses. After so many years of defying the Council's demands, the Al-Assad regime must change course. None of us should be so naïve as to accept that the Al-Assad regime can continue indiscriminately bombing schools, hospitals and homes under the fake excuse of "counter-terrorism". Al-Assad's bombing must stop. The ceasefire must be given a chance to work. We look to the Al-Assad regime's backers, especially Russia and Iran, to address what the Secretary-General rightly called a "hell on Earth". All eyes will now be on the Syrian regime, Iran and Russia. Our goal with this resolution is clear. The Al-Assad regime needs to stop its military activities around eastern Ghouta, and for once allow humanitarian access to all of those who need it. We are deeply skeptical that the regime will comply, but we supported the resolution because we must demand nothing less. We owe that to the innocent people of Syria begging for help. In the days to come, our resolve to stand by our demands in the resolution will be tested. All of us must rise to the challenge of maintaining this ceasefire, just as we came together today. All of us must do everything we can to make the demands of the resolution a reality. That is the only way to restore the credibility of the Council. The Syrian people have been waiting long enough. Mr. Nebenzia (Russian Federation) (spoke in Russian): Following lengthy consultations, during which the overwhelming majority of delegations demonstrated a sincere focus on seeking joint solutions — for which we thank them — the Security Council has unanimously adopted the humanitarian resolution 2401 (2018), on Syria. I wish to particularly thank the penholders, the Permanent Representatives of Kuwait and Sweden, for their tireless efforts 24/02/2018 The situation in the Middle East S/PV.8188 18-05017 5/14 and resolve to reach a compromise up until the very last moment. Russia supports the resolution because it encourages the Syrian parties to work as quickly as possible to bring a halt to the hostilities, comply with previous agreed-on decisions in that regard, engage in negotiations on a general de-escalation and establish extended humanitarian pauses throughout the country. The reason it took us so long to reach agreement on the resolution was because we did not support the directives it included for an immediate cessation of hostilities for a relatively long period, and the reason for that was simply because it was unachievable in that form. A ceasefire would not have happened if we had adopted the directives without any concrete agreement between the warring parties, and any approach so removed from reality would definitely not help to address the pressing humanitarian problems in Syria. It will be crucial to ensure that the Security Council's demands are reinforced by concrete agreements on the ground. It would be naive to think that any of these complicated issues can be resolved overnight. We trust that all the external stakeholders with influence will work to bring that about. We can see that some foreign sponsors of the illegal armed groups have either fallen very short in that regard or have been deliberately flouting their obligations. Russia is working with all the parties to the conflict and doing everything possible to normalize the situation and actively assist the humanitarian efforts. Iran and Turkey, our partners in the Astana process, have taken on a major part of the work, and we are preparing for an important meeting in the Astana format next month. In the southern de-escalation zone a fairly decent level of cooperation has been established with Jordan and the United States, although we have been seeing tension rising in some areas owing to activity by armed groups. The resolution clearly states that it does not apply to military operations against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, Jabhat Al-Nusra, other Al-Qaida-affiliated organizations and various groups that the Security Council has recognized as terrorists. That struggle that will continue. We call on international stakeholders to coordinate closely on this issue, including with the Syrian authorities, and in strict compliance with international law and with respect for Syria's sovereignty and territorial integrity. The goal of combating terrorism must not become a pretext for solving this or that geopolitical issue of dubious legitimacy, which is exactly what the United States is doing in Syria. Instead of being drowned in rhetoric about Russia — and by the way, next time I am going to count the number of times Ambassador Haley mentions my country — what we are insisting on is a prompt end to the occupation-style efforts of the so-called coalition, which, among other things, would have a definite humanitarian impact, enabling the Syrian Government to address the issue of restoring normal life in all the areas that have been liberated from terrorists, including in the north and the east of the country. Closing the coalition's Al-Tanf military base would solve the problem of the internally displaced persons in the Rukban camp. In that connection, we would also like to point out that every effort should be made to deliver aid via the most direct routes, as provided for in the humanitarian resolutions on Syria. It is important that today's resolution calls for speeding up the immediate deployment of humanitarian mine-clearing operations throughout Syria. It also reiterates the demand that all parties demilitarize medical facilities, schools and other civilian infrastructure and refrain from establishing military positions in residential areas, something that the illegal armed groups have frequently been guilty of. The conflict's flashpoints are more clearly identified, and are not limited to eastern Ghouta and Idlib, and that includes Raqqa, which the coalition has laid waste. It also expresses indignation at the militias' shelling of Damascus, in which our Embassy has been hit several times. We know that the humanitarian situation in Syria is dire and in urgent need of effective measures, but we can see perfectly well that the propagandistic picture being painted of eastern Ghouta is identical to the loud campaign in late 2016 during the counter-terrorist operation to liberate eastern Aleppo. We must engage not just with eastern Ghouta, but with Raqqa, Rukban, Foah, Kefraya and Yarmouk. Every area of Syria should get help. The resolution emphasizes the importance of supporting the restoration of stability in the areas that civilians are returning to, which in our view sends an unambiguous message to those capitals that continue to make restoration assistance conditional on a specific transitional direction in the political process. It stipulates that the humanitarian priorities for Syria in 2018 are not limited to Under-Secretary-General Lowcock's five requests. The agenda is far broader. We S/PV.8188 The situation in the Middle East 24/02/2018 6/14 18-05017 hope in particular that the specialized United Nations agencies and their partners will be sensitive to requests from the Syrian authorities. In conclusion, I would like to express my deep concern about the public statements by certain United States officials threatening aggression against Syria, a sovereign country. This is a warning that we will not countenance any arbitrary interpretation of the resolution that has just been adopted. We demand an end to this irresponsible and hateful rhetoric. Rather, there should be joint efforts to settle the conflict in Syria on the basis of resolution 2254 (2015). Mr. Delattre (France) (spoke in French): France welcomes the unanimous adoption of resolution 2401 (2018), which demands that a cessation of hostilities be established without delay throughout Syria, in order to enable humanitarian personnel to evacuate the wounded and to gain access to the population. The negotiations were arduous. However, despite their differences in approach, the members of the Security Council managed to prevail in the name of the humanitarian imperative. The resolution is vital in the true meaning of that word, since halting the shelling and evacuating the wounded are matters of life and death for thousands of Syrian people, especially in eastern Ghouta, which has been under siege by the Damascus regime for days. I would like to thank the delegations of Kuwait and Sweden — which introduced the resolution, with our support — for their efforts, perseverance and outstanding work in arriving at a robust text. As by President Macron and the Secretary-General forcefully recalled last Wednesday, it is imperative and urgent to end the shelling of eastern Ghouta, Idlib and the whole of Syrian territory immediately. That was the thrust of yesterday's joint call by President Macron and Chancellor Angela Merkel to President Putin during their demanding and close conversation on the issue. It is also the reason for our vote today. The resolution is the outcome of our concerted efforts, as well as a belated response to the violence unleashed against civilians in eastern Ghouta and elsewhere. Let us make no mistake: a cessation of hostilities for an initial 30 days to enable humanitarian access to meet vital urgent needs is only the very first step. It is the minimal response to the repeated demands of both the United Nations and humanitarian actors, which have been conveyed for months by Council members, in particular by France. It is now up to the regime's supporters to ensure full compliance with the cessation of hostilities without delay and to respond to all requests for access to humanitarian assistance and medical evacuations in accordance with the text we have just adopted. We specifically call on the guarantors of the Astana process to assume their responsibilities and effectively ensure that the Syrian regime immediately cease its hostilities and ensure respect for the basic principles and rules of international humanitarian law and human rights law. It is urgent that humanitarian assistance reach without delay the people who need it. Every minute counts because every minute can lead to the loss of lives. Nothing would be worse than to see this resolution remain a dead letter. That is why France will be extremely vigilant on all those points over the coming hours and days. We all know that a return to stability in Syria is the only way to put a definitive end to the humanitarian crisis, for which a political solution is required. More than ever, therefore, we must redouble our efforts to establish a neutral environment that will enable a credible political process and elections to be held in Syria, as part of the Geneva process and resolution 2254 (2015). France is ready to continue working tirelessly with its partners to that end. As we said yesterday in this forum, the elements for a regional and potentially major international confrontation have coalesced today. That is a risk that must be taken very seriously. We must therefore come together, as we have done today, to put an end to the humanitarian catastrophe under way, prevent a spillover of the conflict and seek an inclusive political solution in Syria. These are three indissociable priorities, and our generation will be judged on whether or not we are able to put an end to the Syrian tragedy. This text is a potentially important step, but it is obviously not the end of the road. Let us be frank: the hardest part has yet to be done. Therefore, on behalf of France, I would like to launch a two-pronged appeal. The first is a call for the resolution to be fully and immediately implemented. We are all aware that pitfalls and obstacles abound. This is a reflection of the extent to which resolute and coordinated engagement by all members of the Security Council is crucial to ensuring that the provisions we have just adopted are implemented on the ground without delay. To put it even more clearly: if we do not put all our resources 24/02/2018 The situation in the Middle East S/PV.8188 18-05017 7/14 and energy behind the full implementation of this resolution, we know that it will not work. Above all, that applies to Russia and the Astana guarantors. The second call is to use this truce as leverage to put an end to the spiral of violence in the Syrian tragedy and create positive momentum towards an inclusive political settlement in Syria. That must be our common ambition. There is a glimmer of hope today in that regard. Let us seize this fragile moment to begin to reverse the course of events, despite the magnitude of the difficulties ahead. As the Council knows, France is fully committed to that goal. Mr. Hickey (United Kingdom): The United Kingdom welcomes the adoption of resolution 2401 (2018). In particular, we applaud your work, Mr. President, together with Sweden, as co-penholders. But this is not a moment for self-congratulation. It has taken us far too long to agree this resolution. While we have been arguing over commas, Al-Assad's planes have been killing more civilians in their homes and in their hospitals, imposing unbearable suffering. Despite the amount of time we have spent in this Chamber over many years discussing the devastating humanitarian crisis, we have still not been able to achieve the peace and security that the Syrian people so desperately need. As the conflict enters its eighth year, the situation in eastern Ghouta and elsewhere in the country is far worse than we ever thought imaginable. The barbarity and depravity of the Al-Assad regime shows no limits. We must never lose sight of the fact that the pictures we see and the stories we hear from this comfortable Chamber are the agonizing reality for hundreds of thousands of civilians — for men, women and children who are being forced to eke out an existence underground to avoid being killed by a regime that commits daily atrocities against its own people. I have heard some say that the information about the situation in eastern Ghouta is propaganda. A doctor in eastern Ghouta, having heard such comments, said this morning: "Amid the chaos and the bombs, it is the not being believed that almost hurts the most. We are dying here every day. And when people say that they do not believe us, that is pain upon pain." This is not propaganda. It is a living hell for hundreds of thousands of residents of eastern Ghouta. As we have repeated many times, the intentional and systematic targeting of civilians and civilian objects not only violates international humanitarian law, it is a war crime. The United Kingdom will be unrelenting in our campaign to ensure accountability. By having voted in favour of the resolution today, we are standing up and saying that we will not stand by and let this happen. In the face of escalating violence, devastation and suffering, we must all now take practical steps to improve the situation for those living and dying in a hell of one man's making. The resolution demonstrates our resolve to put a stop to the brutal violence. It demands that all parties cease hostilities without delay. That means right now, immediately. The role and responsibility of the Council does not end with the adoption of this resolution, quite the opposite. All States Members of the United Nations, but particularly Council members, must now take responsibility for ensuring that the resolution is implemented in full, without delay. The resolution calls for the Council to review its implementation within 15 days, but we must all be active in supporting and monitoring implementation from the moment we step out of the Chamber. If we see any of the parties violating the terms of the resolution, we must bring it back to the Council immediately. Those with any influence over the Syrian regime — Russia, Iran — have a particular responsibility to ensure that the ceasefire is respected in full and without delay, that all sieges are ended and that humanitarian aid is delivered. This is the absolute minimum that the people of Syria deserve. As much as we welcome the adoption of this resolution today, it is only a small step. Just as one aid convoy in three months to a besieged area cannot even begin to address the humanitarian crisis, one resolution alone cannot solve the situation in Syria. We must do everything in our collective power to ensure that this resolution is effective in delivering for those whom we have failed to date. We must all send a clear message to the Al-Assad regime: abandon your attempt to pursue a military strategy, stop fighting and engage seriously in United Nations-led political talks in Geneva. In conclusion, let me reiterate the words of my Foreign Secretary. The entire world is looking at the Al-Assad regime, Russia and Iran. They hold the keys not only to the end of this obscene conflict, but to the safety, humanitarian aid and basic medical treatment S/PV.8188 The situation in the Middle East 24/02/2018 8/14 18-05017 that is being denied to millions of people right now in Syria. For the mother giving birth underground in eastern Ghouta, for the child unable to learn as schools are closed for yet another day, for the doctor battling air strikes to treat patients in Idlib — all of us sitting here today owe it to the people of Syria to work together with renewed and unyielding energy to achieve a political solution that will bring peace to the Syrian people. Mr. Ma Zhaoxu (China) (spoke in Chinese): The recent escalation of conflict in the affected areas of Syria has caught the attention of the international community. We acutely feel the suffering of the Syrian people as if it were inflicted upon us. China condemns all acts of violence that target civilians and civilian property and destroy innocent lives. China welcomes the Security Council's unanimous adoption of resolution 2401 (2018), which is the result of Council members' patient consultation and hard work to find consensus. The resolution includes positive elements such as calling for respect for Syria's sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity; demanding a cessation of hostilities by all parties; easing the humanitarian situation in Syria; supporting mine action throughout Syria; and continuing to combat terrorism. As an active party to the consultation process, China made unflagging efforts and played a constructive role in facilitating consensus-building in the Council. China appreciates that, thanks to the concerted efforts of all parties concerned, the Council arrived at a solution that reflects the broadest possible consensus among Council members. I would like in particular to thank Kuwait and Sweden, as co-penholders of the resolution, for their tireless efforts. By speaking with one voice on the humanitarian situation in Syria, the Security Council is helping to alleviate the situation as a whole, helping to consolidate the momentum towards a ceasefire, contributing to counter-terrorism efforts in the country and serving the overarching objective of arriving at a political settlement of the Syrian issue. Going forward, the international community should work together to ensure the full implementation of resolution 2401 (2018), so that it can play a positive role in improving the humanitarian situation in Syria. The only way to fundamentally improve the humanitarian situation in Syria and to lift the people of Syria out of their suffering is to find a political settlement. The international community should support the Syrian parties in seeking a swift solution that is acceptable to all parties in the context of a United Nations mediation through a Syrian-owned and -led political process in order to end the suffering of the Syrian people as soon as possible. China is keen for the Council to remain united and forge consensus on the Syrian issue. The Council must push the Syrian parties to consolidate the momentum towards a ceasefire, strengthen cooperation on combating terrorist groups, advance the process towards a political settlement and play a constructive role in maintaining peace and security in Syria and across the region. Mr. Umarov (Kazakhstan): The delegation of Kazakhstan voted in favour of resolution 2401 (2018), on the cessation of hostilities in Syria. I express my gratitude to the co-penholders — Sweden and Kuwait — for their determined efforts to find common ground among the Security Council members. I also thank the members of the Council for their constructive approach towards the resolution, which has many significant provisions. The position of Kazakhstan is very consistent — that stability in the Middle East can be achieved by reducing violence for peaceful means and avoiding the emergence of new tensions. In the past few days, Heads of State and Government from around the world have called on the Syrian Government to observe human rights and on both sides to exercise restraint. Simultaneously, external incitement that fuels tension should stop immediately so that it does not endanger regional security. We see a Security Council united today in demanding that all parties cease hostilities without delay. We now expect all countries that exercise influence on the ground and conduct military campaigns against international terrorist groups in Syria to interact and find common ground for fighting terrorism jointly, while taking practical steps to implement the resolution. Kazakhstan calls on all forces that support an early settlement of the Syrian conflict, including the Government of Syria and the armed opposition, to fully comply with the ceasefire regime and the resolution. All the parties must ensure safe and unhindered access for humanitarian assistance to reach the affected areas, as well as the evacuation of people in need of medical assistance. The Foreign Minister of Kazakhstan hopes that his colleagues — the Foreign Ministers of the guarantor States of the Astana process — will take additional constructive steps to strictly implement the 24/02/2018 The situation in the Middle East S/PV.8188 18-05017 9/14 ceasefire agreements and support the de-escalation zones in Syria, at the meeting scheduled to take place in the capital of Kazakhstan in mid-March or earlier, if need be. These were difficult, but successful, deliberations. We should all work collectively to find a peaceful solution. The unity shown today in the Security Council should continue, since we have yet a lot to accomplish in Syria and elsewhere. Mr. Van Oosterom (Netherlands): On Wednesday, during the high-level debate on the Charter of the United Nations, I quoted one of the founding fathers of the United Nations, Ambassador Stettinius (see S/PV.8185). He said that the members of the Security Council had the obligation to agree so that the Council may be able to act and act effectively. Today we finally managed to agree to end the atrocious violence in eastern Ghouta; to end attacks against hospitals; and to end the killing of innocent civilians, including women and children. The Kingdom of the Netherlands welcomes the unanimous adoption of this crucial resolution — resolution 2401 (2018). Let me thank the co-penholders in particular — Kuwait and Sweden — for their tireless efforts and skilled diplomatic work. We pay tribute to them. Today we have a resolution, now we need to see action on the ground. All United Nations States Members have an obligation to make sure that the words of the resolution are implemented without delay. The Syrian authorities in particular have a specific responsibility towards their own people. The resolution means that all parties must cease hostilities without delay. All parties must engage immediately for a sustainable and durable humanitarian pause of at least 30 consecutive days throughout Syria to enable the safe, unimpeded and sustained delivery of humanitarian aid and services and to enable medical evacuations of the critically sick and wounded, in accordance with applicable international law. The implementation of the resolution means the cessation of hostilities, the delivery of humanitarian aid and urgent medical evacuations. It is a first step in the right direction, but much more is needed — a political solution, accountability and the return of refugees. The Council should remain seized of the matter and closely monitor the implementation of the resolution, starting today. The Council should reconvene without delay if the situation demands it. Ms. Wronecka (Poland): We highly commend the work of Sweden and Kuwait as co-penholders on the humanitarian resolution for Syria — resolution 2401 (2018) — who did their best to accommodate the concerns of all Security Council members. On Wednesday I stressed that it is the Council's responsibility to not fail in stopping the ongoing human tragedy in Syria, and in eastern Ghouta in particular (see S/PV.8185). Today we have managed to reach compromise and adopt the resolution by consensus. I would like to thank all my colleagues for their very constructive attitude. However, the innocent people of Syria have waited far too long for that. Now, all of the parties, especially those with influence on the ground, must make every effort to implement it. In that context, we reiterate our call on all sides to comply with international humanitarian law, cease all hostilities against civilians and allow for free humanitarian access. In conclusion, it is not only our legal obligation to act now, but also our moral duty. Mr. Ndong Mba (Equatorial Guinea) (spoke in Spanish): Following the unanimous adoption of resolution 2401 (2018), I take the floor on behalf of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea, whose Government closely followed the whole process leading up to its successful conclusion with the unanimous adoption of this humanitarian resolution. At the outset, I pay a well-deserved tribute to the penholders, Kuwait and Sweden, for all their efforts, patience and dedication to the goal of drafting a resolution that was ultimately deserving of a favourable vote. We commend the unanimous support of the elected members for the penholders throughout the duration of that process. In Spanish, it is often said that "it is never too late if the outcome is good". This positive outcome is the result of the contributions of all members of the Council, to which we extend our gratitude and commend for the fruitful end. What lies ahead now is the effective implementation of the provisions of the resolution with a view to achieving the objective the Security Council has set out to achieve, namely, an immediate ceasefire throughout Syria in order to facilitate the safe, unhindered and sustainable delivery S/PV.8188 The situation in the Middle East 24/02/2018 10/14 18-05017 of humanitarian aid, services and medical evacuations of all severely injured and ill persons. The Republic of Equatorial Guinea energetically calls on all parties, the United Nations and those involved in the devastating conflict to do everything possible towards the noble end of saving human lives and alleviating the suffering that has been endured far too long by the people. The adoption of the resolution partially spares all members of the Security Council from embarrassment. We will save ourselves completely from that shame if the ceasefire takes effect in the next few hours and if humanitarian aid and medical care begin to reach the affected persons over the upcoming days. Mr. Inchauste Jordán (Plurinational State of Bolivia) (spoke in Spanish): Seven years have elapsed since the beginning of this war, and the suffering of the Syrian people continues to worsen. The numerous human lives lost in recent weeks add to the more than 500,000 lost since the beginning of the conflict. We believe that while military tactics prevail over a political solution, there can be no lasting peace, and consequently it will be civilians, especially women and children, who will continue to be subjected to unnecessary suffering. For that reason, we commend the adoption of resolution 2401 (2018), and hope that its timely and effective implementation will help to alleviate the suffering of the Syrian people. My delegation underscores and commends the arduous work undertaken by the penholders. The delegations of Sweden and Kuwait have demonstrated strong leadership and resolve up to the very last moment to reach an agreement. Similarly, we wish to acknowledge the effort and commitment shown by the Russian Federation and the parties involved, as well as all members of the Security Council during the negotiation process. In recent days, my delegation has expressed its position on the matter at hand, and today we do so once again. Consensus and unity within the Security Council are pivotal if we are to improve the humanitarian situation in Syria, which is why we commend the consensus reached today. We reiterate that there can be no military solution to the situation and that the only way forward is through inclusive political dialogue. We thefaffirm our support for the Geneva process and the achievements made in Astana, of which the agreements must be upheld by all parties. Moreover, we have high expectations that the various forums of dialogue, such as the Sochi dialogue, can contribute to the achievement of a final and lasting peace. Mr. Alemu (Ethiopia): We welcome the unanimous adoption of resolution 2401 (2018) on the humanitarian situation in Syria. We voted in favour because we believe that the resolution can make a positive difference on the ground in the alleviation of the continued tragedy of the Syrians. Having discussed the severe humanitarian crisis in Syria almost weekly, it was clear that what was required from the Council was concrete and collective action that would contribute to alleviating the intolerable suffering of Syrians in all areas of the country. We are pleased that the Council has acted and sent the right message to bring about a cessation of hostilities that will allow the United Nations and its humanitarian partners to have safe, sustained and unimpeded humanitarian access to deliver the much-needed humanitarian assistance to all Syrians in need. I wish to express our sincere appreciation to the delegations of Kuwait and Sweden, which effectively and efficiently led the process of negotiations. We all know that it was not an easy task, but they did excellent work in accommodating the concerns of all delegations with a high sense of responsibility and patience. We also thank all delegations for their flexibility during the negotiation process. We hope that the positive spirit that led the Council to adopt the resolution will prevail, not only in ensuring its effective implementation, but also in laying the bases for greater mutual understanding among all those with enormous influence over developments in Syria, whether in the humanitarian or political and security domains. We know, given the realities, that this is a tall order. One matter needs to be stressed on this occasion. The security situation in Syria is perhaps more complicated today than it has ever been over the past few years. We should not overlook the fact that the source of the humanitarian tragedy that we see today is the result of the difficult political and security situation in the country. We trust that all those, including those whom Ambassador Delattre referred to, will continue to play a role in contributing to the creation of the basis for progress in the peace process. That is extremely critical for ensuring that the humanitarian tragedy is Syria is brought to an end. We can only hope that what the Council has achieved today will lay the basis for averting an even greater humanitarian tragedy in Syria. 24/02/2018 The situation in the Middle East S/PV.8188 18-05017 11/14 Mr. Meza-Cuadra (Peru) (spoke in Spanish): We wish to thank you, Mr. President, and your team, as well as the Permanent Representative of Sweden and his team, for the tireless efforts made to achieve this important consensus, and we also thank the members of the Council for their flexibility. This commitment will allow for an immediate cessation of hostilities in Syria and the urgent and necessary provision of humanitarian assistance. We underscore the need to maintain unity within the Council in terms of its responsibilities to protect the civilian population, in accordance with international law and international humanitarian law. Peru, a sponsor of resolution 2401 (2017), which we have just adopted, will closely monitor its urgent implementation and compliance therewith by all parties involved. We wish to express our sorrow concerning and solidarity with the victims of the conflict in Syria, and our support and admiration for the United Nations humanitarian workers and those of other agencies deployed on the ground. We hope that the important step that we have taken today will help to achieve a lasting solution to the Syrian conflict in line with resolution 2254 (2015) and the Geneva communiqué (S/2012/522, annex). Mr. Tanoh-Boutchoue (Côte d'Ivoire) (spoke in French): Côte d'Ivoire, as a sponsor of resolution 2401 (2017), which we have just adopted and which is purely humanitarian in nature, commends its initiators, namely, your country, Mr. President, and Sweden. It welcomes the adoption of the resolution, which demands the cessation without delay of hostilities. This demand on the part of the Council must be upheld by all actors on every battlefield in Syria. Côte d'Ivoire also welcomes the efforts undertaken by all parties to arrive at a consensus within the Council. It thanks in particular the Russian Federation for its spirit of compromise. The contribution made by all parties to the adoption of the resolution is aimed at saving the Syrian people from the horrific war plaguing that country, which is imperilling the lives of thousands of human beings, specifically civilians, including women and children. Côte d'Ivoire remains convinced that only a definitive end to the Syrian conflict through negotiations can enable all Syrians to restore peace, achieve reconciliation and rebuild their country, with a view to relaunching its economic and social development. We hope that the 30-day truce demanded by the Council will be the beginning of a process that will bring peace to Syria on the basis of the relevant conclusions and recommendations of all negotiations held in Astana, Sochi and Geneva concerning the country. The President (spoke in Arabic): I now call on the representative of the Syrian Arab Republic. Mr. Ja'afari (Syrian Arab Republic) (spoke in Arabic): Over the past two days, 10 of the thousands of missiles that have fallen on the Syrian capital landed on the headquarters of the Red Crescent in Damascus, the main headquarters of the Syrian Red Crescent, in the Abu Ramani neighbourhood of Damascus. Those missiles were launched by the moderate armed groups in Al-Ghouta. Thousands of people died, including Dr. Hassan, a professor at the Technological Health Institute in Damascus. A French colleague and friend, Thierry Mariani, said: (spoke in French) "Like hundreds of others over the past five years, Dr. Hassan Haj Hassan was killed by shells fired from Ghouta on Damascus by these moderate rebels. Those dead and are not entitled to media compassion; they are on the wrong side of history. When will there be balanced coverage?" (spoke in Arabic) This French citizen accurately described the suffering of the Syrian people as a result of the launching by terrorists of missiles against Damascus. He had visited Aleppo in 2017, and as he was leaving Free Syrian Army gangs fired rockets at the airport. Luckily he was not hurt, but since then the Aleppo airport has been closed because it is unsafe. Also. the head of the Syrian Red Crescent in Idlib, Dr. Muhammad Al-Waty, was kidnapped by moderate armed groups. My colleague the Permanent Representative of France said that we must observe a truce, and I agree with him. However, I think that we also need to implement the 29 other Security Council resolutions on the situation in Syria, of which 13 relate to the fight against terrorism. We need not only a month-long cessation of hostilities; we also need to see the implementation of the 29 other resolutions that the Council has adopted. My colleague the British Ambassador told us horrific stories that he heard from other people. Perhaps S/PV.8188 The situation in the Middle East 24/02/2018 12/14 18-05017 he has not heard about what the British forces have done in Iraq, Palestine and Libya. The British Government went to the Malvinas and fought Argentina for an island that it does not own and that is situated tens of thousands of kilometres away from the United Kingdom. However, I say to my British colleague that his Government — and I am not using the term "regime", because I respect international law — is preventing us from countering terrorism in our own territories. We are not going thousands of kilometres away, we have not been fighting in other countries. It is in our own territories that we are combating terrorism — terrorism that is supported by the Government of the United Kingdom. During the meeting on Thursday (see S/PV.8186), I explained the reality of what is happening in Syria — the suffering of civilians as a result of the actions of armed terrorist groups. I assure members once again that the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic has taken all the de-escalation initiatives seriously and has observed them so as to protect the lives of its citizens and to stop those who have been trading in their pain and blood. In that regard, I note that the Syrian Government has complied with the Astana agreement on establishing de-escalation zones and stipulated a number of commitments, including compelling the signatory armed groups to sever any ties they have with terrorist organizations, especially the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and the Al-Nusra Front and all other affiliated groups. At the same time, the Astana agreement gave the Syrian Government the right to respond in case of any violations by those armed groups. It was not at all surprising to us that those terrorist armed groups would not comply with any of those initiatives, but would use them as an opportunity to reorganize their forces and their terrorist fighters, acquire more arms, military equipment, human and logistical support and perpetuate their crimes against the Syrian people. They are receiving instructions from certain States members of the Council, as well as regional actors that are practicing State terrorism to ensure the obstruction and failure of those initiatives and agreements. Since the signing of the agreement on the establishment of de-escalation zones, these armed groups have systematically violated it. In responding to the violations, the Syrian Government has exercised extreme self-restraint to protect the lives of civilians and salvage the agreement that terrorist armed groups and the countries that sponsor them have been trying to obstruct since the moment of signing it. However, these violations have become repeated and serious and have affected the lives of 8 million civilians living in the capital, Damascus, and its suburbs. Attacks have been waged by launching rockets and missiles and using car bombs, with Syrian military sites being targeted. All this has led to an unbearable situation that we cannot condone. As a State, we bear a responsibility towards our citizens and we have a sovereign right to counter terrorism. We are also receiving repeated appeals from Syrian citizens for protection — their families, their children, their schools — from the acts of these terrorist armed groups In the light of these violations and terrorist acts, the Syrian Government has had to take the necessary steps to protect its citizens. We exercised our legitimate right to defend them. At the same time, we have taken all the steps necessary to ensure the safety of the civilians who have been taken hostage by these groups and used as human shields inside eastern Ghouta. In cooperation with our Russian friends, we also ensured the safe passage of civilians out of danger from 4 to 14 February. We have provided shelter and food and necessary medical care. The Government has paid for all that assistance. We have called upon armed groups to lay down their weapons and stop their terrorism from residential places and neighbourhoods, and instead engage in national reconciliation initiatives. Of course, the appeals of 8 million Syrians do not reach the Secretariat or the representatives of the United States, the United Kingdom and France, although they receive appeals from their proxies — terrorist armed groups and White Helmet terrorists, the new legitimate representative of the Al-Nusra Front. It seems that these countries decided today to replace the black flags of ISIL and Al-Qaida with white flags in Iraq and the White Helmets in Syria. We are therefore done with using the black colour; we are using the white colour now, white flags in Iraq and White Helmets in Syria. According to General Assembly resolution 46/182, which we all negotiated and reached consensus on, the basic principle that governs the delivery of humanitarian aid is respect for the sovereignty of the country concerned as well as coordinating with it fully in any activity in which the United Nations is engaged on the territory of the country in question. However, such principles lose all value when they are 24/02/2018 The situation in the Middle East S/PV.8188 18-05017 13/14 subject to the political whims and double standards of the Secretariat and some more influential countries, particularly when it comes to implementing them in Syria. How else can we explain that some countries submit draft resolutions on the situation in Syria and negotiate them for many weeks with all actors, but excluding the country concerned? This is what I asked the day before yesterday. How do we explain that the Resident Coordinator in Damascus sends a note to the Syrian Foreign Ministry on 14 February stressing that the aid convoys reached 2.3 million Syrians in the so-called besieged and hard-to-reach areas in 2017, while the Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs presented completely false figures yesterday to tarnish the image of the Syrian Government and to give Western countries in the Security Council justification for targeting the Syrian Government and its partners? The Resident Coordinator said that aid had reached 2.3 million Syrians. But just two days ago, Mr. Lowcock said that aid had reached only 20,000 people. Along with some members of the Council, we have said repeatedly over the past seven years that to end the suffering of civilians in Syria we do not need non-consensual draft resolutions, nor do we need to adopt new resolutions or hold regular or emergency meetings. We do not need to deplete United Nations resources to prepare periodic reports that rely on unreliable sources. We do not need to establish a committee here and a body there. We need to implement the 29 — now 30 — Security Council resolutions that have been adopted; it is quite a coincidence that by adopting resolution 2401 (2018) today we have reached 30 resolutions. These resolutions should be implemented. The Governments of some countries should stop spending billions of dollars to support and finance armed terrorist groups and provide them with arms. The latest we have heard is that the United States of America has allocated $4 billion to ublically fund the terrorists in Syria. Those countries must stop opening their borders and airports to facilitate the flow of terrorist fighters to Syria. They must allow the Syrian people to shape its future and restore its security and stability without any foreign interference. You said, Mr. President, that the Council rejects anything that violates the purposes and principles of the Charter. Yes, this is very precise. You called also for the implementation of today's resolution in all parts of Syria, which is how we interpret this resolution in Damascus. Resolution 2401 (2018) must be implemented in all parts of Syria, including Afrin, United States-occupied areas and the Golan. In addition, let me make it clear that the Governments of the United States of America, the United Kingdom and France and their enablers in the region should stop holding meetings in Washington, D.C., Paris and London, establishing groups, bodies or forums and devising what they refer to as strategic plans reminiscent of colonial times. Following a meeting in Washington, D.C., they announced that they had drafted a plan to divide Syria within a year — I am just recounting what they said. The strategic plans contained in the document adopted in Washington, D.C., are aimed at dividing Syria, changing its political system by force, spreading terrorism and maintaining an illegitimate military presence in our territories. I say to my colleague the Permanent Representative of the United States, who threatened us here at the Council a while ago and no one has responded to her, that none of the plans will succeed; they will backfire sooner or later. According to Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, my country has the right to defend itself with all of the legal tools available. A United States occupying military presence exists in our territories, and we have the right to resist it. The representative of the United States has threatened us. We, in turn, give her a warning from this Chamber because, according to Article 51 of the Charter, we have the right to defend ourselves. We again stress that double standards will continue to mar international efforts to counter terrorism as long as there is a partial approach to addressing the threat of armed groups in Syria. Some members of the Council claim that they are concerned about an area controlled by terrorist armed groups in eastern Ghouta. The size of that area is 50 square kilometres. They continue to ignore three illegally occupied Syrian territories covering 50,000 square kilometres. They focus on 50 square kilometres and ignore an area of 50,000 square kilometres, of American, Turkish and Israeli occupation. That simple comparison reflects the political hypocrisy of some Member States, and the inaction of the Security Council and of other bodies of the United Nations, as the Organization succumbs to the political and financial polarization that has become the main feature of its working methods. S/PV.8188 The situation in the Middle East 24/02/2018 14/14 18-05017 In conclusion, we will continue, with the support our allies, to counter terrorism regardless of where it exists in Syria — I repeat, regardless of where it exists in Syria. We are exercising our sovereign right of self-defence and a constitutional right in our territory and within our national borders. We do not send forces to conquer areas thousands of kilometres away, as the so-called illegitimate international coalition does in my country, Syria, today. We do not follow the example of French forces in Mali, the Niger and other African countries, or of the United States and United Kingdom in Afghanistan, Libya today and Iraq previously. We defend ourselves and counter terrorism within our borders. We did not go to Mali, the Niger or the Malvinas. We need serious commitment from Governments that issue instructions to armed terrorist groups. The groups should be given orders to immediately stop targeting civilians and perpetrating terrorist acts — I repeat immediately and without delay, as the resolution stipulates. I stress that the Syrian Government will reserve the right to respond as it deems appropriate if such groups target civilians in any part of Syria with even a single missile. I take it that we all understand that paragraph 1 of resolution 2401 (2018) also applies to the aggression of Turkish forces in Afrin and the repeated acts of aggression by the international coalition against my country's sovereignty and territories. Of course, resolution 2401 (2018) applies also to the continuous violations by Israeli occupation forces against Syria's sovereignty, by supporting terrorist factions in the occupied Syrian Golan. That is how we interpret the resolution just adopted by the Council. The meeting rose at 3.35 p.m.
The Situation In The Middle East Letter Dated 1 February 2018 From The Secretary-General Addressed To The President Of The Security Council (S/2018/84) ; United Nations S/PV.8174 Security Council Seventy-third year 8174th meeting Monday, 5 February 2018, 10 a.m. New York Provisional President: Mr. Alotaibi. . (Kuwait) Members: Bolivia (Plurinational State of). . Mr. Llorentty Solíz China. . Mr. Wu Haitao Côte d'Ivoire. . Mr. Tanoh-Boutchoue Equatorial Guinea. . Mr. Ndong Mba Ethiopia. . Mr. Alemu France. . Mr. Delattre Kazakhstan. . Mr. Umarov Netherlands. . Mr. Van Oosterom Peru. . Mr. Meza-Cuadra Poland. . Ms. Wronecka Russian Federation. . Mr. Nebenzia Sweden . Mr. Skoog United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland . Mr. Allen United States of America. . Mrs. Haley Agenda The situation in the Middle East Letter dated 1 February 2018 from the Secretary-General addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/2018/84) This record contains the text of speeches delivered in English and of the translation of speeches delivered in other languages. The final text will be printed in the Official Records of the Security Council. Corrections should be submitted to the original languages only. They should be incorporated in a copy of the record and sent under the signature of a member of the delegation concerned to the Chief of the Verbatim Reporting Service, room U-0506 (verbatimrecords@un.org). Corrected records will be reissued electronically on the Official Document System of the United Nations (http://documents.un.org). 18-03099 (E) *1803099* S/PV.8174 The situation in the Middle East 05/02/2018 2/17 18-03099 The meeting was called to order at 10.05 a.m. Expression of thanks to the outgoing President The President (spoke in Arabic): As this is the first public meeting of the Security Council for the month of February, I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute, on behalf of the Council, to His Excellency Ambassador Kairat Umarov, Permanent Representative of Kazakhstan, for his service as President of the Council for the month of January. I am sure I speak for all members of the Council in expressing deep appreciation to Ambassador Umarov and his team for the great diplomatic skill with which they conducted the Council's business last month. Adoption of the agenda The agenda was adopted. The situation in the Middle East Letter dated 1 February 2018 from the Secretary-General addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/2018/84) The President (spoke in Arabic): In accordance with rule 37 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure, I invite the representative of the Syrian Arab Republic to participate in this meeting. In accordance with rule 39 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure, I invite Ms. Izumi Nakamitsu, High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, to participate in this meeting. The Security Council will now begin its consideration of the item on its agenda. I wish to draw the attention of Council members to document S/2018/84, which contains the text of a letter dated 1 February 2018 from the Secretary-General addressed to the President of the Security Council. I now give the floor to Ms. Nakamitsu. Ms. Nakamitsu: I would like to thank you, Mr. President, for this opportunity to brief the Security Council once again on the implementation of resolution 2118 (2013), on the elimination of the Syrian Arab Republic's chemical-weapons programme. I remain in regular contact with the Director- General of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to discuss matters related to this issue; I spoke to him last week. In addition, I met with the Chargé d'affaires of the Permanent Mission of the Syrian Arab Republic to the United Nations this past Friday. At the time of my previous briefing, planning was under way with regard to the destruction of the remaining two stationary above-ground facilities of the 27 declared by the Syrian Arab Republic. I am informed that the OPCW, working with the United Nations Office for Project Services, is currently at the stage of finalizing a contract with a private company to carry out the destruction, which I understand could be completed within two months. There have been some developments on the issues related to Syria's initial declaration and subsequent amendments. The translation and analysis of documents that were provided to the OPCW by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic in November have been completed. The OPCW has indicated that this information provided clarifications on some issues. However, the OPCW is continuing to follow up with the Government of Syria on the remaining gaps, inconsistencies and discrepancies. The Director- General will submit a report in that regard to the next session of the OPCW Executive Council, which will take place in March. Further to its routine inspections in Syria, samples taken by the OPCW team during its second inspection at the Syrian Scientific Studies and Research Centre are currently being analysed by two OPCW-designated laboratories. The Executive Council will be informed of the results of the inspection via a separate note from the Director-General to the next session of the Executive Council. The OPCW Fact-finding Mission continues to look into all allegations of the use of chemical weapons in Syria, the majority of which involve the use of toxic chemicals, such a chlorine, in areas not under the control of the Government. The Fact-finding Mission expects to submit a report on the allegations very soon. In addition, another Fact-finding Mission team has been looking into allegations of the use of chemical weapons brought to the attention of the OPCW by the Government of Syria. At the time of our previous briefing, a Fact-finding Mission team was in Damascus, at the invitation of the Government, to look into several of those allegations. I am informed that a report in that regard is also pending. 05/02/2018 The situation in the Middle East S/PV.8174 18-03099 3/17 There is still work to do before resolution 2118 (2013) can be considered to have been fully implemented, and for the international community to have shared confidence that the chemical-weapons programme of the Syrian Arab Republic has been fully eliminated. Moreover, allegations of the use of chemical weapons in Syria have continued, including just this past weekend in the town of Saraqeb. That makes abundantly clear our continuing and collective responsibility to ensure that those responsible are held to account. New reports by the Fact-finding Mission are pending. Should they conclude that there has been the use, or likely use, of chemical weapons in any of those alleged incidents, our obligation to enact a meaningful response will be further intensified. It is my hope, and the hope of the Secretary-General, that such a response will favour unity, not impunity. As always, the Office for Disarmament Affairs stands ready to provide whatever support and assistance it can. The President (spoke in Arabic): I thank Ms. Nakamitsu for her briefing. I shall now give the floor to those Council members who wish to make statements. Mrs. Haley (United States of America): The news out of Syria this morning is following a troubling pattern. There are reports of yet another chemical-weapon attack on Sunday. Victims of what appears to be chlorine gas are pouring into hospitals. Few things have horrified my country and the world as much as the Al-Assad regime's use of chemical weapons against its people. The Security Council has been outspoken on ending Syria's use of chemical weapons, and yet they continue. Under the Chemical Weapons Convention and resolution 2118 (2013), the Al-Assad regime's obligations are clear: it must immediately stop using all chemical weapons. It must address the gaps and inconsistencies in its Chemical Weapons Convention declaration. And it must destroy all of its remaining chemical weapons under the supervision of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). These are worthy goals. These are urgent goals. Yet we spent much of last year in the Council watching one country protect the Al-Assad regime's use of chemical weapons by refusing to hold them responsible. What do the American people see? What do people of all countries see? They see a Council that cannot agree to take action, even after the OPCW-United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism, created by the Council, found that the Al-Assad regime used chemical weapons. Now we have reports that the Al-Assad regime has used chlorine gas against its people multiple times in recent weeks, including just yesterday. There is obvious evidence from dozens of victims, and therefore we proposed a draft press statement by the Security Council condemning these attacks. So far, Russia has delayed the adoption of the draft statement — a simple condemnation of Syrian children being suffocated by chlorine gas. I hope Russia takes the appropriate step to adopt the draft text, thus showing that the Council is unified in condemning chemical-weapon attacks. Accountability is a fundamental principle, but it is just the first step. Our goal must be to end the use of these evil, unjustifiable weapons. When actions have consequences — when perpetrators are identified and punished — we come closer to reaching our goal. But if we cannot even take the first step of establishing accountability for the use of chemical weapons, we have to seriously ask ourselves why we are here. The requirements for establishing accountability for the use of chemical weapons have not changed since the Council voted unanimously to create the Joint Investigative Mechanism, in 2015. They have not changed since Russia acted alone to kill the Mechanism last year. Such a mechanism must be independent and impartial. It must be free of politics. It must be controlled by experts, not politicians or diplomats. And it must be definitive. The latest Russian draft resolution does not meet any of those criteria. Russia's draft resolution completely ignores the findings of the Joint Investigative Mechanism, which was an investigation that Russia supported until the investigators found the Al-Assad regime to be responsible. That should already be enough to make us sceptical. However, there are other deep problems. For their new investigation, Russia wants to be able to cherry-pick the investigators. It wants to insert unnecessary and arbitrary investigative standards. And it wants the Security Council to be able to review all the findings of this investigation and decide what makes it into the final report. That is not an impartial mechanism; it is a way to whitewash the findings of the last investigation that Russia desperately wants to bury. No one should believe that the draft resolution is a good basis for discussion, when it is designed to undermine our core principles on chemical weapons. We cannot S/PV.8174 The situation in the Middle East 05/02/2018 4/17 18-03099 hope to end the use of chemical weapons if those who use them escape the consequences of their actions. Therefore, while we regret the need for its creation, we applaud the efforts of France to launch the International Partnership against Impunity for the Use of Chemical Weapons. That is yet another way to hold accountable the Al-Assad regime and any group that uses chemical weapons. The United States has also announced that we will contribute to the International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism to Assist in the Investigation and Prosecution of Persons Responsible for the Most Serious Crimes under International Law Committed in the Syrian Arab Republic since March 2011. The United States strongly supports the Mechanism as a valuable tool to hold the Al-Assad regime accountable for its atrocities, including its repeated and ongoing use of chemical weapons. It is a true tragedy that Russia has sent us back to square one in the effort to end the use of chemical weapons in Syria. But we will not cease in our efforts to know the truth of the Al-Assad regime — and ensure that the truth is known and acted on by the international community. That is why we hosted all 15 members of the Council at the United States Holocaust Museum last week. The exhibit was called "Syria: Please Don't Forget Us". All of us saw undeniable evidence of the Al-Assad regime's atrocities and human rights violations. We cannot, and should not, forget the Syrian people. The United States will not forget them. While the Council has not yet been able to act to provide real accountability for the use of chemical weapons in Syria, the United States will not give up on the responsibility to do so. That is the sincere wish of the American people, and I know that it is shared by many on the Council. We are not motivated by score-settling, payback or power politics. We are motivated by the urgent need to end the unique and horrible suffering that chemical weapons have inflicted on innocent men, women and children in Syria. The Syrian people are counting on us. Mr. Allen (United Kingdom): I would like to thank High Representative Nakamitsu for her briefing. We are holding this meeting in the open Chamber today after reports of a series of chemical attacks in eastern Ghouta within the past month, as the Al-Assad regime continues its merciless bombing and killing of civilians. Over the weekend, there were further allegations of the use of chemical weapons in Idlib, as well as air strikes by pro-regime forces that reportedly hit three hospitals, leaving doctors scrambling to remove premature babies from their incubators in order to move them. I cannot say that they were moving them to safety, because the reality is that for the citizens of Idlib and eastern Ghouta, nowhere is safe. We are appalled by this violence and the reports of deliberate targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure, and we call on all parties to the conflict to uphold international humanitarian law and protect civilians. The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) is already investigating reports of the use of chemical weapons in recent weeks, but establishing who is responsible for that use will be much more difficult, because Russia has vetoed the continuation of the independent, expert OPCW-United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM) three times, in order to protect the Al-Assad regime. We would welcome any serious attempt to re-establish a properly independent investigative and attribution mechanism for continuing the JIM's meticulous work. Sadly, we do not yet see that in the Russian proposal. Any successor investigation must be empowered to investigate all use of chemical weapons, whoever the perpetrator may be. Yet the Russian proposal focuses only on non-State actors. We have repeatedly condemned Da'esh for its use of chemical weapons, which the JIM clearly reported. But given Al-Assad's track record of chemical-weapon use and its failure to comply with the Chemical Weapons Convention, it is imperative to ensure that any new mechanism also investigates the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime. A second objection is the proposal that experts would merely gather evidence, leaving the Council to decide what it meant. No other United Nations expert panel that I know of is specifically prohibited from reaching conclusions and reporting to the Council on its findings on what has happened. We are not specialists on chemical weapons around this table. We rely on independent, United Nations-selected expert panels. The entire purpose of the JIM was that an independent panel would reach conclusions on the basis of the evidence, taking the issue out of the hands of us, the Member States and Council members, because we have been unable to agree. Russia's proposal looks as if it is designed to avoid the political embarrassment of having to use its veto power to defend the indefensible when independent bodies report on what has truly happened. The underlying intent seems to be to ensure that there are no clear conclusions in future reports. 05/02/2018 The situation in the Middle East S/PV.8174 18-03099 5/17 Thirdly, we object to the proposal's demands that the standard of proof should be beyond reasonable doubt. That standard has not been used in any other comparable past or current United Nations investigation. It is used in relation to criminal prosecutions in courts of law, which have significantly greater investigative powers and independence than those envisaged in Russia's text. Finally, the proposal insists on site visits, despite the explicit provision in the Chemical Weapons Convention for other ways to gather relevant evidence, recognizing the difficulty of safe and timely visits. There is no scientific basis for this proposal. It is simply an attempt to hamstring future investigations and discredit the JIM. Of course, Russia made much of the lack of a site visit to Khan Shaykhun, despite the fact that the Al-Assad regime handed over to the United Nations samples from the site that contained chemical signatures unique to regime sarin, obviating the need for such a visit. It is for those reasons that the current text is unacceptable. The JIM set a high standard of impartiality and expertise. We expect that standard from any future mechanism. The Syrian regime, of course, claims not to have used chemical weapons. Yet over the years two separate reports from the JIM, under separate leadership panels, drawing on a broad range of respected independent international experts, concluded that the regime had used chlorine at least three times — in Talmenes in April 2014 and in Sarmin and Qmenas in March 2015 — and had used sarin to attack Khan Shaykhun in April 2017. We should also remember the infamous attack in eastern Ghouta in August 2013, when a separate United Nations investigation found that sarin was used to kill hundreds and injure thousands. That attack brought near-universal international condemnation, and following our concerted international pressure, Syria joined the Chemical Weapons Convention. Syria promised, as it was legally obliged to do, to destroy and abandon its chemical-weapon programme. Yet it has been unable to satisfy inspectors that it has done so. We have to ask ourselves why that is. In 2013 Russia promised to act as a guarantor for the Al-Assad regime's compliance with the Chemical Weapons Convention. Yet month after month we all sit here and hear that Al-Assad has not done so. Why does Russia not compel the Syrian regime to comply with its obligations and make it impossible for it to use chemical weapons? Tragically, for the people of Syria, the regime continues to use chemical weapons with impunity. If it is confirmed that Al-Assad has again used chemical weapons on his own people, it would not only be another entry in the catalogue of his war crimes, it would also be another attack on us all, Members of the United Nations who have worked for decades — in the words of the Chemical Weapons Convention, for the sake of all mankind — to completely exclude the possibility of the use of chemical weapons. Throughout history, our peoples have said "never again" — among others, starting with the First World War battlefields, in Ethiopia, in Manchuria and in Saddam Hussein's attacks on Iran and on Iraqi Kurds. Let us, the members of the Council, stand up for the peoples of the United Nations, determined that such abhorrent chemical weapons should never be used. Let us stand up for the people of Syria and give them a real investigation into those responsible for the use of chemical weapons — an investigation that pursues justice for the horrific crimes committed against them. Let us signal our determination to pursue accountability by all means available, even if one member of the Security Council is currently preventing us from taking action here. Mr. Delattre (France) (spoke in French): I would first like to congratulate Kuwait through you, Mr. President, on the start of its presidency of the Security Council. You can rely on France's support in the month to come. I would also like to thank Izumi Nakamitsu for her usual very informative briefing. This is the second time we have met in less than two weeks after reports of four new cases of the use of chlorine against Syria's civilian population, some of them in Idlib province, which is a de-escalation zone. We are examining the information that is available and waiting for the conclusions of the investigative mechanism, but the reality is that resorting to toxic substances as weapons has never ended in Syria. I would like to remind the Council that the Syrian regime has already been identified as the perpetrator in four such cases, one of which involved the use of sarin, in violation of international humanitarian law and the obligations that Syria assumed when it acceded to the Chemical Weapons Convention. The challenges go beyond the Syrian issue. A century after the end of the First World War, in which mustard gas was used on a massive scale against civilians, what we are seeing is shocking. These weapons, which we had thought were a thing of the past, are once again being used methodically and systematically by the Syrian regime against its own people. Furthermore, there is a real threat of such S/PV.8174 The situation in the Middle East 05/02/2018 6/17 18-03099 weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. The threat is all the greater given the fact that the dismantling of the Syrian chemical-weapon programme remains at a deadlock. The cooperation of the Syrian regime with the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) has for months taken place in a piecemeal manner, and suspicions remain about the status of Syrian stockpiles. I would recall that OPCW expert teams have repeatedly found at Syrian sites indicators of undeclared substances, without any convincing explanation being provided by the country. Given that chemical weapons continue to be used, it seems that Syria has lied and maintained clandestine capacities. The situation is aggravating regional instability, undermining the non-proliferation regime and weakening the international security architecture, as well as jeopardizing the security of each of our States. It represents a violation of the law and flouts the most fundamental principles of humanity. The international community cannot downplay the situation and allow the perpetrators of these heinous crimes to remain unpunished. It is the responsibility of the Security Council to prevent this; it is our shared responsibility. The criminals who chose to design and use these barbaric weapons must be punished. At stake is the future of our collective security system; no one can be allowed to undermine its foundations without facing consequences. The hindrances and obstructions facing the international community's initiatives within existing bodies contribute to promoting impunity, and this we cannot accept. For that reason, France launched in Paris an open, pragmatic partnership that brings together States that reject impunity for individuals involved in chemical-weapon attacks or in the development of chemical-weapon programmes. It brings together all the States concerned about the threat of erosion of the non-proliferation regime and of strategic stability. It was designed to support all international bodies and investigative mechanisms in their efforts. This universal partnership applies to all instances of the use of such weapons throughout the world by all perpetrators, be they State or non-State actors. The partnership is open, and States that embrace these principles are invited to join. Like everyone else here, we hope that a mechanism for the identification of those responsible will be recreated as soon as possible. However, any sincere and credible effort to that end must align with the basic standards of independence, impartiality and professionalism that underpinned the Joint Investigative Mechanism, as the very reason for the establishment of such a regime is to determine the truth. Within the Council, France will be very vigilant with respect to the principles listed and will not accept a lesser mechanism. Impunity in Syria is not an option. The perpetrators of all of the crimes committed in Syria will be held accountable, sooner or later. The International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism for Syria, which we support, is a part of that process. That is the only way to ensure lasting peace in Syria, and this can come about only in the framework of an inclusive political solution in Geneva, in line with resolution 2254 (2015), which more than ever before represents our shared compass. The repeated use of chemical weapons in Syria has been proved. We cannot turn a blind eye to this, for no one can now say that they did not know. Denial or hypocrisy, or a combination of of the two, cannot be presented as a strategy. The persistent use of chemical weapons in Syria represents a violation of the universal conscience as well as the most fundamental principles of international law. It also poses a potentially lethal threat to the sustainability of the international non-proliferation regime, which is the most comprehensive and successful of all of the international non-proliferation regimes. To allow it to be undermined without any response would be to accept the erosion of the entire international regime for the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction that we have built together, stone by stone, over the course of decades and which constitutes the very backbone of the international security architecture as well as one of the paramount gains of multilateralism. On behalf of France, I call on all members of the Security Council to shift their attitudes and adjust their focus. The heavy responsibility that we all bear requires that we join together and take action. Mr. Llorenty Solíz (Plurinational State of Bolivia) (spoke in Spanish): My delegation wishes to congratulate you once again, Sir, as well as the Permanent Mission of Kuwait, on your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council for the month of February. We are also grateful for the briefing provided by the Under-Secretary-General and High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, Ms. Izumi Nakamitsu. We also 05/02/2018 The situation in the Middle East S/PV.8174 18-03099 7/17 wish to acknowledge the letter sent by the Secretary- General (S/2018/84) concerning the periodic report of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). Bolivia believes that there can be no justification for the use of chemical weapons, regardless of circumstances and by whomsoever committed, as such use is a serious violation of international law and poses a grave threat to international peace and security. We therefore categorically condemn the use of chemical weapons or substances as weapons, as we deem this an unjustifiable and criminal act, wherever, whenever and by whomsoever committed. In that context, we express our grave concern about the ongoing reports of the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic, especially in eastern Ghouta. If that is confirmed, the Council should remain united in order to ensure that the perpetrators are held accountable and brought to justice, so that there is no impunity for their actions. We commend the coordination between the OPCW and the United Nations Office for Project Services in all of the arrangements aimed at making possible the destruction of the two remaining facilities as well as the preparedness of the Syrian Government to achieve this end. We call on the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic to cooperate with the OPCW on this initiative, as well as during the second inspection of the Syrian Scientific Studies and Research Centre. We encourage the Fact-finding Mission to continue its investigation so that, in accordance with its mandate, it can investigate, in the most objective, methodical and technical manner, reports of the use of chemicals weapons on Syrian territory. In that regard, we highlight the latest visit to the city of Damascus during January, and we will await the results thereof. We call on all parties involved to cooperate fully as well as to provide viable and reliable information, so that an effective investigation of all of the ongoing cases can be conducted as soon as possible. Concerned about the reports of the use of chemical weapons, we deem it essential to establish as soon as possible an independent, impartial and representative mechanism to carry out a full, reliable and conclusive investigation of the cases referred by the Fact-finding Mission that will make it possible to identify those responsible for such acts. Nevertheless, if we want to create a new, transparent accountability mechanism, we have the major challenge and the responsibility of not instrumentalizing the Security Council for political ends. In that vein, we view the Russian proposal as a new and positive opportunity to reach this goal. We therefore call on the members of the Council to commit themselves to a process of purposeful negotiation, and we echo the words of the Secretary-General in his letter transmitting the current report, calling on the Security Council to demonstrate unity on this issue, which is so vital for the international community. Finally, we reiterate that the only option for resolving the conflict in Syria and prevent more people from becoming victims is through an inclusive political transition led by and benefiting the Syrian people that respects their sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity. Mr. Umarov (Kazakhstan): Since this is the first public meeting of the Security Council for the month of February, I would like to congratulate the delegation of Kuwait on the commencement of its presidency and wish it great success in implementing its ambitious programme of work. I am grateful to High Representative Nakamitsu for her informative briefing. Our position on this issue remains unchanged. We strongly condemn any use of chemical weapons and advocate that such threats must be eliminated in the future. We firmly believe that there must be accountability for perpetrators of such crimes. Today I would like to concentrate on three major points. First, we support the work of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), as reflected in its fifty-second report (S/2018/84, annex). The speedy destruction, probably in two months, of the remaining chemical-weapon production facilities and resolving all outstanding issues relating to the declaration of the Syrian Arab Republic are of the utmost importance. That would help to dispel all existing doubts on many principal issues and to comprehend the real situation in the country. It is commendable that, during the inspection of Barzah and Jamrayah, all samples were sealed, packaged and shipped to OPCW's laboratory and were received there in the presence of the representatives of the Syrian Arab Republic, observing all established rules. We look forward to the follow-up to the OPCW's work, and we will also await the results S/PV.8174 The situation in the Middle East 05/02/2018 8/17 18-03099 of a thorough analysis of the documents submitted by Syria by the Declaration Assessment Team. Secondly, the continuing reports on the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria are extremely alarming. But the most alarming fact is that the Council has not yet restored its investigative potential to properly respond to such cases. I recall the words of the Secretary-General, who pointed to the serious gap that had arisen at the end of the OPCW-United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism, which leaves one with the feeling that impunity will continue without any strict monitoring. Thirdly, and lastly, considering the current developments, it is also most critical that a new mechanism be established as soon as possible. We here in the Council are not experts on chemical weapons — neither to judge or blame anyone — but must act on the basis of credible evidence provided to us by an independent, impartial and representative investigative body we can all trust. In that regard, we support the ongoing consultations on creating a new investigative instrument, in order to prevent any further use of chemical weapons and to bring perpetrators to justice. We are ready to participate actively and contribute to the earliest revival and ultimate realization of our investigative potential. Mr. Meza-Cuadra (Peru) (spoke in Spanish): We join others in congratulating your delegation, Sir, on having assumed the presidency of the Security Council for the month of February. We support you in discharging your tasks, which we are sure you will do in full. We welcome the holding of this meeting and thank Ms. Izumi Nakamitsu for her valuable briefing on this topic. Peru condemns the use of chemical weapons by any actor, in any place and under any circumstance. Their use against the civilian population in Syria is a war crime and a flagrant violation of international law, international humanitarian law and the non-proliferation regimes. In that regard, Peru believes it is essential for the international community, and in particular the Security Council, to remain resolute and united in its support for the non-proliferation regime and in ensuring that those responsible for these atrocious crimes — which are also threats to international peace and security — be held accountable. We must continue to demand that the Syrian Government fulfil its commitment to cooperate with the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in the elimination of all of its chemical weapons. We take note of some recent progress, such as the imminent destruction of the last two declared chemical-weapon production facilities, as verified preliminarily by the OPCW last November, and the allocation of new financial resources to that end. Nevertheless, we are concerned that key points of the Syrian Government's declaration have yet to be verified, more than four years after its accession to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction. We hope that the 19 recently translated documents that were provided to the OPCW will help rectify errors and omissions and clear up discrepancies. We reaffirm our commitment and support to the OPCW, whose Executive Council Peru is honoured to be a member of. In the face of new reports of chemical-weapon attacks in eastern Ghouta and Idlib, Peru expresses its solidarity with the victims and reiterates the urgent need to identify and bring to justice the perpetrators of such atrocities. Like a majority of Council members, we believe that accountability is essential to safeguarding the international non-proliferation regimes. Preventing this threat requires a credible deterrent. With that goal in mind, we believe it is urgent to establish an attributive mechanism with the highest standards of professionalism, objectivity, transparency and, primarily, independence in order to fill the gap left by the OPCW-United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism. My delegation will continue to work constructively to create a new mechanism that addresses the legitimate concerns of all Council members and of the international community. Mr. Skoog (Sweden): I also want to congratulate you, Mr. President, on assuming the presidency of the Security Council for the month of February. I also thank Ms. Izumi Nakamitsu for her briefing today. In recent weeks there have been new, alarming reports of alleged chemical-weapon attacks in Syria. The most recent allegation was this weekend in Idlib. These reported attacks must be immediately investigated by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) Fact-finding Mission, to which we offer our full and unreserved support. We reiterate our strongest condemnation of the use of chemical weapons. It is a serious violation 05/02/2018 The situation in the Middle East S/PV.8174 18-03099 9/17 of international law and it constitutes a threat to international peace and security. Their use in armed conflict amounts to a war crime. Perpetrators of such crimes must be held accountable. We cannot accept impunity. That is why Sweden joined the International Partnership against Impunity for the Use of Chemical Weapons, initiated by France. As a member of the Security Council and of the OPCW Executive Council, we support all international efforts to combat the use and proliferation of chemical weapons by State and non-State actors alike anywhere in the world. We count on this initiative to complement and support our collective work in multilateral forums, as well as the existing multilateral mechanisms to achieve unity around those important goals. That also includes the Human Rights Council's Commission of Inquiry and the International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism, both of which have important mandates in collecting information. I again thank High Representative Nakamitsu for her briefing today. She reminded us that work remains on the implementation of resolution 2118 (2013). The outstanding issues relating to Syria's initial declaration must be resolved without further delay. We again call upon the Syrian authorities to fully cooperate with the OPCW in that regard. As the Secretary-General has stated, the continuing allegations highlight yet again our shared obligation to identify and hold to account those responsible for the use chemical weapons on Syria. We need to heed his call, come together and act. That is why Sweden has engaged in the negotiations on establishing a new independent and impartial attributive mechanism. The Council has a responsibility to protect the international disarmament and non-proliferation regimes and for ensuring accountability. Negotiations need to be in good faith, but with the objective of establishing a truly independent, impartial and effective mechanism for accountability. Ms. Wronecka (Poland) (spoke in Arabic): I would like to take this opportunity to wish the delegation of Kuwait every success in implementing the programme of work for this month. (spoke in English) Let me thank High Representative Izumi Nakamitsu for her informative briefing. We appreciate the ongoing work of the Technical Secretariat of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and the Fact-finding Mission. We welcome the cooperation between the secretariat and the United Nations Office for Project Services, which facilitated the destruction of the two remaining chemical-weapon production facilities. We look forward to the results of the analysis by the Declaration Assessment Team of a set of documents and declarations submitted by Syria. Chemical weapons continue to pose a threat to the people of Syria. Repeated allegations of the use of chemical weapons in Syria, including the recent ones, serve to underline the fact that there is still a challenge to international peace and security, as well as to the credibility of the Chemical Weapons Convention regime. In that context, there is a genuine need for a clear message that impunity for perpetrators is not an option. We have clearly stated in various forums that the use of chemical weapons by anyone — State and non-State actors alike — anywhere and under any circumstances must be rigorously condemned and those responsible for such acts must be held accountable. We agree that the Security Council needs to take steps in order to establish a credible, professional and independent investigative mechanism. We have therefore engaged in the discussions to find the best solution for the future mechanism. I would like to focus on three points. First, Poland has supported the work of the OPCW-United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM) and continues to support the establishment of an independent and credible investigative mechanism aimed at holding accountable the perpetrators of the use of chemical weapons in Syria. However, a future mechanism will not operate in a void. The instrument must build on the Joint Investigative Mechanism. Not only should it build on the significant achievements of the JIM, but its mandate must not deviate from resolution 2235 (2015). Secondly, the mandate of the mechanism should be balanced. There is a need to identify not only the individuals, entities and groups but also the Governments responsible for any use of chemicals as weapons. Thirdly, one of the most important elements of the mandate must be to ensure that the mechanism is independent in its proceedings and conclusions and S/PV.8174 The situation in the Middle East 05/02/2018 10/17 18-03099 free from the pressure of political verification of its conclusions by the Council. Mr. Ndong Mba (Equatorial Guinea) (spoke in Spanish): Allow me once again to congratulate you, Mr. President, and the State of Kuwait on your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council for the month of February. I wish you every success and assure you of our full support. Allow me also to express my congratulations and appreciation to Ms. Izumi Nakamitsu, Under-Secretary-General and High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, and her team for the presentation of the comprehensive and detailed briefing on the current political and humanitarian situation with regard to chemical weapons in Syria. The political — and in particular the humanitarian — crisis in Syria is reaching alarming proportions. The Republic of Equatorial Guinea expresses its solidarity with the families of the countless victims, as well as with the thousands of displaced people trapped by the hostilities and the more than 13 million people who currently need humanitarian assistance as a result of the continuing conflict. I would like to take this opportunity to condemn the loss of numerous civilian lives in this conflict, and I call on all parties to comply with international law on the protection of civilians and to distinguish between military and civilian objectives and refrain from firing rocket launchers into populated areas, as is being reported in eastern Ghouta. Equatorial Guinea can only express its satisfaction at the destruction of almost all the chemical-weapon production facilities declared by the Syrian Arab Republic thanks to the technical assistance of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). However, while we welcome the cooperation between the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic and the OPCW, it is necessary to be vigilant and to continue to condemn in the strongest terms any possible use, development, acquisition or manufacture of chemical weapons in the country or transfers of such weapons to other States or non-State actors. In that regard, we vigorously condemn the recent use of toxic chemical weapons by whomsoever. The perpetrators of such horrendous acts must be brought to justice and sentenced appropriately. For seven years already, Syria has been a war scenario that crystallizes internal, regional and, even, international divisions. The primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security bestowed upon the Security Council by the Charter of the United Nations should lead the 15 member countries of this principal organ of the United Nations to overcome their differences regarding the situation in Syria and to renounce their political and strategic interests in favour of the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people to achieve well-being and prosperity. In that regard, it is appropriate that, as Russia has already proposed, another mechanism be established to replace the OPCW-United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism so that it can carry out the necessary investigations on the use of chemical weapons in Syria and thereby arrive at a result that garners consensus among the members of the Council in order to again unify our criteria for an objective examination of the situation. Mr. Nebenzia (Russian Federation) (spoke in Russian): At the outset, I would like to congratulate you, Mr. President, at the beginning of your presidency of the Security Council for the month of February. I wish you every success. We also thank Ms. Nakamitsu for her briefing. We trust that, with the assistance of the United Nations Office for Project Services and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), the two remaining above-ground Syrian chemical-weapon facilities will be promptly destroyed. The Syrian side has repeatedly demonstrated its interest in that. The pending issues related to the initial declarations should be dealt with as part of the dialogue between the OPCW and the Syrian Government. We welcome such cooperation, by which Syria, as a conscientious party to the Chemical Weapons Convention, provides the necessary assistance, complies with its obligations and facilitates access to the relevant documents. Many people have raised false issues that should now be closed and put aside. Syria's chemical-weapon capacity was destroyed under the oversight of the OPCW. However, it seems that there are some who wish to contrive to fan the flames on the issue. The Syrians have provided exhaustive explanations. However, issues are being raised and questions are being asked in a endless cycle. The Syrian side consistently reports to the international community, including the Security Council, about the detection of toxic chemical substances in areas liberated from the terrorists. There 05/02/2018 The situation in the Middle East S/PV.8174 18-03099 11/17 are reports from Syria about possible provocations that may be used by representatives of foreign intelligence services. All such reports must be investigated immediately by the experts of the OPCW. However, we note that, in general, tremendous efforts are necessary for The Hague to duly respond to the important message. There are numerous pretexts being put forward not to travel there and decisions are being delayed. In the light of last year's story of Khan Shaykhun and the Shayrat air base, such conduct suggests deliberate sabotage. However, the statements today have left us with the impression that it is not Syria that some delegations are interested in. The United States and the United Kingdom have used today's meeting to slander Russia, and it is quite clear why that is happening. Someone cannot tolerate the success of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi and the prospects it offers for injecting new momentum into the political process in Syria. That requires launching a major campaign of slander against Russia in order to try, not for the first time, to cast doubt on Russia's role in the Syrian political settlement. As always, the statements of these representatives contain a grain of truth mixed with mountains of lies. Russia has never contested the use of sarin in Khan Shaykhun. But who it was used by is still a mystery, because the absurd conclusions of the OPCW-United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM) have not convinced us. In the past few days there has been general uproar about alleged incidents involving the use of chlorine in some Damascus suburbs. There has already been talk of the use of sarin. Where? When? By whom? The outlines of this propaganda campaign are not new. The terrorists, through the social associations that are closely linked to them, foremost among them the notorious White Helmets, spread rumours via social networks. These are instantly picked up by the Western press, and then we get representatives speechifying in the Security Council, making unproved accusations about the so-called Syrian regime and spreading slander about Russia. I have said it before and I will say it again: has anyone thought to ask the basic question as to why the Syrian Government needs to use chemical weapons? What do we suppose that could do for it? The first thing we should do, and various speakers today, particularly the representative of Sweden, have discussed this, is to send an OPCW fact-finding mission to those areas to investigate. Where is the presumption of innocence? The speakers are blaming the so-called regime for everything in advance, before any investigation. What do they want an independent investigative mechanism for? Surely at least they know that an investigation has to precede any conclusions. But apparently they do not need one. In my opinion, it should be completely clear to everyone that that the capitals that these representatives represent in the Council have absolutely no interest in any investigation. They do not need facts or precise evidence. They need to see a political order carried out. On 23 January, Russia announced the launch in the Security Council of expert efforts to draft a resolution establishing a new investigative entity for incidents involving the use of chemical weapons to replace the defunct OPCW-United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism, which was killed by the United States and its allies when they blocked the draft resolution (S/2017/968) that we proposed, together with China and Bolivia, designed to ensure that the Mechanism could be genuinely independent and professional. Not only do they not recall that episode, they have made strenuous attempts to convince the Security Council and the world community of the opposite. It has become clear that some of our partners are not prepared to consider this possibility. They want a second JIM that would continue to rubber-stamp the scientifically and technically ridiculous anti-Damascus conclusions on the basis of disinformation generously supplied by militant groups. They have long had a persistent allergy to the pressing need to pay close attention to the activities of terrorist groups, both in Syria and beyond its borders, in the context of manipulating toxic substances. In the realization that we will not allow the now entirely discredited JIM to be revived, Syria's opponents are now attempting to take alternative routes, cobbling together narrow groups of like-minded people. However, they are forgetting that in doing that they are undermining the authority of international bodies, particularly the United Nations and the OPCW, and destroying the international architecture on the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Any initiatives in the context of the use of chemical weapons that circumvent the OPCW would be illegitimate. We certainly hope that the leadership of the United Nations Secretariat and the OPCW Technical Secretariat will make a firm show of will and distance themselves from such dubious projects. S/PV.8174 The situation in the Middle East 05/02/2018 12/17 18-03099 We are ready to accept a press statement on the Syrian chemical issue, but not the one proposed by its sponsors, because in its current form its purpose is quite clearly to blame the Government of Syria for what is so far the unproved use of chemical weapons. Somehow the draft statement does not say anything about the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic, but the reference to Article 7 of the Charter of the United Nations leaves no doubt as to its essence. We cannot accept any still unconfirmed references to the use of chemical weapons without a credible investigation, nor can we accept any threats to a sovereign State for unproved actions. For some reason, eastern Ghouta has been dragged into the statement. I would like to remind the Council that last week we were prepared to accept an agreed-on draft presidential statement on the humanitarian situation in Syria. But our partners preferred to reject it. We are ready to accept a press statement, but not as it is proposed by our colleagues. We have proposed amendments to it that we are ready to circulate and agree on in that form. Mr. Tanoh-Boutchoue (Côte d'Ivoire) (spoke in French): I would like to congratulate Kuwait through you, Mr. President, on its accession to the presidency of the Security Council for the month of February, to wish it every success and assure it of Côte d'Ivoire's cooperation. I would also like to thank Ms. Izumi Nakamitsu, High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, for her excellent briefing. My delegation commends the work of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons through its Fact-finding Mission with regard to the dismantling of Syria's chemical-weapon stocks. We encourage the Syrian Government to comply with decisions regarding the destruction of its chemical arsenal. My delegation is seriously concerned about the reports in the past week once again alleging the possible use of chemical weapons in the conflict in Syria, particularly in eastern Ghouta, where 21 cases of suffocation have been reported. They represent a significant reversal in our efforts to combat impunity with regard to the use of chemical weapons in Syria. The suffering inflicted on the Syrian people is intolerable and must be ended. In that regard, my country calls for continued efforts to implement resolution 2118 (2013), which provides for the complete dismantling of the Syrian chemical-weapons arsenal. These new allegations of the use of chemical weapons once again call into question the Council's responsibility, particularly in terms of putting an end to these acts as soon as possible and of clearly identifying the perpetrators of such criminal acts. In its latest statement on the issue of chemical weapons in Syria (see S/PV.8164), my delegation warned against the Council's failure to act, which could be interpreted by those involved in the use of such weapons in Syria as a weakness of this organ and licence to act with impunity. Clearly, those who commit these despicable acts will continue to do so as long as the Council remains divided about the need to set up a consensus-based framework capable of identifying perpetrators and bringing them to justice. My delegation therefore encourages all ongoing initiatives that support the establishment of an accountability mechanism acceptable to all. In conclusion, Côte d'Ivoire reiterates its strong condemnation of the use of chemical weapons in Syria and calls upon the relevant United Nations mechanisms to shed light on the new allegations of the use of such weapons. My delegation eagerly awaits the conclusions of the report that will be submitted after the second round of inspections conducted at the Scientific Studies and Research Centre in Syria. Mr. Wu Haitao (China) (spoke in Chinese): China congratulates Kuwait on assuming the presidency of the Security Council for the current month. We also commend Kazakhstan for its accomplishments during its presidency last month. I wish to thank the High Representative Nakamitsu for her briefing. China welcomes the progress achieved in the verification and destruction of the two remaining chemical-weapon facilities within Syria's borders. We support the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in continuing its coordination and cooperation with the Syrian Government so as to properly settle all the questions revolving around the initial declarations of chemical weapons by Syria through the OPCW platform. China expresses its deepest sympathy to the Syrian people for their suffering as the result of chemical weapons. No use of chemical weapons will be tolerated. Lately, there have been some media reports of suspected use of chlorine and other poisonous chemicals as weapons within Syria's borders, over which China wishes to register its deepest concern. It is hoped that 05/02/2018 The situation in the Middle East S/PV.8174 18-03099 13/17 the parties will carry out verification of the related incidents as soon as possible. When it comes to the question of chemical weapons, China's position is as clear cut as it is consistent. We stand firmly against the use of chemical weapons by any country, organization or individual for whatever purpose and under any circumstances. China supports conducting comprehensive, objective and impartial investigations into any alleged use of chemical weapons within Syrian borders so as to come up with results that withstand the test of time, square with the facts and help bring the perpetrators to justice. Establishing a new chemical-weapon investigative mechanism is critical to getting to the bottom of the chemical-weapon incidents as well as warding off any future recurrences in Syria. All Council parties should work together to that end. China supports the efforts on the part of Russia to promote the establishment of a new investigative mechanism into the use of chemical weapons in Syria. We hope that the members of the Council will continue to engage in constructive consultations so as to achieve consensus at an early date. The chemical-weapon issue in Syria is closely related to a political settlement to the Syrian situation. Major achievements have been made at the Syrian National Dialogue Congress, held recently in Sochi, which played a positive role in advancing the Syrian political process, while lending impetus to relaunching the Geneva talks. It is China's hope that relevant parties will support the Security Council and the OPCW in continuing to act as the main channel for tackling the Syrian chemical-weapon issue, adopt a constructive attitude, seek proper solutions through consultation, maintain the unity of the Council and work with the United Nations and with the relevant parties in advancing the political process in Syria. Mr. Van Oosterom (Netherlands): As this is the first time that I take the floor under the Kuwaiti presidency of the Security Council, I would like to congratulate and honour Kuwait's assumption of the presidency by trying to offer my thanks in Arabic: (spoke in Arabic) Thank you, Mr. President. (spoke in English) I would also like to thank Ms. Nakamitsu for her comprehensive and clear briefing. I will address three issues today: first, reports of the renewed use of chemical weapons in Syria; secondly, the need for accountability; and, thirdly, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) report at hand (S/2018/84, annex). With respect to the renewed use of chemical weapons in the past weeks, the Kingdom of the Netherlands is shocked at the recent reports of chemical attacks in Syria, including this weekend and last night. We are outraged. In Douma, in eastern Ghouta, and last night in Saraqeb, in Idlib, innocent civilians, including children, have become victims once again of horrible chemical-weapon attacks. Such attacks deserve the strongest condemnation of the Security Council as violations of international law. Furthermore, recent OPCW laboratory tests show that samples of the chemical attack on Ghouta in August 2013 correspond to the chemical-weapons arsenal declared by the Syrian regime in 2014 and the Khan Shaykun attack in 2017. This confirms once again that the Al-Assad regime uses chemical weapons against its own population. We pay tribute to the work of the White Helmets, who have saved more a 100,000 civilians from the rubble of the Syrian war. The use of chemical weapons should never go unpunished. Impunity erodes the important prohibition against the use of chemical weapons. It is inconceivable that impunity now reigns, which brings me to my second point, namely, the need for accountability. As others have said, we had a well-functioning and professional mechanism to ensure accountability for the use of chemical weapons in Syria, the Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM). The JIM repeatedly determined the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime and by Da'esh. It had a strong mandate to investigate and identify perpetrators independently from the politics of the Security Council. And it did so accordingly, but the renewal of its mandate fell victim to the repeated use of the veto. However, that does not mean that we now need to settle for less. The Kingdom of the Netherlands is prepared to work together on any proposal that strengthens accountability and the international rule of law. But let me emphasize that a weak accountability mechanism is not an option. For us, the fundamental characteristics of any accountability mechanism are the principles of impartiality, independence, comprehensiveness and effectiveness. S/PV.8174 The situation in the Middle East 05/02/2018 14/17 18-03099 In order to uphold those principles, a mechanism should at least meet the following requirements. First, it should operate independently from the Security Council, including when it comes to the attribution of guilt. It should be impartial. The separation of powers is necessary to prevent undue politicization. Secondly, the mechanism should be effective; it should independently decide how it will conduct its investigations, including when it comes to analysing facts and assessing the quality of evidence. Lastly, it should be comprehensive and investigate and identify perpetrators among all parties to the armed conflict — both State and non-State actors. The draft resolution that is currently being discussed has not yet met those important principles. That brings me to my third point, namely, the fifty-second OPCW report (S/2018/84, annex), which the High Representative presented very clearly in her briefing. The report points out that, unfortunately, too little progress has been made by the Syrian authorities in addressing the outstanding questions that the OPCW posed about the declaration of the Syrian authorities. It is essential that the Syrian authorities cooperate seriously with the OPCW. The Kingdom of the Netherlands supports the continuation of the work of OPCW Fact-finding Mission. We call on all States to ensure that the Fact-finding Mission can continue its work independently. In conclusion, we stand ready to adopt the draft press statement, as circulated before. We are convinced that the Security Council cannot allow the continued use of chemical weapons to go unpunished. Impunity is a curse; accountability is a must. The Council has to act. As long as the Council is blocked from achieving accountability by the use of the veto, we will also continue our efforts outside the Council. We therefore strongly support other accountability initiatives for Syria, such as the International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism for the Syrian Arab Republic and the Human Rights Council's Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic. We also support the International Partnership against Impunity for the Use of Chemical Weapons, which was just highlighted by our French colleague. However, let me repeat what I have said in the Chamber before, the Council should refer the situation in Syria, especially the mass atrocities committed in the conflict, to the International Criminal Court in The Hague. Mr. Alemu (Ethiopia): We are very pleased to see you, Mr. President, assuming responsibility for the presidency. I wish to thank High Representative Izumi Nakamitsu for her briefing, which, as always, we found to be balanced, and therefore useful. We are in need of that kind of approach. Frankly speaking, we need that very desperately. During times such as this, when we seem to be so deeply divided, the role of United Nations officials like her becomes all the more critical. We thank her. We remain deeply concerned by the continued reports on the use of chemical weapons in Syria. We strongly condemn the use of chemical weapons by any actor, State and non-State alike, in Syria or anywhere else. As we have stated repeatedly, the use of chemical weapons is totally unjustifiable under any circumstances. It constitutes a threat to international peace and security and undermines the international non-proliferation architecture. We cannot agree more with what the Secretary-General stated in the concluding paragraph of his letter of 1 February: "The fact of these continuing allegations again highlights the shared obligation to identify and hold to account those responsible for the use of chemical weapons." That is why the unity of the Council is absolutely important. Without it, the Council's ability to respond to grave threats to international peace and security, such as the use of chemicals as weapons, will be seriously hampered. In that regard, what High Representative Nakamitsu said a while ago is most relevant: "unity, not impunity". Let me say that we regret that the Council was not able to renew the mandate of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons-United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism. If we are not able to address this institutional gap by drawing lessons from last year and forge the necessary unity and compromise, we will be sending the wrong message and encouraging impunity. The fact that chemical-weapon attacks have continued as recently as yesterday worries us very much. That is why it is so critical that we seek an independent way of establishing accountability. We appreciate the initiative taken by the Russian Federation to propose a draft resolution on the establishment of a new mechanism, which has been the basis for discussion in recent days. This is a conversation that we welcome. As we continue to discuss this very important matter, our consultations should be constructive and forward-looking. Of course, 05/02/2018 The situation in the Middle East S/PV.8174 18-03099 15/17 we are not naive; we have no illusions about how matters are becoming more and more complicated by the day. However, we still hope that the Council will restore its unity to reach common ground and create an independent, impartial and professional mechanism that will be able to identify those responsible for the use of chemical weapons in Syria, based on robust evidence. We welcome that the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) has continued to assist the Syrian Government in destroying the remaining stationary above-ground facilities. As the High Representative stated, we hope the facilities will be totally eliminated in the coming month. We have just heard a very encouraging statement from the High Representative. We note that the OPCW has translated and finalized its analysis of the 19 documents submitted by the Syrian Government. While we look forward to the final report, we encourage continued cooperation and meaningful communication between the Syrian Government and the OPCW that leads to tangible results to address the outstanding issues. We also note that its Fact-finding Mission has continued its investigation related to allegations of the use of chemical weapons in Syria. We look forward to its reports. Let me conclude by again reiterating, at the risk of sounding naive, how the unity of the Council is vital to ensuring accountability and deterring and stopping the use of chemical weapons in Syria and elsewhere. We only hope that the challenge we face in this area is not a reflection of the growing lack of trust that characterizes international relations today, making joint action in most critical areas more complicated than it should be. The President (spoke in Arabic): I shall now make a statement in my capacity as the representative of Kuwait. At the outset, I would like to thank the High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, Ms. Izumi Nakamitsu, for the briefing she gave at the beginning of this meeting. We had hoped that the Security Council's unanimous adoption of resolution 2118 (2013), in September 2013 following the first incident involving the use of chemical weapons in Syria, would have resolved this matter, since the Council had demonstrated unity and determination in confronting that crime with a view to ensuring that it not be repeated and that its perpetrators be held accountable. Consequently, we regret the substantial regression in addressing the chemical-weapon issue in Syria, which is a result of the divisions among Council members after the Council was unable to extend the mandate of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons-United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism in Syria, which we feel carried out its tasks in a very professional, impartial and independent manner. We express our deep concern about the allegations of the continued use of chemical weapons in Syria, most recently during the attack in Douma, in eastern Ghouta, last week and during the attack that took place in Saraqeb, in Idlib, yesterday. This is the third such attack during the past few weeks, which means that the perpetrators of those crimes will go unpunished and that there is no guarantee that they, or anyone else, who commits such crimes in the future will be held accountable, after we lost the Joint Investigative Mechanism. The position of the State of Kuwait is a principled and steadfast one that strongly condemns any use of chemical weapons, wherever, whenever and by whomsoever, as this is considered a grave violation of international law. We reiterate the need to hold accountable those responsible for such use, be they individuals, entities, non-State groups or Governments. In that context, we condemn the use of heavy and destructive weapons as well as the targeting civilians and residential areas killing dozens of innocent victims. These weapons target health facilities and civilian locations in eastern Ghouta, Idlib and other areas. We therefore support the International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism for Syria in its quest to gather evidence and investigate the crimes committed against civilians in order to hold the perpetrators accountable. The State of Kuwait will support any alternative or mechanism that enjoys the consensus of all members of the Security Council and ensures the independence, neutrality and professionalism of any new future mechanism. In that regard, we reaffirm that the primary responsibility of any mechanism must be to determine the identity of those using chemical weapons in Syria, provided that the Security Council would then play its role and hold the perpetrators accountable, in implementation of the principle of ending impunity and of resolution 2118 (2013), which undoubtedly stipulates the imperative need for, and importance of, holding accountable those responsible for the use of chemical S/PV.8174 The situation in the Middle East 05/02/2018 16/17 18-03099 weapons in Syria. We also look forward to receiving the report that will soon be submitted by the Fact-finding Mission, as mentioned by Ms. Nakamitsu in her earlier briefing on the most recent incidents, as well as her reports on the use of chlorine gas in Saraqib. In conclusion, we reiterate our full readiness to take part in any efforts that are aimed at reaching consensus among Security Council members and at holding accountable the perpetrators of such internationally prohibited crimes. We assert that a political solution in Syria is the only way to arrive at a comprehensive settlement of the crisis, in accordance with the relevant Security Council resolutions, especially resolution 2254 (2015) and the 2012 Geneva communiqué (S/2012/522, annex). I now resume my functions as President of the Council. The representative of the United Kingdom has asked for the floor to make a further statement. Mr. Allen (United Kingdom): I disagree with a lot of what my Russian colleague said, but I will not stretch my colleagues' patience. But I do feel compelled briefly to respond to several of the points that he made. The first point is to say that this is not political for us. Preventing the use of these abhorrent weapons should transcend political disagreements. We do not oppose Russia's important role in Syria at all. We noted the outcomes of Sochi, and we look forward to the proposal for a constitutional committee returning to the next round of Geneva talks, with the full participation of Russia and the Syrian authorities, as was laid out in resolution 2254 (2015). The second point I would simply make is that the notion that it was anyone other than Russia that ended the Joint Investigative Mechanism is absurd. The voting records of the Council are clear and are available to all. Russia vetoed three different proposals for the extension of the Mechanism, the last of which simply extended it for a short period and requested the Secretary-General to make recommendations, but even that was unacceptable. Finally, on a note of agreement, I just want, like my Dutch colleague, to praise the incredible work of the White Helmets, who risk their own lives on a daily basis to save thousands of Syrians civilians. The President (spoke in Arabic): I now give the floor to the representative of the Syrian Arab Republic. Mr. Mounzer (Syrian Arab Republic) (spoke in Arabic): My country condemns and rejects in the strongest possible terms any use of chemical weapons or of any other weapon of mass destruction, as this constitutes a crime against humanity and an unethical and unjustifiable act, under any circumstances. The real target of such weapons is the Syrian people, who remain the primary victims of the crimes committed by armed terrorist groups, which have not hesitated to use chemical weapons against them. I reaffirm before the Security Council that my country has sought, and continues to seek, to identify the real perpetrators responsible for the use of chemical weapons in my country, Syria. Based on those steadfast principles, my Government joined the Chemical Weapons Convention and has honoured all of its commitments thereunder. My country achieved an unprecedented and definitive feat in the history of the Organization by ending the Syrian chemical-weapons programme in record time. That was corroborated in the report of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons-United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism to the Council in June 2014. My country is the party most desirous of uncovering the truth. We have always supported, and will continue to support, in principle any initiative by the Council whose aim is to establish the truth, identify those who are really trading in the blood of the Syrian people and using toxic chemical substances against Syrian civilians, including armed terrorist groups, as well as levelling false accusations against the Syrian Government. In that regard, on behalf of the Government of my country, I once again reiterate our condemnation of all American and Western allegations accusing us of committing chemical-weapon attacks in our country. I reaffirm that those accusations are groundless and cheap lies. International public opinion and the majority of United Nations Members now know that this is but standard procedure for the United States and its allies in the Council each and every time they learn that the armed terrorist groups that they finance, arm and support on the ground in Syria are at an impasse and losing ground to the advancing Syrian army and its allies. The latter are today waging a war, on behalf of the entire world, against terrorism, which, unfortunately, is being supported by certain Governments that have no interest 05/02/2018 The situation in the Middle East S/PV.8174 18-03099 17/17 in ensuring international peace and security and are solely seeking to advance their own political agendas. My Government reaffirms once again that the United States, the United Kingdom and France are fully responsible for the paralysis of international investigative mechanisms concerning the use of toxic chemical substances, as the Governments of those States are seeking to shield the armed terrorist groups that they support. We recall before all present here that it is Syria that originally called for an investigation into instances of the use of toxic gas by armed terrorist groups. False accusations against my Government of using toxic chemical substances are attempts to cover up its efforts to reveal to the world that certain armed terrorist groups and their sponsors have continued to perpetrate crimes against innocent civilians through the use, more than once, of toxic substances. The Syrian Government has provided the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and the OPCW-United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM) with evidence that proves that such groups possess banned toxic substances. We have repeatedly called for the carrying out of investigations to corroborate such evidence. However, our calls have been ignored. All of my colleagues here recall that the United States and its allies destroyed the JIM. Through their practices here in the Council, they put an end to the Mechanism. They brought pressure to bear on its Chair and its members by pressuring them to refuse to visit Khan Shaykhun. Rather than conduct a field visit to collect real evidence, they merely sought to level accusations and offered up evidence trumped up by Western countries to undermine Syria, to support terrorist groups and to cover up their responsibility for this incident. That occurred after the United States and its partners rejected the call by the Russian Federation to stop the politicization of the work of the JIM and to rectify its methodology by refraining from using false evidence and, instead, limiting itself to scientific and legally sound and reasonable proof. My country continues to honour all of its commitments — the ones we assumed when we joined the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction. We shall persevere in our fight against terrorism — a war that we will wage despite any political or media blackmail or any exploitation of the blood of innocent civilians in Syria. The Permanent Mission of the Syrian Arab Republic will today circulate a letter of the National Committee for the Implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, in response to the United States allegations vis-à-vis the work of the JIM and the Fact-finding Mission of the OPCW. The letter proves with scientific and legal evidence that the accusations against my country are false and that Syria has never used such chemicals, and will we ever use them, because we do not possess them. Let us recall that those who level such false accusations against Syria are the Governments of the same States with a dark history of using such internationally prohibited weapons against millions of innocent people — in Viet Nam, Cambodia, Algeria and the list goes on. Finally, on behalf of my Government, I would like to extend our gratitude to the Russian Federation and to friendly countries in the Council, countries that seek to establish truth based on their awareness about the pernicious aims behind the false accusations. They have demonstrated their commitment to the supremacy of the principles of international law and the Charter of the United Nations, as well as their conviction that such abnormal practices undermine the credibility of international actions and institutions and jeopardize international peace and security. The meeting rose at 11.45 a.m.
Speeches Delivered In Other Languages. ; United Nations S/PV.8182 Security Council Seventy-third year 8182nd meeting Wednesday, 14 February 2018, 3 p.m. New York Provisional President: Mr. Alotaibi. . (Kuwait) Members: Bolivia (Plurinational State of). . Mr. Inchauste Jordán China. . Mr. Zhang Dianbin Côte d'Ivoire. . Mr. Tanoh-Boutchoue Equatorial Guinea. . Mr. Ndong Mba Ethiopia. . Ms. Guadey France. . Mrs. Gueguen Kazakhstan. . Mr. Umarov Netherlands. . Mrs. Gregoire Van Haaren Peru. . Mr. Meza-Cuadra Poland. . Ms. Wronecka Russian Federation. . Mr. Polyanskiy Sweden . Mr. Skoog United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland . Mr. Clay United States of America. . Ms. Tachco Agenda The situation in Guinea-Bissau Report of the Secretary-General on developments in Guinea-Bissau and the activities of the United Nations Integrated Peacebuilding Office in Guinea-Bissau (S/2018/110) This record contains the text of speeches delivered in English and of the translation of speeches delivered in other languages. The final text will be printed in the Official Records of the Security Council. Corrections should be submitted to the original languages only. They should be incorporated in a copy of the record and sent under the signature of a member of the delegation concerned to the Chief of the Verbatim Reporting Service, room U-0506 (verbatimrecords@un.org). Corrected records will be reissued electronically on the Official Document System of the United Nations (http://documents.un.org). 18-04195 (E) *1804195* S/PV.8182 The situation in Guinea-Bissau 14/02/2018 2/20 18-04195 The meeting was called to order at 3.10 p.m. Adoption of the agenda The agenda was adopted. The situation in Guinea-Bissau Report of the Secretary-General on developments in Guinea-Bissau and the activities of the United Nations Integrated Peacebuilding Office in Guinea-Bissau (S/2018/110) The President (spoke in Arabic): In accordance with rule 37 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure, I invite the representatives of Guinea-Bissau and Togo to participate in this meeting. In accordance with rule 39 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure, I invite the following briefers to participate in the meeting: Mr. Modibo Touré, Special Representative of the Secretary-General and Head of the United Nations Integrated Peacebuilding Office in Guinea-Bissau, and His Excellency Mr. Mauro Vieira, Permanent Representative of Brazil to the United Nations, in his capacity as Chair of the Guinea- Bissau configuration of the Peacebuilding Commission. Mr. Touré is joining the meeting via video-teleconference from Bissau. The Security Council will now begin its consideration of the item on its agenda. I wish to draw the attention of Council members to document S/2018/110, which contains the report of the Secretary-General on developments in Guinea-Bissau and the activities of the United Nations Integrated Peacebuilding Office in Guinea-Bissau. I now give the floor to Mr. Touré. Mr. Touré: I thank the Security Council for this opportunity to introduce the report of the Secretary- General (S/2018/110) on the situation in Guinea-Bissau and the activities of the United Nations Integrated Peacebuilding Office in Guinea-Bissau (UNIOGBIS). As the report already presents a detailed outline of recent events in Guinea-Bissau, my intervention will focus on updating the Council on political developments since its issuance, while analysing present challenges and making proposals for the way forward. This briefing takes place against the backdrop of a rapidly evolving political situation in Guinea-Bissau. Over the past several weeks, a series of key events have occurred with important ramifications. At the country level, President José Mário Vaz dismissed former Prime Minister Umaro Sissoco Embaló and replaced him with Mr. Artur Da Silva. The African Party for the Independence of Guinea and Cape Verde (PAIGC) finally held its party congress despite attempts by national authorities to block it, and re-elected Domingos Simões Pereira as its leader. At the regional level, on 4 February, the Authority of Heads of State and Government of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), pursuant to its decision of 27 January, imposed targeted sanctions on 19 individuals deemed to be obstructing the implementation of the Conakry Agreement. Those individuals and their family members are subject to travel bans and assets freeze. They have also been suspended from ECOWAS activities. The ECOWAS Authority also requested the African Union (AU), the Community of Portuguese-speaking Countries, the European Union, the United Nations and other partners to support and facilitate the enforcement of the sanctions. Since the imposition of the sanctions, the reaction of national stakeholders has been mixed. Those upon whom the sanctions were imposed have described them as unsubstantiated and unjust, while those in favour of the sanctions have characterized them as a necessary measure to safeguard the country's democratic course. Meanwhile, national reactions to the appointment of Mr. Artur Da Silva as the new Prime Minister have been generally consistent. On 31 January, the PAIGC issued a statement denouncing Mr. Da Silva's appointment as not being in conformity with the Conakry Agreement. Last week, the Party for Social Renewal, the second largest party in Parliament, and the group of 15 dissident parliamentarians of the PAIGC also issued public statements stressing that they would participate only in a Government formed under a consensual Prime Minister, in strict compliance with the Conakry Agreement. Thus far, the Prime Minister's efforts to consult with political parties represented in the National Assembly on the formation of an inclusive Government have not borne fruit. Under my leadership, the group of five regional and international partners, comprised of representatives of the African Union, the Community of Portuguese-speaking Countries, ECOWAS, the European Union and the United Nations, has continued 14/02/2018 The situation in Guinea-Bissau S/PV.8182 18-04195 3/20 to harmonize efforts and messaging at opportune moments with the aim of creating a stable and enabling environment for dialogue among political leaders. So far this year, I have convened three meetings of the group. My efforts, together with those of the partners, have focused on engaging national authorities and key political stakeholders in Guinea-Bissau to defuse escalating tensions, encourage political dialogue in order to ease the political gridlock, call for the protection and respect for the human rights of Bissau-Guinean citizens, and urge all aggrieved stakeholders to pursue their grievances through legal and constitutional means. Furthermore, under my direction, UNIOGBIS continues to play a central role in supporting and facilitating the regional mediation efforts of ECOWAS by, inter alia, ensuring the participation of Bissau- Guinean stakeholders at the ECOWAS Summit in Abuja in December 2017, providing substantive and logistical support for the ECOWAS high-level delegations during their missions to Bissau and regularly sensitizing regional leaders to ongoing political developments within the country, while encouraging them to exert their influence on protagonists in order to reach compromises. The absence of a functioning and stable Government for more than three years has limited the ability of UNIOGBIS to effectively and sustainably implement some of its mandated tasks. As recommended by the strategic review mission headed by the Department of Political Affairs in 2016 and endorsed by the Council last year, I have streamlined the UNIOGBIS leadership and structure to promote better integration and complementarity with the United Nations country team and other international partners, while boosting the Mission's political capacities, which has enabled me to exercise my good offices more effectively at the national level. Those changes have also assisted the broader United Nations system in Guinea-Bissau in delivering more focused and integrated peacebuilding support to national authorities and civil society, including women and youth. In this regard, the support provided by the Peacebuilding Fund has been critical. Going forward, UNIOGBIS will need to focus its energies on supporting national leaders in their efforts to appoint an acceptable Prime Minister, establish an inclusive Government, organize and conduct timely elections, and implement the priority reforms outlined in the Conakry Agreement and the ECOWAS road map. Until the completion of the electoral cycle in 2019, Guinea-Bissau remains more than ever a country that requires a dedicated United Nations presence to prevent a further deterioration in the political and security situation at the national level and avoid any negative consequences in the subregion. In this context, my good offices, political facilitation, advocacy and mediation roles, alongside my efforts aimed at promoting respect for human rights and the rule of law and at carrying out integrated peacebuilding support, will continue to be critical. As the Secretary-General has indicated in his report, it is vital that the United Nations remain engaged in peacebuilding efforts in the country while supporting ECOWAS involvement in resolving the political crisis for at least one more year. The Secretary-General has expressed his intention to authorize an assessment of the current mission at the end of that period and to present options to the Security Council for a possible reconfiguration of United Nations presence in the country. It is my hope that the Council will give favourable consideration to this recommendation. The African Union Peace and Security Council (AUPSC), through its communiqué of 13 February, has fully endorsed the measures taken by ECOWAS on 4 February, including the application of sanctions against political obstructionists. It has also requested the African Union Commission to coordinate with the ECOWAS Commission to ensure the effective implementation of these measures. Moreover, it has requested that the Security Council endorse the AUPSC communiqué that endorsed the ECOWAS decision. At this critical juncture, it would be important for the Security Council to continue to reaffirm the centrality of the Conakry Agreement and reiterate its full support for ECOWAS in its mediation efforts and for the measures that it has taken against political stakeholders deemed to be obstructing the resolution of the political crisis. I would further seek the Council's support in underscoring the importance of urgently organizing and holding legislative elections within the constitutionally mandated timeline. Lastly, throughout the past year, the presence of the ECOWAS Mission in Guinea-Bissau (ECOMIB) has consistently acted as a stabilizing factor in the country. I would therefore call on members of the Council and international donors to support the continued presence of ECOMIB through to the holding of a presidential election in 2019, including by advocating for the renewal S/PV.8182 The situation in Guinea-Bissau 14/02/2018 4/20 18-04195 of its mandate and the provision of the financial support needed to maintain its deployment. I would like to express my gratitude to the Council for its continued interest in promoting peace and stability in Guinea-Bissau. I would also like to commend ECOWAS and its current Chair, President Faure Gnassingbé of Togo, and the ECOWAS Mediator for Guinea-Bissau, President Alpha Condé of Guinea, for their tireless mediation efforts. Finally, I would like to express appreciation to all multilateral and bilateral partners, especially to the AU, the Community of Portuguese-speaking Countries and the European Union for their commitment to promoting peace and prosperity in Guinea-Bissau. After several years of long-term investment in the stability of Guinea- Bissau, it is time to consolidate and reap the dividends of our concerted efforts. It is vital that we accompany this process to its completion. The President (spoke in Arabic): I thank Mr. Touré for his briefing. I now give the floor to Mr. Vieira. Mr. Vieira (Brazil): I would like to thank you, Mr. President, for the invitation to address the Security Council in my capacity as Chair of the Guinea-Bissau configuration of the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC). Since my last briefing to the Security Council, on 24 August last year (see S/PV.8031), there have been several important developments in the country. The situation in Guinea-Bissau is rapidly evolving, and the PBC is following it closely. At the most recent Summit of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), held in Abuja on 16 December, the Heads of State and Government gave a 30-day deadline for political actors of Guinea-Bissau to implement the Conakry Agreement. The situation was discussed again by the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the African Union, held in Addis Ababa on 27 January, in the context of its thirtieth ordinary session. After 15 months as Head of Government, Prime Minister Umaro Sissoco Embaló tendered his resignation to President José Mário Vaz, who accepted it on 16 January. On 31 January, Artur Da Silva took office as the new Prime Minister. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Togo, Robert Dussey, led two ECOWAS missions to Bissau this year. On 1 February, the ECOWAS mission issued a final communiqué stating that the nomination of a Prime Minister by consensus, as determined by the Conakry Agreement, had not taken place and that the ECOWAS Commission would start applying sanctions against those who create obstacles to a political solution. On 4 February, ECOWAS issued a decision listing 19 names that will be subject to sanctions, consisting of the exclusion from the activities of the community, a travel ban, and the freezing of assets of the sanctioned persons and their families. The Guinea-Bissau configuration is actively engaged in following the situation in Guinea-Bissau and in providing support for the country through different initiatives. I am also in permanent contact with the Brazilian Ambassador in Bissau, who maintains excellent relations with national authorities, political actors and United Nations representatives. I would remind Council members that Brazil was one of the first countries to recognize Guinea-Bissau in 1974. In that same year we opened an embassy in Bissau. In 2017, I organized a working breakfast with the members of the PBC and four ambassador-level meetings of the Guinea-Bissau configuration. We issued three press statements last year on the situation in the country. I also briefed the Security Council on two occasions, on 14 February (see S/PV. 7883) and on 24 August. Between 25 and 28 July 2017, I conducted my first visit to Bissau in my capacity as Chair of the Guinea-Bissau configuration. I met many political actors, including President José Mário Vaz, then-Prime Minister Sissoco, a number of ministers, members of all parties in the Parliament, and representatives of the United Nations. On my return, I stopped in Lisbon, where I met with the Executive Secretary of the Community of Portuguese-speaking Countries, Ms. Maria do Carmo Silveira. On 15 December 2017, the Peacebuilding Fund (PBF) approved six new projects for Guinea-Bissau, totalling $7 million, to be implemented between January 2018 and June 2019. These projects are designed to help stabilize the country by providing support to the media and the justice sector, as well as support for national reconciliation efforts and the participation of young people and women in peacebuilding and in politics. The Guinea-Bissau configuration of the PBC discussed and 14/02/2018 The situation in Guinea-Bissau S/PV.8182 18-04195 5/20 supported these projects in a meeting held in November last year. The PBC will continue to support Guinea-Bissau not only through the PBF, but also through consultations with different partners, including the World Bank and other international financial institutions. In this context, I am planning a visit to Washington in the coming weeks in order to talk to representatives of the World Bank about possibilities for cooperation with Guinea-Bissau. On Monday, 12 February, I convened a meeting of the Guinea-Bissau configuration of the PBC to discuss the most recent developments in the country. On that occasion, we heard a briefing from the Under- Secretary-General for Political Affairs and Head of the Department of Political Affairs, Mr. Jeffrey Feltman. I would like to thank Under-Secretary-General Feltman for his presence there. It was a positive sign of engagement and trust in the role of the PBC. It also showed his commitment to contributing to a solution to the current impasse in Guinea-Bissau. During that meeting, the participants had the opportunity to discuss the recent developments in the country, including the decision of ECOWAS to impose sanctions. They underlined the need for dialogue and mentioned the role of the region, including the importance of the implementation of the Conakry Agreement. Member States also commended the work of the PBF in Guinea-Bissau. Many participants stressed the relevance of respecting the constitutional framework in organizing elections. Member States welcomed the non-involvement of the armed forces in the political crisis. Many delegations mentioned the positive presence of the ECOWAS Mission in Guinea- Bissau (ECOMIB). Delegations also supported the renewal of the mandate of the United Nations Integrated Peacebuilding Office in Guinea-Bissau (UNIOGBIS), which is expected to happen by the end of this month, and underlined the importance of the good offices of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General, Mr. Modibo Touré. Finally, I also would like to inform the Council that it is my intention to visit Guinea-Bissau in the coming months to consult with a broad range of stakeholders on how the PBC can support peacebuilding efforts in the country and help the political actors find a solution to the current impasse. The exact date of the visit will depend on developments on the ground and will be scheduled in consultation with local authorities. I would like to recall that Brazil is currently the Chair of the Community of Portuguese-speaking Countries (CPLP). As was done when I previously briefed the Council, the CPLP has endorsed my remarks. I would like to conclude my statement by reaffirming that the PBC will continue to make every effort to support Guinea-Bissau and I would like to outline the following recommendations in that regard. I reiterate the support of the configuration for the Bissau six-point road map and the Conakry Agreement as the framework for the resolution of the crisis. I call upon the authorities of Guinea-Bissau and key political actors to show leadership and determination by engaging in actions that would lead to the implementation of those agreements. I take note of the efforts of the region to resolve the political impasse in the country. I stress the importance of holding free and fair elections, in accordance with the Constitution of Guinea- Bissau, and call upon the international community to support that process. I underline the importance of renewing the mandate of UNIOGBIS for another year, as recommended by the Secretary-General. I also recognize the effective, preventive and deterrent role of ECOMIB. Finally, I would like to commend the Special Representative of the Secretary-General, Mr. Modibo Touré, for his efforts to help ensure an enabling political environment in the country. The President (spoke in Arabic): I thank Ambassador Vieira for his briefing. I now give the floor to those Council members who wish to make statements. Mr. Tanoh-Boutchoue (Côte d'Ivoire) (spoke in French): I would like to begin my statement by thanking the Special Representative of the Secretary- General, Mr. Modibo Touré, for his insightful briefing on the situation in Guinea-Bissau and the activities of the United Nations Integrated Peacebuilding Office in Guinea-Bissau. I will focus my statement on two main points: the implementation of the Conakry Agreement by the Guinea-Bissau signatories and the activities of the United Nations Integrated Peacebuilding Office in Guinea-Bissau. S/PV.8182 The situation in Guinea-Bissau 14/02/2018 6/20 18-04195 Guinea-Bissau is going through a new phase in the serious and deep political and institutional crisis of recent years. My country and West Africa are concerned about this situation, which is characterized by a political impasse and requires the Council to act with greater firmness alongside the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the African Union to bring the political actors of Guinea-Bissau to honour their commitments. Indeed, despite the signing on 14 October 2016 of the Conakry Agreement, which was supposed to favour the appointment of a consensus Prime Minister and the establishment of an inclusive Government, the country is again without a Government and confronted by a blockage of Parliament and a deep lack of trust between the President of the Republic and his party, the African Party for the Independence of Guinea and Cape Verde. The stalemate heightens raises concerns not only of a detrimental delay in the electoral calendar, which calls for the holding of legislative elections in May 2018 and presidential elections in 2019, but also of the exacerbation of political tensions and the growth of the criminal economy linked to drug trafficking. My country welcomes the ongoing efforts of ECOWAS to definitively resolve the crisis in Guinea-Bissau, in strict compliance with the communal arrangements and constitutional framework of the country. The current deadlock in Guinea-Bissau is the culmination of a prolonged deterioration of the political situation and the manifest lack of will on the part of the political actors to commit themselves to a consensual settlement of the crisis, despite the appeals and efforts of ECOWAS. Côte d'Ivoire calls on the parties to implement the Conakry Agreement in good faith and without delay. My delegation once again commends ECOWAS for its leadership and the ongoing commitment of its leaders, the Chairperson of the ECOWAS Authority, President Faure Gnassingbé of Togo, and the ECOWAS Mediator for Guinea-Bissau, President Alpha Condé of Guinea, in the quest for a solution to the political impasse in Guinea-Bissau. Côte d'Ivoire also commends the ECOWAS Mission in Guinea-Bissau for its invaluable contribution to stability in the country. ECOWAS, after a lengthy process of futile warnings, decided to adopt individual sanctions against 19 persons considered to be hostile to the process of ending the crisis in Guinea-Bissau. The sanctions are a strong signal of the resolve of ECOWAS to bring the country out of a crisis that has persisted too long. Those measures — which specifically involve the suspension of the participation in the activities of ECOWAS of all persons concerned, a travel ban on travel, the denial of visas to them and their families, and the freezing of their financial assets — must be applied with utmost rigour. The sanctions, I recall, are based on the Supplementary Act of 17 February 2012, which imposes sanctions on Member States that fail to honour their obligations vis-à-vis ECOWAS, and article 45 of the Protocol on Democracy and Good Governance. My country congratulates ECOWAS on taking those courageous measures, which will serve as a wake-up call to the Guinea-Bissau political class, and looks forward to their effective endorsement by the African Union. Côte d'Ivoire invites the Council to fully support ECOWAS in the interests of peace and national cohesion in Guinea-Bissau. To that end, my country calls on the Security Council to adopt by consensus the draft resolution on the renewal of the mandate of the United Nations Integrated Peacebuilding Office in Guinea-Bissau, which also requires the endorsement of those sanctions. Furthermore, my delegation urges the Community of Portuguese-speaking Countries (CPLP), the European Union and the United Nations to also support the efforts of ECOWAS to effectively implement measures that seek to ensure that the Conakry Agreement be upheld. Institutional and political stability, peace and security in Guinea-Bissau depend primarily on the people of Guinea-Bissau themselves. To achieve that, we call on them to take ownership of the Conakry Agreement. Without the involvement of the parties themselves, the prospects for finding a solution to the crisis and for restoring lasting peace to Guinea-Bissau will remain illusory. With regard to the activities of the United Nations Integrated Peacebuilding Office in Guinea-Bissau, my delegation welcomes the various initiatives to support the political dialogue and the national reconciliation process. Furthermore, we encourage ongoing consultations in order to make progress on security sector reform and to meet the needs of the peacebuilding mechanism under way in Guinea-Bissau. My delegation thanks the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Guinea-Bissau for his efforts in mediation, promoting the rule of law and building the capacity of the Guinea-Bissau institutions. Côte d'Ivoire encourages its international partners, in 14/02/2018 The situation in Guinea-Bissau S/PV.8182 18-04195 7/20 particular the United Nations, the African Union, the European Union, the CPLP and ECOWAS, to cooperate more closely with regard to their work on the ground to ensure greater effectiveness. My country also welcomes the strong involvement of Guinea-Bissau women in the political process, and in particular their role in facilitating dialogue between the parties. With regard to the renewal of the mandate of the United Nations Integrated Peacebuilding Office in Guinea-Bissau, I would like to inform the members of the Council that Côte d'Ivoire will soon submit a draft resolution for adoption on that issue. At the same time, if it is acceptable to all members of the Council, a draft press statement will also be submitted for adoption. My country reiterates its appeal to all stakeholders in the crisis in Guinea-Bissau to participate fully in the efforts of the international community, in particular of ECOWAS, to promote the comprehensive implementation of the Conakry Agreement, which guarantees a way out of the political impasse that the country has long suffered. I would like to finish by thanking Ambassador Mauro Vieira of Brazil, Chair of the Guinea-Bissau configuration of the Peacebuilding Commission, for all the information that he has kindly provided to the Council. Ms. Tachco (United States of America): I wish to thank Mr. Touré, Special Representative of the Secretary-General, for his briefing and Ambassador Vieira not only for his briefing but also for his leadership of the Guinea-Bissau configuration of the Peacebuilding Commission. Recently, the Security Council has witnessed significant success in West Africa in places that have experienced years or even decades of violence and tragedy. Such success includes the first democratic transfer of power in Liberia in more than 70 years and the continued consolidation of democracy in The Gambia, as well as strong economic growth in countries across the region. However, there remain many serious and profound challenges, such as the terrorist threat posed by Boko Haram and the Islamic State in West Africa, elections and reform challenges facing countries with upcoming democratic transition, and humanitarian crises and displacement, all of which merit the continued attention of the Security Council. Given the urgency and magnitude of such problems, the United States believes that a self-inflicted 30-month political impasse, such as that in Guinea-Bissau, is unacceptable. For too long we have gathered to hear updates on fits and starts of political progress that eventually fade to obstruction and obfuscation from the country's leadership. The United States is profoundly disappointed by the decision of President Vaz to ignore the Conakry Agreement by failing to appoint a consensus Prime Minister and to create an inclusive Government. President Vaz must take urgent steps towards a unity Government that will pave the way for peaceful legislative elections in May. The people of Guinea-Bissau are understandably frustrated at the failure of their Government to make progress on the implementation of the Agreement. They deserve better. Time is running out. We have witnessed rising tension. Political gatherings in Bissau have provoked clashes as the people of Guinea- Bissau publicly express their frustration at the skeletal political process. Those clashes led to a crackdown by the Guinea-Bissau leadership. The Government must respect the people's right to peaceful expression and protect that right. On 4 February, the Economic Community of West African States took the ambitious step of sanctioning 19 spoilers of the Conakry Agreement, including their family members. The United States applauds such efforts to hold those in power accountable and to compel them towards finally doing what is right for the people of Guinea-Bissau. We also applaud the renewal of the mandate of the ECOWAS Mission in Guinea- Bissau and encourage the Guinea-Bissau military to continue its political non-interference, while playing its constitutional role. For years, the international community and the United Nations have put resources into Guinea-Bissau to do important things for the benefit of its people. However, with a Government at an impasse, important issues such as security sector reform and combating transnational organized crime, narcotics and human trafficking cannot be adequately addressed. That is unacceptable. As Ambassador Haley noted in the peacekeeping context, the United Nations cannot operate effectively in environments with uncooperative Governments. That also applies to political missions such as the United Nations Integrated Peacebuilding Office in Guinea- S/PV.8182 The situation in Guinea-Bissau 14/02/2018 8/20 18-04195 Bissau (UNIOGBIS). For UNIOGBIS to continue on that path would not be the continuation of a partnership with a willing Government but would simply enable its obstruction. Elections must take place on time and will require support. However, first, the Government must first end the impasse to convince its partners that international support will build on established political progress and a willingness to overcome differences to enable the Government to function again. In conclusion, we once again draw attention to the ordinary people of Guinea-Bissau who, for the better part of their lives, have not known the stability of sustainable democratic governance. The Security Council must keep them in mind as we take steps to put pressure on leaders to abandon their self-serving wilfulness and to take action to better the lives of their people. They should know that our patience has now run out. Ms. Guadey (Ethiopia): I wish to thank Mr. Modibo Touré, Special Representative of the Secretary- General, for his briefing on the latest developments in Guinea-Bissau and the activities of the United Nations Integrated Peacebuilding Office in Guinea-Bissau (UNIOGBIS). I would also like to express appreciation to Ambassador Mauro Vieira in his capacity as Chair of the Guinea-Bissau configuration of the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) for his remarks. The continued political stand-off and institutional paralysis in Guinea-Bissau remain a source of serious concern. The consequent socioeconomic difficulties over the past two years have impacted the people of Guinea-Bissau and will eventually undermine the peace and stability of the country. We appreciate the important role of the PBC and welcome the approval of useful projects to be financed under the Immediate Response Facility of the Peacebuilding Fund to the amount of $7.3 million. Such projects will certainly contribute to easing the socioeconomic difficulties of women and young people, as well as to promoting stability. The centrality of the Conakry Agreement to sustaining peace, security and development in Guinea- Bissau cannot be overemphasized. We reiterate our call for all stakeholders in Guinea-Bissau to respect and to comply with the Agreement in addressing their differences and the challenges facing their country. We urge them to create conditions for the holding of legislative and presidential elections in 2018 and 2019, respectively. All parties should also refrain from actions or statements that could escalate tensions and incite violence. It is indeed vital that the security and armed forces of Guinea-Bissau continue to uphold the country's Constitution and desist from interfering in the political and institutional crisis. Those who continue to obstruct the implementation of the agreement must be given clear signals that their actions will not be tolerated. In that regard, we commend the role of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the high-level delegation it dispatched to Guinea-Bissau two weeks ago. We support its decision on restoring democratic governance and ensuring respect for the rule of law in Guinea Bissau, as endorsed by the African Union (AU) Peace and Security Council communiqué issued today. The Council should reinforce the decision by ECOWAS and the African Union and convey a clear and united message to all the parties in this regard. We believe the concerted efforts by ECOWAS, the African Union, the United Nations and other relevant partners continues to be indispensable to finding a durable solution to the political crisis in Guinea-Bissau. We express our support to UNIOGBIS for its continued provision of necessary support to Guinea- Bissau, with the objective of resolving the current political impasse and creating an environment for of dialogue among all of the country's actors. Accordingly, we fully agree with the recommendation of the Secretary General that the current UNIOGBIS mandate be extended for another year, until 28 February 2019. Finally, we echo the appeal of the AU Peace and Security Council for financial support towards the continuation of the mandate of the ECOWAS Mission in Guinea-Bissau — whose mandate has been extended to 31 March — until the necessary training of the national security forces of Guinea-Bissau is completed. I wish to conclude by supporting the draft press statement proposed by Côte d'Ivoire, and express our readiness to work closely on the draft resolution that will renew the UNIOGBIS mandate. Mrs. Gueguen (France) (spoke in French): I thank Mr. Modibo Touré, Special Representative of the Secretary-General and Head of the United Nations Integrated Peacebuilding Office in Guinea-Bissau, for his clear and precise briefing, which reminds us of just how critical this point is for Guinea-Bissau. I also thank Ambassador Mauro Vieira for his efforts as Chair of the Guinea-Bissau configuration of the Peacebuilding 14/02/2018 The situation in Guinea-Bissau S/PV.8182 18-04195 9/20 Commission and for his insistent appeal for support to regional initiatives and for respect for the electoral cycle in Guinea-Bissau. France is concerned about the non-implementation of the Conakry Agreement since October 2016. The Agreement, which provides for the appointment of a consensus Prime Minister, has remained a dead letter, even though it provides a plan to resolve the conflict. This political impasse has consequences on the ground. There have been several clashes between the police and opposition political parties. Respect for human rights is also not assured in Guinea-Bissau. The latest developments on the ground show that the authorities of Guinea-Bissau no longer hesitate to limit the freedom of assembly and the right to protest. The establishment of a robust compliance framework with regard to respect for public freedoms is an essential precondition to the resolution of the crisis in Guinea-Bissau. We therefore call upon the international community to be particularly vigilant in that regard. Due to the risk of a deterioration in the political and security situation, it is high time for all parties to honour their commitments to reach national consensus, all the more so because the window of opportunity is narrowing, as legislative elections are slated for this spring. In that regard, it is particularly important to ensure that the legislative and presidential time table is adhered to. I would like to emphasize three essential points with regard to the renewal at the end of the month of the madate of the United Nations Integrated Peacebuilding Office in Guinea-Bissau (UNIOGBIS). First, we must increase our support for regional initiatives. In that regard, France welcomes the ongoing efforts of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), especially the work of the ECOWAS Mission in Guinea-Bissau and the recent adoption of the sanctions list of people obstructing the implementation of the Conakry Agreement. That is an important step forward and a clear sign to the relevant local actors. We are convinced that the solution to the conflict will require consultation among local actors and the international community. In that connection, the group of five international partners based in Guinea-Bissau, which comprises the African Union, the European Union, the United Nations, ECOWAS and the Community of Portuguese-speaking Countries, provides a special coordination platform that ought to be supported. Secondly, it is crucial for the Security Council to fully assume its role in resolving the current political impasse in Guinea-Bissau. The Council should increase pressure on local actors, particularly President Vaz, and should direct the parties in Guinea-Bissau to shoulder their responsibilities. Sanctions were adopted in 2012 through resolution 2048 (2012), and additional measures could be taken in conjunction with those taken by ECOWAS. Thirdly, it is essential to renew the mandate of UNIOGBIS, which ends 28 February, and thereby signal the commitment of the United Nations to continuing to participate in the process of resolving the conflict. We should also contemplate restructuring UNIOGBIS following an assessment of the impact of its activities on the ground. It is time for the parties in Guinea-Bissau to move from words to action. Their commitments must now give way to concrete action. Mr. Meza-Cuadra (Peru) (spoke in Spanish): My delegation welcomes the holding of this meeting and thanks Mr. Modibo Touré, Special Representative of the Secretary-General and Head of the United Nations Integrated Peacebuilding Office in Guinea- Bissau, for his briefing. We also thank Ambassador Mauro Vieira for his commitment and leadership as Chair of the Guinea-Bissau configuration of the Peacebuilding Commission. Peru is monitoring with concern the situation in Guinea-Bissau. Despite efforts by the international community and regional organizations to reach a solution to the political crisis, little progress has been made in the implementation of the Conakry Agreement, concluded in October 2016. We would like to make three main points. First, Peru deems the successful holding of 2018 and 2019 elections to be crucial to achieving sustainable peace. In that regard, we are concerned about the nomination of a Prime Minister who does not enjoy consensus among all parties, as called for in the Conakry Agreement. That undermines the credibility of the Government. Additionally, four of the members of the National Electoral Commission, including its President, could not be nominated for the National Assembly, which has not convened since S/PV.8182 The situation in Guinea-Bissau 14/02/2018 10/20 18-04195 January 2016. Such conditions complicate the holding of legislative elections slated for May. That is why we believe it is necessary and urgent for all parties to resume inclusive dialogue with a view to implementing the commitments undertaken. We welcome the efforts of the Economic Community of West African States, which include imposing sanctions on those who obstruct the implementation of the Conakry Agreement, in line with regional rules and regulations. We believe that it is important to increase the participation of women and youth in the necessary dialogue and subsequent elections. That is why we highlight the efforts of the Women's Facilitation Group, which seeks to increase the participation of women in the country's political processes. Secondly, we are concerned that, despite the current relative stability, a stalled political process could lead to renewed violence and rampant crime, especially considering that the country is vulnerable to threats such as terrorism, organized crime and human trafficking. In that connection, we highlight the launching of the Network of National Human Rights Defenders. As the Secretary-General noted in his report (S/2018/110), reform is needed in this area, including strengthening the armed forces and the professionalization of the police. Similarly, we call for full respect for the fundamental right to freedom of expression in Guinea-Bissau. Thirdly, with regard to socioeconomic development, we would like to highlight the fact that, although the World Bank has reported economic growth of 5 per cent over the past year, it should be borne in mind that such growth is primarily attributed to the country's main exports being sold at a higher price on the international market. Nonetheless, a country whose poverty rate is approximately 70 per cent is socially and economically vulnerable. That is why we believe that peacekeeping and peacebuilding require greater investment in social development, and in particular in Peacebuilding Fund projects aimed at empowering women and young people, promoting national reconciliation and strengthening the judiciary. We underscore the importance of ensuring the predictability and stability of the Fund's financing. We also believe that it is important that the activities promoted by the Peacebuilding Fund be coordinated with the United Nations Integrated Peacebuilding Office in Guinea-Bissau (UNIOGBIS) and the United Nations country team. In conclusion, we support the renewal of the UNIOGBIS mandate for an additional year, in line with the recommendation of the Secretary-General. We thank the Economic Community of West African States, the African Union, the Community of Portuguese-speaking Countries, the European Union and other international actors committed to assisting Guinea-Bissau for their valuable efforts. Mr. Ndong Mba (Equatorial Guinea) (spoke in Spanish): At the outset, on behalf of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea, let me thank the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Guinea- Bissau and Head of Mission for the United Nations Integrated Peacebuilding Office in Guinea-Bissau (UNOGBIS), Mr. Modibo Touré, and his team for the detailed and important briefing on the situation in Guinea-Bissau. We also thank Mr. Mauro Vieira, Permanent Representative of Brazil to the United Nations, in his capacity as Chair of the Guinea-Bissau configuration of the Peacebuilding Commission, for his briefing, in which he underscored the configuration's commitment to the various initiatives in Guinea-Bissau. The Republic of Equatorial Guinea has followed very closely and with great interest the developments in the political and institutional crisis in Guinea-Bissau. It has paid even closer attention since the country joined the Community of Portuguese-speaking Countries (CPLP) in 2014, and now that Equatorial Guinea chairs the Committee established pursuant to resolution 2048 (2012), concerning Guinea-Bissau. In my capacity as Chair of the 2048 Committee, I would like to voice our concern about the deadlock in the peace process in Guinea-Bissau, which is hindering the country's national reform programme, thereby threatening to undermine progress in the country since constitutional order was restored in 2014. Equatorial Guinea lauds the commitment and considerable effort made, as well as the human and financial resources made available by international multilateral partners, in particular the Guinea- Bissau group of five, comprising the African Union, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), the CPLP, the European Union and the United Nations. Undoubtedly, the synergy among international actors with regard to the issue in Guinea-Bissau attests to the desire and willingness of the international community to find a peaceful and 14/02/2018 The situation in Guinea-Bissau S/PV.8182 18-04195 11/20 consensus-based solution in the interests of Guinea- Bissau. The Conakry Agreement must continue to be the fundamental reference for national political actors. The Agreement not only outlines the appointment of a Prime Minister who is trusted by the President of the Republic, but whose appointment is the result of consensus among all national stakeholders. The Republic of Equatorial Guinea has taken note of the rejection of the appointment of Mr. Augusto Antonio Artur Da Silva by ECOWAS and the main political actors in Guinea-Bissau, in particular of the two main political parties — the Partido Africano da Independência da Guiné e Cabo Verde and the Partido para a Renovação Social. Given the lack of consensus surrounding the appointment of the Prime Minister, the Republic of Equatorial Guinea calls upon all political actors in the Republic of Guinea-Bissau, including the President of the Republic, as well as the leaders of the two main political parties, to work together to form an inclusive Government that would create the right conditions ahead of upcoming legislative elections to be held later this year, and presidential elections in 2019. The Republic of Equatorial Guinea supports the electoral calendar as outlined in the country's Constitution. That is why the Republic of Equatorial Guinea believes that an international support mechanism for the electoral process should be put in place for the purpose of updating the electoral rolls and assisting the Independent National Electoral Commission to effectively shoulder its responsibility, and with all other preparations that would allow for the holding of transparent, democratic elections whose results would put a definitive end to the political maze the country has had to navigate over the past few years. The extension of the mandate of UNIOGBIS is a key element in resolving the crisis. As announced, ECOWAS has decided to extend the mandate of the ECOWAS Mission in Guinea-Bissau until 31 March. The actions of the United Nations must be part of that undertaking. The Security Council's vote, scheduled for 27 February, must allow the Mission to be extended for a year or more, until presidential elections are held in 2019. The Republic of Equatorial Guinea believes that international partners should continue to focus primarily on mediation, good offices, dialogue and direct negotiations as the only viable paths to breaking the current political and institutional deadlock. The most recent report of the Secretary-General on the situation in Guinea-Bissau and the activities of the United Nations Integrated Peacebuilding Office in Guinea-Bissau (S/2018/110) concludes that the population's latent frustration with an uncertain political environment could foster instability and crime. Equatorial Guinea reiterates its gratitude to the defence and security forces that have chosen to adopt a neutral, republican position. Therefore, we urge all political actors in Guinea-Bissau to put the interests of the country and its people, love of State and their responsibility above all other considerations so as to create the right conditions for the holding of free, fair and transparent elections. Stability in the country must not be disassociated from economic recovery. In that regard, we welcome the support of the Guinea-Bissau configuration of the Peacebuilding Commission, through the Peacebuilding Fund, in financing various multisectoral projects. The Republic of Equatorial Guinea will take part in good offices and negotiations. Equatorial Guinea, as a member of the CPLP and Chair of the Committee established pursuant to resolution 2048 (2012), concerning Guinea- Bissau, will support and take initiatives that it believes are necessary to assist in efforts under way to find a solution to the situation in the brotherly country of Guinea-Bissau. Mr. Skoog (Sweden): I would like to begin by thanking the Special Representative of the Secretary- General, Mr. Modibo Touré, for his briefing. I commend him and his team for the valuable work being undertaken in support of the people of Guinea-Bissau. Let me also extend my thanks to the Permanent Representative of Brazil, Ambassador Mauro Vieira, in his capacity as Chair of the Guinea-Bissau configuration of the Peacebuilding Commission. As Ambassador Vieira mentioned his country's long-standing relations with Guinea-Bissau, I thought that I would take this opportunity to point out that Sweden recognized Guinea-Bissau in 1974, and we began supporting General Assembly resolution 2911 (XXVII), concerning its self-rule, in 1968. In the 1970s and 1980s, Guinea-Bissau was one of our largest development partner countries. There is therefore a deep and historic friendship between Sweden and the people of Guinea-Bissau, and it is in that spirit of friendship that we are engaging in support for Guinea- Bissau in meeting its current complex challenges. S/PV.8182 The situation in Guinea-Bissau 14/02/2018 12/20 18-04195 Moreover, we welcome the opportunity to draw upon the strategic advice of the Peacebuilding Commission and its longer-term perspective, which are essential for sustaining peace in Guinea-Bissau. The activities financed by the Peacebuilding Fund to that end are also important. An integrated approach from the United Nations family in Guinea-Bissau can contribute positively to overcoming peacebuilding challenges. Accordingly, we welcome the efforts outlined in the report of the Secretary-General (S/2018/110). We are concerned by the ongoing and increasingly protracted political crisis in Guinea-Bissau. A lack of progress in resolving the stalemate undermines peacebuilding efforts and is holding the country's social and economic development hostage. Resolving the crisis is therefore a prerequisite for the consolidation of peace in the country. The six-point Bissau road map and the Conakry Agreement remain the only legitimate way forward, and must be implemented. The appointment of a consensus Prime Minister, as stipulated in the Agreement, is essential. National leaders must live up to their commitments and meet their responsibilities. We strongly commend the efforts of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) to mediate among the parties to find a solution to the political crisis. ECOWAS is playing an essential role on behalf of the region, and we welcome its continued efforts to reach a consensual implementation of the road map and Conakry Agreement. We welcome the ECOWAS decision to impose sanctions on those impeding the Agreement's implementation. It is important that the international community fully support regional efforts in a concerted and coherent manner. In that regard, we welcome the statement issued yesterday by the African Union in support of ECOWAS, including regarding sanctions. Long-term peace and security in Guinea-Bissau will be achieved only when the root causes of the conflict are addressed. Constitutional reform, reconciliation and political dialogue, strengthening the rule of law through strong and inclusive institutions, and ensuring equal access to economic opportunities are all critical in that regard. It is also essential that all parts of society have their voices heard. In particular, ensuring the full and effective participation of women is crucial. We agree with the Secretary-General that the promotion of, and respect for, human rights is fundamental to sustaining peace and ensuring long-term stability and development in Guinea-Bissau. We echo the Secretary- General's call on national authorities to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms and to refrain from any further acts that undermine the rule of law. Let me also take a moment to welcome the military's neutrality and its posture of non-interference in the political process. Concerning the role of the United Nations Integrated Peacebuilding Office in Guinea-Bissau (UNIOGBIS), it has a crucial role to play in coordinating international efforts to support Guinea-Bissau, not least of which is supporting preparations for the holding of elections. There is a need to immediately refocus the Office's resources where they can be used most effectively, particularly with regard to resolving the political deadlock and supporting the electoral process so that it moves forward. We strongly support the Office's work to strengthen women's participation as active peacemakers in resolving the political crisis, including by encouraging women's mediation efforts. We welcome in particular that the integration of gender-sensitive perspectives into the work of UNIOGBIS and the United Nations country team has been accorded the highest priority by the United Nations in Guinea- Bissau. We look forward to hearing more about how that process is being taken forward. During the Peacebuilding Commission's meeting on Guinea-Bissau on Monday this week, all key actors, including Guinea-Bissau, expressed the view that the Secretary-General's recommendation for a one-year extension of the UNIOGBIS mandate should be authorized. A one-year extension would allow for longer-term planning and more effective support for the implementation of the Conakry Agreement and the holding of elections. The political crisis in Guinea-Bissau has gone on for far too long. It is now time to move forward with the full implementation of the Conakry Agreement and preparations for the holding of inclusive elections. The international community, together with the region, must stand ready to support the country on its path towards long-term peace and development. Mr. Clay (United Kingdom): I thank Special Representative of the Secretary-General Touré and Ambassador Vieira for their informative briefings. The situation in Guinea-Bissau is concerning. It is not the first country in the world to experience a political impasse, but it is a country that continues to emerge from the serious instability and violence 14/02/2018 The situation in Guinea-Bissau S/PV.8182 18-04195 13/20 of its recent past. The political impasse has prevented progress on reforms that are critical to addressing key conflict risks in Guinea-Bissau. The situation is only likely to become more volatile as we move towards elections. We have already seen violent confrontations between demonstrators and police, and witnessed worrying efforts to curb political freedoms. Economic growth is at risk, and a serious deterioration in stability would be deeply damaging for development and human rights. The illicit economy and transnational organized crime risk becoming further entrenched, with global implications. More broadly, instability in Guinea- Bissau would affect the wider region, which over the past year has been, for the most part, the site of positive political progress. The United Kingdom welcomes the leadership shown by the West African region, particularly through the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). It has shown persistence and patience. This is a crisis that began in 2015. It brokered the Conakry Agreement 15 months ago. It has agreed to countless communiqués and published innumerable statements. It has sent numerous high-level delegations to Guinea- Bissau, including three over the past six months alone. But those most responsible for Guinea-Bissau's crisis have responded with stubborn refusal to give ground and find compromise. Therefore, it is understandable that the region's patience has worn thin. ECOWAS has now been driven to impose sanctions against individuals deemed responsible for impeding the implementation of the Conakry Agreement. The African Union Peace and Security Council has endorsed that move. The United Kingdom supports the ECOWAS decision, and we urge the Security Council and the entire international community to remain united in support of ECOWAS efforts. We also believe that it is important to recognize the bold efforts of civil society in Guinea-Bissau to resolve the crisis. In particular, the mediation efforts launched by the Women's Facilitation Group were an encouraging initiative, and we welcome the support given to them by the United Nations. As set out in resolution 2343 (2017), political support for efforts towards the implementation of the Conakry Agreement should be a priority for the United Nations Integrated Peacebuilding Office in Guinea- Bissau. The key next step remains the appointment of a consensus Prime Minister so that preparations can proceed for legislative elections in 2018, as per the country's Constitution. As we open discussions on its renewal, the United Kingdom will focus on ensuring that the Mission's mandate responds to today's political reality on the ground, that it is realistic and that it is focused on the highest priority needs. Guinea-Bissau's people watched the country emerge from a period of instability but then found their hopes for democracy obstructed by a political knot that their own leaders tied. Support from the region and the international community to prevent the country from backsliding further will not succeed until those who tied the knot untangle it. We hope that good sense, compromise and the commitment to Guinea-Bissau's future will prevail. Ms. Wronecka (Poland): First of all, I thank Special Representative of the Secretary-General Modibo Touré and Ambassador Mauro Vieira, Permanent Representative of Brazil to the United Nations, in his capacity as Chair of the Guinea-Bissau configuration of the Peacebuilding Commission, for their useful briefings. Poland is following with growing concern the current situation in Guinea-Bissau. We support the efforts of the international community aimed at peacefully resolving the political crisis in the country. We therefore call on all political and civil society actors, regardless of their personal differences and ambitions, to engage in dialogue in a spirit of compromise. In that context, we take note that the army is not interfering in the political process. The implementation of the 2016 road map and the Conakry Agreement is crucial to maintaining peace and stability in the country. We appeal to the Guinea- Bissau authorities to complete their implementation and carry out the parliamentary elections scheduled for May in a peaceful atmosphere that guarantees political pluralism and impartiality. We think that women and young people should be included in all decision-making structures related to security sector reform, the national reconciliation process and institution-building. In this regard, we urge the Guinea-Bissau authorities to ensure the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of speech and information. Poland commends the important role of the Peacebuilding Commission in Guinea-Bissau in promoting good governance, political dialogue and national reconciliation. We also welcome the significant S/PV.8182 The situation in Guinea-Bissau 14/02/2018 14/20 18-04195 financial support of the Peacebuilding Fund (PBF) under the PBF Immediate Response Facility. Since the PBF began its activities, Poland has provided financial support to the Fund. Poland also supports the efforts of the Economic Community of West African States Mission in Guinea- Bissau (ECOMIB) as it is an important factor in reaching consensus solutions and cooperation. The decision of the ECOWAS Heads of State and Government, published on 4 February, imposing sanctions on those responsible for non-implementation of the Conakry Agreement is a step towards holding responsible those who are impeding a peaceful, consensus solution to the crisis. Due to the fragile security situation in the country, the presence of ECOMIB is most important. In this regard, we welcome the decision to extend ECOMIB's mandate until the end of March. Its role is essential, especially in view of the upcoming legislative elections. The mandate of the United Nations Integrated Peacebuilding Office in Guinea-Bissau (UNIOGBIS) expires at the end of this month. The United Nations should remain engaged in efforts towards peace in the country and support ECOWAS efforts to resolve the political crisis. In conclusion, Poland encourages all the parties in Guinea-Bissau to engage in dialogue. We also express our full support for the Special Representative of the Secretary-General, Mr. Modibo Touré. We look forward to the upcoming UNIOGBIS mandate renewal. Mr. Umarov (Kazakhstan): We commend Special Representative of the Secretary-General Modibo Touré and Ambassador Mauro Vieira for their comprehensive briefings on the situation in Guinea-Bissau, and extend our full support for their commitment to facilitating a political solution to the crisis. Kazakhstan is deeply concerned by the protracted political stalemate in the country. We join others in calling on all stakeholders to engage in an inclusive political dialogue and immediately implement the Conakry Agreement and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) road map to end the deadlock and restore institutional viability. It is therefore necessary to avoid differing interpretations of the Agreement. We commend the mediation efforts of ECOWAS, under the leadership of Presidents Faure Gnassingbé of Togo and Alpha Condé of Guinea, as well as by the other members of the group of international partner organizations on Guinea-Bissau. We have taken note of the decision of ECOWAS to impose targeted sanctions on those obstructing the implementation of the Conakry Agreement. We express hope that this decision will contribute to finding a solution to the crisis and strengthen democratic institutions and capacity-building for State organs. We welcome the extension until April of the mandate of ECOWAS Mission in Guinea-Bissau (ECOMIB), which plays a crucial role in ensuring stability in Guinea-Bissau, and urge international partners to continue supporting ECOMIB. The importance of peacebuilding, good offices and coordination efforts of the United Nations Integrated Peacebuilding Office in Guinea-Bissau cannot be underestimated. We therefore support the Secretary-General's recommendation to renew the mission's mandate for one more year. We also agree with his proposal to assess the mission, should the political impasse continue. We note the importance of holding legislative and presidential elections according to the constitutional time frame, and call on international partners to provide the necessary technical, logistical and financial support for the electoral process. The current political crisis may further fuel transnational organized crime, drug trafficking and terrorist activities. Therefore, increased national engagement and international support are critical to enhancing and extending reforms in the security, judicial and law enforcement sectors. In addition, the most effective measures must be sought to ensure the country's stability and resilience by increasing support for the education and health sectors, as well as the existing development plans, including Terra Ranka and the United Nations peacebuilding plan. In conclusion, we welcome the active engagement of the Women's Facilitation Group, and impress upon the national authorities the importance of ensuring the participation of women and young people in the political process at every stage and at all levels. Mrs. Gregoire Van Haaren (Netherlands): I would like first of all to thank the Special Representative of the Secretary-General, Mr. Modibo Touré, and the Permanent Representative of Brazil, Mr. Mauro Vieira, who spoke in his capacity as Chair of the Guinea- Bissau country configuration of the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC), for their briefings. 14/02/2018 The situation in Guinea-Bissau S/PV.8182 18-04195 15/20 For years now, Guinea-Bissau has been marked by a protracted political crisis. In a region characterized by increasing attention to and respect for the rule of law, human rights and democracy, Guinea-Bissau continues to be out of step, as indicated once again in the latest report of the Secretary-General (S/2018/110). In the light of this, the Kingdom of the Netherlands wishes to underscore the following three points with regard to the situation in Guinea-Bissau. First, the Conakry Agreement of 2016 and the six-point road map should remain the basis for a political solution in Guinea-Bissau, and its provisions should honoured. Secondly, the diplomatic and political efforts of the region through the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) deserve the steadfast support of the United Nations, and particularly the Security Council. Thirdly, the role of the United Nations Integrated Peacebuilding Office in Guinea-Bissau (UNIOGBIS) in the country at this critical juncture, with elections around the corner, is as important as ever. It is therefore imperative that its mandate be extended. First, with respect to the Conakry Agreement, almost a year and half has passed since the Agreement was concluded. The Kingdom of the Netherlands reiterates the centrality of the Agreement in peacefully resolving the current crisis, and urges the parties to abide by its contents. It is clear that an important roadblock with regard to its implementation is the appointment of a consensus Prime Minister. The need for this appointment has become increasingly urgent. With parliamentary elections on the horizon, it is imperative that these elections be held in a timely, transparent and inclusive manner. Secondly, with regard to support for ECOWAS, while the past six months were mainly characterized by the same intransigence as in previous reporting periods, concerted action and increased pressure on the part of the region, and ECOWAS in particular, could actually lead, when given the necessary support, to tangible progress in resolving the Bissau-Guinean crisis. Yesterday's decision of the African Union Peace and Security Council to support the efforts of ECOWAS is a case in point. The Secretary-General rightly observes in his report that the continuing efforts of ECOWAS to resolve the crisis are commendable. The Kingdom of the Netherlands would like to clearly point out that it supports and endorses ECOWAS mediation efforts and its imposition of sanctions. We welcome the ECOWAS unified action and believe that the presence of the ECOWAS Mission in Guinea-Bissau is vital to the stability of Guinea-Bissau. ECOWAS has shown before that, when united, it has the ability to act as the region's power broker, for example as it did in The Gambia. Like it did then, the Council should firmly support ECOWAS in taking up this role and responsibility, as it should in the case of any other regional organization in Africa that takes the lead in maintaining peace and security in the region. My third point is that ECOWAS cannot do this alone. We commend the African Union and the Community of Portuguese-speaking Countries for their collaboration with the European Union and for the support they have brought and the constructive role they play. From the report of the Secretary General, it is evident that UNIOGBIS plays a vital role in Guinea- Bissau. With legislative elections scheduled for 2018 and presidential elections in 2019, the role of UNIOGBIS is more crucial than ever. We therefore call for a renewal of its mandate for no less than one year, in addition to allowing for longer-term planning, including setting more concrete priorities for the mission and making adaptations to meet specific needs. UNIOGBIS's convening power in Bissau remains essential, as will be its role in ensuring peaceful, free and democratic elections in Guinea-Bissau, as well as a smooth post-election process. Renewing the mandate for less than 12 months would send the wrong signal. In conclusion, sustained pressure to implement the Conakry Agreement, the maximum possible support to ECOWAS's ongoing efforts and measures and UNIOGBIS's continued support to the political process will be crucial factors in ending the deadlock in Guinea- Bissau, particularly in the light of the constitutionally mandated elections. Mr. Inchauste Jordán (Plurinational State of Bolivia) (spoke in Spanish): We appreciate the report of the Secretary-General (S/2018/110) presented by Mr. Modibo Touré, Special Representative of the Secretary-General and Head of the United Nations Integrated Peacebuilding Office in Guinea-Bissau (UNIOGBIS), and the briefing by Ambassador Mauro Vieira of Brazil in his capacity as Chair of the Guinea- Bissau configuration of the Peacebuilding Commission. There has been no significant progress or visible improvement in the situation in Guinea-Bissau, where the general instability seems almost impervious to S/PV.8182 The situation in Guinea-Bissau 14/02/2018 16/20 18-04195 change, thereby jeopardizing the full implementation of the Conakry Agreement, which is unquestionably the fundamental framework for a peaceful solution to the crisis and for achieving sustainable and lasting peace there. In our view, the negative effects are likely to exacerbate matters if the parties cannot definitively condemn sectarian interests and contribute effectively to the mediation efforts and good offices of the relevant international, regional and subregional organizations. Bolivia firmly repudiates any action that could destabilize or jeopardize the ongoing dialogue and reconciliation process that has been established with the participation of all the parties concerned. We urge that the agreements be definitively consolidated in line with the inclusive national dialogue, which would enable Government members, the political parties represented in the National Assembly and every sector of civil society to arrive at a consensus and implement the agreements constructively through a legitimate commitment to achieving a lasting political and social solution whose sole aim is benefiting the people of Guinea-Bissau, in strict respect for their sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity. We acknowledge the active participation of the African Union, the Economic Community of West African States and its Mission in Guinea- Bissau, the European Union, the Community of Portuguese-speaking Countries and UNIOGBIS, through its Special Representative, and their ongoing efforts to achieve a rapprochement between the conflicting parties. We believe that UNIOGBIS's work, focused on initiatives aimed at creating opportunities for dialogue and facilitating cooperation in the security and political sectors with the goal of forming an inclusive Government, must be reinforced. It will be crucial to increase the Office's capacity to use peaceful means to deal with the crisis if it is to have more effective and efficient results. We therefore support the recommendation in the Secretary-General's report that the mission's mandate be renewed for another year. We also commend the work being done by the Guinea-Bissau configuration of the Peacebuilding Commission, appropriately chaired by Brazil, and we emphasize the importance of strengthening its coordination, information exchange and active collaboration with the Security Council, in accordance with the relevant General Assembly and Security Council resolutions. We continue to encourage the initiative of the Women's Forum for Peace. The efforts of women in Guinea-Bissau to achieve a political solution shows that a gender perspective and female participation in mediation and dialogue at all levels are essential. In conclusion, we would like to reiterate once again that in a time of political, institutional and social crisis, ensuring the welfare of the population and especially its most vulnerable sectors should be the overriding interest guiding Guinea-Bissau on a path to permanent stability. Mr. Zhang Dianbin (China) (spoke in Chinese): China would like to thank Special Representative Touré and Ambassador Vieira, Chair of the Guinea-Bissau configuration of the Peacebuilding Commission, for their briefings. The situation in Guinea-Bissau has been generally stable in recent months, but it will still require all the parties to work together to meet each other halfway if they are to resolve the political impasse peacefully and as soon as possible. China hopes that the parties in Guinea-Bissau will consider the country's interests, intensify their dialogue and communication in order to bridge differences quickly, implement the Conakry Agreement as soon as possible, form an inclusive Government and resume nation-building efforts. Meanwhile, the international community should continue to follow the situation in Guinea-Bissau. China will continue to support the United Nations Integrated Peacebuilding Office in Guinea-Bissau in exercising its good offices and conducting mediation efforts under Mr. Touré's leadership, with the aim of coordinating international support for Guinea-Bissau, promoting political dialogue and advancing the country's economic and social development. The international community should continue to support regional and subregional organizations such as the African Union, the Economic Community of West African States and the Community of Portuguese-speaking Countries in their role as mediators, while maintaining respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Guinea-Bissau and supporting the countries of the region in settling African issues through African means. Mr. Polyanskiy (Russian Federation) (spoke in Russian): We thank Mr. Modibo Touré, Special Representative of the Secretary-General, for his briefing on the evolving political situation in Guinea- Bissau. We take note of the report of the Secretary- 14/02/2018 The situation in Guinea-Bissau S/PV.8182 18-04195 17/20 General (S/2018/110) and the briefing by Mr. Mauro Vieira, Permanent Representative of Brazil and Chair of the Guinea-Bissau configuration of the Peacebuilding Commission. Russia supports the efforts of the United Nations, the African Union, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the Community of Portuguese-speaking Countries to normalize the situation in Guinea-Bissau, which is undergoing a prolonged political, social and economic domestic crisis. We are concerned about the lack of tangible progress in implementing the Conakry Agreement. We want to emphasize how crucial the Agreement is to mitigating the political hostility and reducing Guinea- Bissau's potential for conflict. We urge the country's executive and legislative representatives to focus on forming an inclusive Government, introducing reforms, especially in the security sector and the Constitution, and increasing their joint efforts to prepare for parliamentary and presidential elections. It will be vital to strengthen the constitutional order and the rule of law and resolve the accumulating socioeconomic issues. We are pleased that the country's political forces continue to act with regard for the law and that the military has remained neutral. We have taken note of the ECOWAS communiqué of 4 February on imposing targeted sanctions on 19 members of Guinea-Bissau's political elite. Regarding the possibility of imposing similar measures based on the provisions of Security Council resolution 2048 (2012), we would like to point out that the resolution's main aim was restoring constitutional order, which in practical terms was achieved several years ago now. The result is that the resolution's sanctions measures are very outdated. In our opinion its listing criteria have little to do with Guinea-Bissau's current political situation, and in any case would not be usable against participants in the political process who are acting within the law. We are compelled to conclude that the opinions of the Secretary-General's report on the security sector situation give the impression that things have been left unsaid. It would have been more logical to discuss how the United Nations Integrated Peacebuilding Office in Guinea-Bissau (UNIOGBIS) is implementing the provisions of its mandate with regard to building Guinea-Bissau's capacity to combat transnational crime and drug trafficking, after describing the actual state of affairs in those areas. In general, given the overall situation in Guinea- Bissau, we are willing to consider the Secretary- General's proposal to extend UNIOGBIS's mandate. However, we believe that the Special Representative should focus not only on helping the people of Guinea-Bissau emerge from their political deadlock and preparing for the parliamentary elections in May but also on effectively addressing the root causes of the problems in Guinea-Bissau, which lie in its Constitution's structural contradictions. If the work of constitutional reform is not completed by the start of the next electoral cycle, the country risks encountering the same problems with the new parliament and President. The President (spoke in Arabic): I shall now make a statement in my capacity as representative of Kuwait. At the outset, I join other Council members in thanking the Special Representative of the Secretary- General, Mr. Modibo Touré, for his valuable briefing. I would also like to express my appreciation to Ambassador Mauro Vieira for his briefing as the chief of Guinea-Bissau Configuration of the Peacebuilding Commission. We commend their efforts to support security, stability and socioeconomic development in Guinea-Bissau. We have been following the recent political developments there and regret the fact that none of the provisions of the Conakry Agreement have been implemented since signing it in October 2016. It is unacceptable that there has so far been no appointment of Prime Minister who enjoys consensus by the relevant two parties, which is critical to implementing other items of the Agreement. The situation in Guinea-Bissau differs from other cases before the Security Council in having no security aspects. Unfortunately, however, the impasse has lasted more than a year, and it is the people of Guinea-Bissau who are suffering the consequences. In that regard, we commend the steps that the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) has taken to advance the political process, including measures for the imposition of sanctions on those obstructing the implementation of the Conakry Agreement, as well as the decision to extend the mandate of its Mission in Guinea-Bissau until the end of March. We want to emphasize the relevance of the role of such regional organizations in resolving regional issues. The efforts of the United Nations Integrated Peacebuilding Office in Guinea-Bissau (UNIOGBIS) S/PV.8182 The situation in Guinea-Bissau 14/02/2018 18/20 18-04195 deserve support, since it is dealing with a difficult and complicated political situation. However, we hope that it will be able to make progress during the coming period with respect to conducting legislative elections this year and presidential elections next. The legislative and presidential elections, to be held in 2018 and 2019 respectively, must take place within the specific time frame. We therefore call on the United Nations Integrated Peacebuilding Office in Guinea-Bissau, along with all stakeholders in Guinea- Bissau, such as the European Union, the African Union, ECOWAS and the Community of Portuguese-speaking Countries, to spare no efforts towards that end. We also call on the Government of Guinea-Bissau to ensure its citizens' full participation in the elections, as well as security and freedom of expression and assembly for all. The cooperation between UNIOGBIS and civil-society organizations in promoting and developing the role of women in Guinea-Bissau is very positive. We hope that UNIOGBIS will make a greater effort to guarantee the full participation of all components of the society, especially women and young people, in the next political process and will continue to promote other aspects of its mandate until the current impasse is resolved. In conclusion, we reiterate the importance of the Conakry Agreement as the basic reference for resolving this political crisis in Guinea-Bissau, and the efforts of ECOWAS and President Alpha Condé of Guinea to advance the political process in order to maintain the security and stability of Guinea-Bissau and the region. We stand ready to cooperate with Côte d'Ivoire in preparing a draft resolution for the extension of the UNIOGBIS mandate, in response to a request by the Secretary-General. We also support the issuance of a Press Statement to clarify the unified position of the Council regarding the situation in Guinea-Bissau. I now resume my functions as President of the Council. I give the floor to the representative of Guinea-Bissau. Mr. Delfim da Silva (Guinea-Bissau) (spoke in French): I thank you, Mr. President, for inviting my delegation to the Security Council table and for giving me the floor. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate your country, Kuwait, on its assumption of the presidency of the Security Council for the month of February. We wish you success in your work. I would like to thank Mr. Modibó Touré, Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Guinea- Bissau, for his presentation today of the report of the Secretary-General (S/2018/110). I would also like to thank Ambassador Mauro Vieira of Brazil once again for his constructive statement on behalf of peacebuilding and constitutional and democratic order in Guinea-Bissau. And I would like to express our gratitude to all the Ambassadors of States members of the Security Council for their attention to my country, Guinea-Bissau. The political crisis in Guinea-Bissau did not begin with the signing of the Conakry Agreement in October 2016, but much earlier. The Conakry Agreement represents a step in the right direction for resolving the crisis by consensus. In the past 15 months, the two main parties — the African Party for the Independence of Guinea and Cape Verde (PAIGC) and the Party for Social Renewal (PRS) — have repeatedly and publicly expressed their disagreement on a crucial point of the Agreement, which is having consensus on choosing a candidate for the post of Prime Minister. If a consensus was reached, the agreed candidate would then be appointed by the President of the Republic, in line with the Constitution. The PAIGC states that there was such a consensus in Conakry. The PRS, for its part, affirms that there was not. Fifteen months later, the lack of consensus has prevented the appointment of a Prime Minister, which must be consensus-based. How can the President appoint a consensus Prime Minister without, at the very least, the prior agreement of the two largest political parties? In short, the crisis over the consensus is really what has paralysed the Conakry Agreement and is prolonging the stalemate in the 15-month political crisis in Guinea-Bissau. The question is how to overcome the crisis concerning the consensus. Some believe that the imposition of sanctions will be conducive to it. We are not sure of that. Sanctions are unlikely to defuse a crisis and can even be counterproductive. It is important to bear in mind that while it is easy to adopt sanctions, it is much more difficult to impose a consensus. In any case, continuing to seek a solution to the crisis is clearly the most important thing that we must do. We need a compromise solution, a credible name, a person whose academic, political and professional 14/02/2018 The situation in Guinea-Bissau S/PV.8182 18-04195 19/20 background can bring about such a compromise. We need someone who, without being the favourite candidate of the PAIGC or the PRS, has a background that would enable him to bring the parties together and thereby reach a compromise. The recent appointment to the post of Prime Minister of a PAIGC leader, the engineer Artur Silva, a former Minister of four Government departments — Fisheries, Defence, Education and Foreign Affairs — suggests that he is the right person to help bring about such a compromise. Moreover, after his appointment, Silva was re-elected to the higher bodies of the PAIGC, its Central Committee and Political Bureau — at the party's most recent congress, which ended a few days ago, proving that he has earned the political confidence of the party's most important bodies. Prime Minister Silva has already held working meetings in Bissau, which I would say are encouraging, with all the parties to the Conakry Agreement — the Ambassadors of Nigeria, Senegal, China, the Gambia and the representative of the Economic Community of West African States in Guinea-Bissau. Finally, through the appointment of a senior PAIGC leader, justice can be done to the party that won the last legislative elections. But above all, there will be no losers, since the PRS will be guaranteed strong representation in a Government of inclusion. This is not a zero-sum game. Under this principle of compromise, which allows a certain degree of flexibility regarding the principle of consensus, there will undoubtedly be a winner — my country, Guinea-Bissau. In conclusion, I reiterate our thanks to the members and want to assure the Council that Guinea-Bissau will continue to count on their support in these difficult times for the sake of civil peace, political stability and solidarity. The President (spoke in Arabic): I now give the floor to the representative of Togo. Mr. Kpayedo (Togo) (spoke in French): I would first like to thank you, Mr. President, for the opportunity to address the Council once again on the situation in Guinea-Bissau, in my capacity as Coordinator of the Ambassadors of the member countries of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) that are accredited to the United Nations. I also want to thank the Secretary-General of the United Nations for his report on the situation in Guinea- Bissau (S/2018/110), presented today by Mr. Modibo Touré, his Special Representative, whom we welcome here, along with his team, and whose briefing has provided us with a thorough picture of the situation in that country. Lastly, I would like to thank Mr. Mauro Vieira for his commitment and efforts in his capacity as Chair of the Guinea-Bissau configuration of the Peacebuilding Commission. Since it began, the crisis in Guinea-Bissau has continued to be a source of great concern for the Heads of State of West Africa, who are therefore sparing no effort to arrive at a favourable and lasting outcome. This issue has been on the agenda of every recent meeting of our subregional organization's Summit. In my last statement to the Council in August (see S/PV.8031), I discussed the trampling of the implementation of the Conakry Agreement, which led to the possibility of having recourse to the ECOWAS sanctions. Since then, the impasse is still there, despite the proposal for a new road map by President José Mário Vaz at the conclusion of the fifty-second Ordinary Session of Authority of Heads of State and Government of ECOWAS, held in Abuja on 16 and 17 December 2017, and reaffirmed in Addis Ababa at the ECOWAS Extraordinary Session held on 27 January, on the margins of the 30th Ordinary Session of the African Union Assembly. In that regard, the President-in-Office of ECOWAS, Mr. Faure Essozimna Gnassingbé, in consultation with his peers, dispatched a mission of the ministerial sanctions committee to Guinea-Bissau on 31 January and 1 February 2018, led by Mr. Robert Dussey, Togo's Minister for Foreign Affairs, Cooperation and African Integration. Its purpose was to assess the progress made by the parties to the crisis in implementing the Agreement and to report to the ECOWAS Heads of State on the potential consequences if the stalemate persisted. Following that report, the Heads of State and Government of ECOWAS, in view of the fact that no significant progress has been seen in the implementation of the Conakry Agreement despite ongoing mediation and calling on all of Guinea-Bissau's political leaders to show their sense of responsibility and respect for their country's Constitution through a frank and inclusive dialogue, decided to activate the sanctions mechanisms against individuals and organizations that are hindering a settlement of the crisis, with the aim of promoting the restoration of democratic governance and respect for the rule of law in Guinea-Bissau. As a result, 19 political figures have been subject to sanctions since 4 February, in accordance with our S/PV.8182 The situation in Guinea-Bissau 14/02/2018 20/20 18-04195 decision 01/2018, on individual sanctions designed to promote the restoration of democratic governance and respect for the rule of law in Guinea-Bissau. The list is not exhaustive,and the monitoring committee for the implementation of sanctions — composed of Togo, Guinea and the ECOWAS Commission — therefore reserves the right to revise it as the situation on the ground changes. Here I should point out, as the representative of Côte d'Ivoire noted earlier, that these sanctions were established through ECOWAS's Supplementary Act of 17 February 2012 concerning sanctions regimes against Member States that do not honour their obligations to the Community, and are based on article 45 of the ECOWAS Protocol on Democracy and Good Governance. They include suspended participation in Community activities, and a travel ban and financial assets freeze for those listed and their families, wherever they may be. The sanctions cannot be effectively implemented without the assistance of the United Nations and other multilateral and regional organizations. In that regard, I would like to take this opportunity to call for multifaceted support to ECOWAS in implementing these measures, which we hope will help to create an atmosphere conducive to the restoration of dialogue among the people of Guinea-Bissau, with a view to resolving this political and institutional impasse, which has lasted too long. In conclusion, I would once again like to invite all the parties to the Guinea-Bissau crisis to show a spirit of compromise, responsibility and openness to a peaceful, negotiated and lasting solution to this dispute, which hampers development efforts in the country and therefore in the entire subregion, which is still dealing with persistent security challenges. The meeting rose at 5 p.m.
The Situation In Guinea-Bissau Report Of The Secretary-General On Developments In Guinea-Bissau And The Activities Of The United Nations Integrated Peacebuilding Office In ; United Nations S/PV.8186 Security Council Seventy-third year 8186th meeting Thursday, 22 February 2018, noon New York Provisional President: Sheikh Al Sabah . (Kuwait) Members: Bolivia (Plurinational State of). . Mr. Llorentty Solíz China. . Mr. Ma Zhaoxu Côte d'Ivoire. . Mr. Tanoh-Boutchoue Equatorial Guinea. . Mr. Ndong Mba Ethiopia. . Mr. Alemu France. . Mr. Delattre Kazakhstan. . Mr. Temenov Netherlands. . Mr. Van Oosterom Peru. . Mr. Meza-Cuadra Poland. . Ms. Wronecka Russian Federation. . Mr. Nebenzia Sweden . Mr. Skoog United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland . Mr. Hickey United States of America. . Ms. Eckels-Currie Agenda The situation in the Middle East This record contains the text of speeches delivered in English and of the translation of speeches delivered in other languages. The final text will be printed in the Official Records of the Security Council. Corrections should be submitted to the original languages only. They should be incorporated in a copy of the record and sent under the signature of a member of the delegation concerned to the Chief of the Verbatim Reporting Service, room U-0506 (verbatimrecords@un.org). Corrected records will be reissued electronically on the Official Document System of the United Nations (http://documents.un.org). 18-04815 (E) *1804815* S/PV.8186 The situation in the Middle East 22/02/2018 2/19 18-04815 The meeting was called to order at 12.10 p.m. Adoption of the agenda The agenda was adopted. The situation in the Middle East The President (spoke in Arabic): In accordance with rule 37 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure, I invite the representative of the Syrian Arab Republic to participate in this meeting. In accordance with rule 39 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure, I invite Mr. Mark Lowcock, Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator to participate in this meeting: Mr. Lowcock is joining the meeting via video-teleconference from Geneva. The Security Council will now begin its consideration of the item on its agenda. I give the floor to Mr. Lowcock. Mr. Lowcock: My colleagues and I have given the Security Council a lot of updates on the situation in eastern Ghouta over the past three months. I want to start today by bringing members some voices directly from eastern Ghouta. The Office of the Special Envoy in Geneva has, just in the past three days, received thousands of messages on instant messaging applications from civilians there. They are pleading for help. Here is one of them, from a humanitarian worker in the area — a person well versed in international humanitarian law: "During the past two months, military operations turned into a process of systematic targeting of civilians. Most air raids have intentionally targeted civilian residential buildings. Whole families have died under the rubble. Today, and as battles intensify, I call on you, as a father now expecting my first child to be born, and as a humanitarian worker trying to maintain what is left of life, to act to stop the systematic operations against civilians and open the roads for humanitarian assistance." Here are more voices. "There are entire families being targeted. A mother and her three children. Four pregnant women; one died, another is in a critical condition, the third lost her baby, and the fourth is under observation. A young girl lost both eyes, and it is continuing." "We do not want war, we do not want war, we do not want war." "Can you hear our messages, voices and fear?" "Our situation is so tragic. Our basements are not safe and lack basic needs. Help us, be with us." "Instead of saying 'no more', the world is saying 'one more.'" As representatives of Member States, all here aware that their obligations under international humanitarian law are just that — they are binding obligations. They are not favours to be traded in a game of death and destruction. Humanitarian access is not a nice-to-have; it is a legal requirement. Counterterrorism efforts cannot supersede the obligation to respect and protect civilians. They do not justify the killing of civilians and the destruction of entire cities and neighbourhoods. The Council has been briefed in minute detail, month after month, on the scale of the suffering of the Syrian people. Our reports have indeed been endless: dead and injured children, women and men; airstrikes, mortars, rockets, barrel bombs, cluster munitions, chemical weapons, thermite bombs, suicide bombs, snipers, double-tap attacks on civilians and the essential infrastructure they depend on, including hospitals and schools; rape, illegal detention, torture, child recruitment and sieges of entire cities reminiscent of medieval times. Over the past 24 hours, heavy shelling and aerial bombardment of multiple communities in eastern Ghouta have reportedly continued, resulting in the deaths of at least 50 people and wounding at least 200. According to some sources, the total death toll since 19 February is close to 300 people. Twenty-three attacks on vital civilian infrastructure have been reported since 19 February. At least seven health facilities were reportedly hit on 21 February. The only primary health-care centre in Modira town was reportedly rendered out of service by airstrikes. A hospital in Duma city sustained significant damage from nearby barrel bombs. Also in Duma city, an obstetrics centre was damaged A hospital in Jisrein town was reportedly attacked, resulting in the death of a nurse. The two Syrian Arab Red Crescent centres in Duma city and Harasta town were reportedly damaged 22/02/2018 The situation in the Middle East S/PV.8186 18-04815 3/19 by the bombardment. Meanwhile — and this is also a point I have consistently emphasized — mortar shelling from eastern Ghouta is reportedly killing and injuring scores of civilians in Damascus city, too.Members all know the statistics of this conflict. They know that half the Syrian population has either fled the country or faced repeated internal displacement. These people have lost everything. They have seen their homes destroyed, their neighbours killed, their loved ones disappear. Everyone knows that the repeated confirmed or alleged chemical attacks in Syria have killed and terrorized Syrian civilians.Eastern Ghouta is a living example of an entirely known, predictable and preventable humanitarian disaster unfolding before our eyes. Everyone knows that nearly 400,000 people are besieged and that they have been besieged for more than four years. Everyone knows that in eastern Ghouta thousands upon thousands of children are facing acute malnutrition the likes of which we have not seen elsewhere in Syria since the onset of the conflict. Everyone knows that more than 700 people are in need of urgent medical evacuation to hospitals just miles away in Damascus city.We have all seen in recent days the images of bombs and mortars raining down on bakeries and medical facilities. According to reports documented by United Nations human rights colleagues, at least 346 civilians have been killed since the beginning of this month and close to 900 people have been injured. Members all heard the Secretary-General yesterday, in the Chamber, describing eastern Ghouta as "hell on Earth" and saying that we cannot "allow things to go on happening in this horrendous way". They also heard him pleading for "the immediate suspension of all war activities in eastern Ghouta" (S/PV.8185, p. 2).Earlier this week, UNICEF issued a blank statement, as it could no longer find the words to describe the brutality of this war. Its only message was that "no words will do justice to the children killed, their mothers, their fathers and their loved ones."This appalling violence is happening as we face significantly increased constraints on our ability to reach people trapped behind conflict lines. In recent months we have encountered greater difficulties in accessing people in hard-to-reach and besieged areas, particularly through cross-line convoys, than during any period since 2015. Since 1 December, for nearly three months, we have been able to deploy only three cross-line convoys, reaching just 67,200 people. Only 7,200 of those people were in besieged areas, less than 2 per cent of the overall besieged population. In 2017, through November, approximately 53 cross-line convoys reached people in need, an average of nearly five convoys per month. A cumulative total of nearly 2 million people were reached in the first 11 months of 2017, or around 175,000 people per month. Therefore in 2017 we reached 175,000 a month; in the past three months we have reached 22,000 a month. Those are not reports or allegations. We have complete, factual information on this, because they are our convoys.Moreover, the 2017 access levels were themselves nearly 40 per cent below our access levels in 2016. Access is not only limited on aid deliveries, but we are also seeing growing challenges to our ability to independently assess needs on the ground and to monitor aid delivery.When an entire generation is robbed of its future, when hospital attacks have become the new normal, when sieges of entire cities and neighbourhoods have become a lasting reality for hundreds of thousands of people, the international community must take urgent and concrete action. I have said this before and I will say it again. What we need is a sustained cessation of hostilities, and we need it desperately — a cessation of violence that will enable the immediate, safe, unimpeded and sustained delivery of humanitarian aid and services, the evacuation of the critically sick and wounded and an alleviation of the suffering of the Syrian people.The Council can still save lives in eastern Ghouta, and elsewhere in Syria. I urge it to do so. Millions of battered and beleaguered children, women and men depend on meaningful action by the Council.The President (spoke in Arabic): I thank Mr. Lowcock for his briefing.I shall now give the floor to those members of the Council who wish to make statements.Mr. Nebenzia (Russian Federation) (spoke in Russian): We are grateful to you, Mr. President, for the prompt response to our delegation's proposal to convene a special meeting on the situation in eastern Ghouta, in Syria. That certainly does not mean that other problematic areas require any less attention. In particular, not long ago, at our initiative, the Security Council discussed the dire situation in Raqqa in detail. S/PV.8186 The situation in the Middle East 22/02/2018 4/19 18-04815 And in general, over the past month we have revisited Syria's humanitarian issues more than once. I would like to ask Council members to listen carefully to what I have to say.It is past time to discuss frankly what is going on in this Damascus suburb. The mass psychosis in global media outlets of the past few days, working in coordination to circulate all the same rumours, is certainly not contributing to an understanding of the situation. When eastern Aleppo was in the news, propagandistic disaster scenarios were put forward for it — a city where, after it was liberated from the terrorists, warehouses full of medicines and medical equipment were discovered. At the time we demanded that the Secretariat conduct an investigation, but the report presented to the Security Council was blatantly superficial.We are constantly seeing images of the activities of the White Helmets, who pass themselves off as rescuers. They were long ago shown to be supported by generous foreign assistance, and they work closely with terrorist groups. As a general rule, they serve as the original sources of well-rewarded disinformation. We are given the impression that the whole of eastern Ghouta consists of nothing but hospitals and that it is the hospitals that the Syrian army is attacking. That is a well-known tactic in information warfare. It is a very well-known fact, however, that the militants everywhere make a habit of locating their military facilities in medical and educational institutions, but for some reason that inconvenient truth is not advertised.It would be a good idea to begin with the fact that there are still several thousand defiant militants in eastern Ghouta, including some affiliated with terrorist organizations, mainly Jabhat Al-Nusra. Some time ago, they breached the agreement on a cessation of hostilities with an attack on an armoured tank unit of the Syrian armed forces in Harasta. They are shelling Damascus, and the intensity of the attacks increases daily. Dozens of missiles are launched every day, and not a single area of the capital has been spared. For some reason, those statistics are not being taken into account by United Nations representatives, although the Permanent Mission of Syria distributes them regularly. We have pointed out that in a 20 February statement, an official representative of the Secretary-General described factual information as "reported" (see S/PV.8183). And today the Under-Secretary-General talked about reported shelling. But those reports could easily have been verified by United Nations staff if they had inspected the areas of destruction and visited the victims.The Russian Embassy facilities have been repeatedly shelled, and each time the same delegations in the Security Council have made up excuses to lay off the blame for these terrorist acts. One is compelled to conclude that someone is purposely helping the criminals avoid accountability. Incidentally, we are disturbed by the fact that not so long ago, representatives of some delegations who view themselves as leaders in the protection of human rights and international humanitarian law quite seriously said that the damage resulting from the shelling in Damascus did not reach a level deserving of the attention given to eastern Ghouta. Our immediate response was to ask how many people have to die to attain, as it were, the gold standard of sympathy? There has been no answer. Is it appropriate to pass over the tragedies in Ramadi, Fallujah, Mosul and Raqqa in silence while drumming up hysteria about Madaya, Daraya, eastern Aleppo and eastern Ghouta, encouraging militants to to further humiliate civilians?Incidentally, the coalition forces' methodical destruction of Raqqa is extremely recent. The memory of it is hardly likely to have faded so quickly. For some reason, when the Coalition bombing flattened Raqqa, no one sounded the alarm, demanded compliance with international humanitarian law or proposed an immediate ceasefire. Yes, the Coalition smoked the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) out of Raqqa. We know that. But with that done, the United States has forgotten about the city. No one is clearing any mines there. Who is aware of the fact that as many as 50 returning civilians are blown up by mines in Raqqa every day? Nor do we see much enthusiasm from these famous activists about the worst humanitarian crisis of our time, which happens to be unfolding against the backdrop of the armed conflict in Yemen.The militants have turned the people who are left in eastern Ghouta into hostages who are not allowed to leave the area under rebel control through the Al-Wafideen checkpoint. The Russian Centre for Reconciliation of Opposing Sides has urged the illegal groups to lay down their arms and resolve their status, but they broke off negotiations yesterday, on 21 February. It is quite obvious that they do not care about the life and safety of the residents of eastern Ghouta, whom they use as human shields to hide behind. Their aim consists of continuing to negotiate 22/02/2018 The situation in the Middle East S/PV.8186 18-04815 5/19 tactical and logistical advantages for themselves. That does not seem to particularly worry these groups' foreign sponsors, who might be able to exert crucial influence on them. But no, they would rather maintain the status quo and organize loud campaigns blackening Syria and Russia.Energy is also being wasted on fragmenting the international efforts regarding a settlement in Syria. Instead of giving due backing to the Astana de-escalation process and the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi, which have become an important support to the inter-Syrian negotiations under the auspices of the United Nations in Geneva, we see ongoing backroom efforts designed to openly undermine the work being done through those platforms. On top of that, exclusive clubs are being created, one striking example of which is the so-called International Partnership against Impunity for the Use of Chemical Weapons, which undermines the established frameworks for international cooperation on non-proliferation. We know that preparations are being made for an unofficial presentation of that initiative in Geneva. We would like to reaffirm our position in that regard, which is that in view of the neutral status of respected international organizations such as the United Nations and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, representatives of their secretariats should not be associated with narrow initiatives such as these, which do not enjoy universal support.Many are now asking the logical question of how de-escalation in eastern Ghouta and other problematic areas of Syria can be achieved as soon as possible. The delegations of Sweden and Kuwait have come up with their recipe for this, in their role as informal monitors of the humanitarian dimension of the Syrian conflict in the Security Council. Their draft resolution — which has now been officially prepared for a vote, despite the fact that the authors know perfectly well that there is no agreement on it — proposes an apparently simple idea, which is the establishment of a ceasefire throughout Syria for not less than 30 days. We would very much like to know how such a truce will be guaranteed, but we have had no intelligible answers. The important thing, they say, is adopting the decision, and we can come up with the details later. An issue as complex as the Syrian conflict does not respond to such logic. We have been through this before, including, once again, in the case of eastern Aleppo.In principle, a ceasefire would be extremely significant, and not just for ensuring the delivery of humanitarian aid. The challenge is in how to achieve it. What we need here is not resolutions for the sake of resolutions, but measures that correspond to the realities on the ground. We are constantly talking about ensuring that the Security Council agrees on feasible decisions that are not divorced from reality or that cater to populist demands. This is about the credibility of the principal organ of the United Nations, responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security, in accordance with the Charter, whose purposes and principles we were discussing only yesterday. If we could stop the violence in crisis zones with resolutions, we would already be living in a completely different world.It will take long and hard work with the sides to the conflict to stabilize the situation so that the parties can sit down at the negotiating table and come up with the parameters for a ceasefire. There is no other way. It will also be impossible to ensure on paper that in 48 hours, or any other amount of time, humanitarian convoys can get going and mass medical evacuations begin. By the way, specific parameters for normalizing a number of complex issues are currently being formulated in Geneva, including by using the potential of the specialist International Syria Support Group. They include the Rukban camp for displaced persons — where, we understand, the United States military presence occupying the area has finally given the United Nations written guarantees — the Yarmouk camp, where the ISIL terrorists still have a presence, and the Fua and Kefraya enclaves.In that connection, I would like to know if the authors of today's initiative genuinely do not understand its utopian nature or if there is some other purpose at work here that has nothing to do with a desire to help struggling Syrians. Unfortunately, the story of eastern Aleppo in 2016 suggests that the second is true, and that the aim is to start a fight so as to strengthen international pressure on the Syrian authorities and slander Russia. Besides that, it shifts the focus from the importance of reviving the Geneva process as quickly as possible on the basis of the agreements that the Syrians arrived at in Sochi to indiscriminate accusations against the Syrian Government. Will that improve Geneva's chances of success?I will say it again to make sure that everyone hears it one more time. Russia will continue to do everything S/PV.8186 The situation in the Middle East 22/02/2018 6/19 18-04815 possible to achieve peace in Syria and restore stability to the Middle East. We call on our partners to do the same in a spirit of constructive cooperation and in cooperation with the United Nations, rather than continuing to sow confusion, ramp up support for jihadists and tear the region apart. For this draft resolution to be meaningful and realistic, the Russian delegation has prepared some amendments to it that we will now circulated to Council members.Mr. Skoog (Sweden): I would like to thank the Russian Federation for calling for a meeting on the horrendous situation in eastern Ghouta, and Mr. Mark Lowcock for his briefing. I will now make some brief remarks on behalf of Sweden and Kuwait.In seven years of war, the situation in the besieged area of eastern Ghouta has never been worse. I would like to thank the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs for another briefing reminding us of the horrific reality for citizens in eastern Ghouta and of the Council's responsibilities. Yesterday, in this Chamber, the Secretary-General said that the 400,000 inhabitants of eastern Ghouta live in hell on earth. His appeal to all of us in the Council was to act — to immediately suspend all war activities in eastern Ghouta, allowing for humanitarian aid to reach all of those in need, allowing for the evacuation of the hundreds of people that need urgent treatment and that cannot be provided for and allowing the possibility for other civilians to be effectively treated. I want to take this opportunity to remind all parties, as Mark Lowcock just did, of their obligations under international law to protect civilians and hospitals and other medical facilities.The co-penholders, Sweden and Kuwait, have put forward a draft resolution to respond to the constant legitimate calls from the United Nations for a nationwide cessation of hostilities for 30 days in order to allow for humanitarian access and emergency medical evacuations. Our draft resolution also calls for the lifting of the siege directed against eastern Ghouta. We plead to all Council members to come together to support the draft resolution and to urgently adopt it so that we can halt the incessant attacks against eastern Ghouta and beyond, and we can avert a situation that is beyond words in its desperation. We, Sweden and Kuwait, furthermore urge the parties to the de-escalation agreement in eastern Ghouta to comply and implement it. We call upon the Astana guarantors — Russia, Iran and Turkey — to spare no effort and bring all their influence to bear on the parties to that end to avert the human disaster unfolding before our eyes.In response to our Russian colleague on our draft resolution, the United Nations convoys and evacuation teams are ready to go, subject to standard security procedures. The draft resolution that we are putting forward is not a comprehensive peace deal. Its aim is a much-needed humanitarian pause for an initial period of 30 days. There are already ceasefire agreements in force for the areas where fighting has escalated the most recently. They must be complied with. There are existing monitoring mechanisms that can be utilized. The role of the Council, I believe, is to push the parties to the conflict to comply with the proposed cessation of hostilities. Compliance is on the shoulders of the parties. I think that we can make a difference, and I think that we are tested today — not just as Ambassadors representing our countries, but as human beings. That is a massive responsibility.The President (spoke in Arabic): I shall now make a statement in my capacity as the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs of Kuwait. At the outset, I would like to thank Mr. Mark Lowcock, Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, for his briefing today. The remarks in Mr. Lowcock's statements are in line with the Secretary-General's remarks yesterday morning (see S/PV.8185) — that eastern Ghouta can wait no longer. There is tremendous suffering there, with 400,000 people who are living hell on Earth.We support all what the Permanent Representative of Sweden, Mr. Skoog, said in his statement on behalf of Kuwait and Sweden as co-penholders of the humanitarian dossier in Syria. It is unfortunate that the number of people killed since the beginning of this month in eastern Ghouta has reached 1,200 civilians. The international community is silent; it stands still. The question here is: How long we are going to remain silent? How many more civilians, women, children and elderly must die or be displaced until the international community starts taking action and speaking in one voice and saying enough — enough carnage and grave violations of human rights law and international human law? In that regard, I would like to make the following points.22/02/2018 The situation in the Middle East S/PV.8186 18-04815 7/19 First, Kuwait and Sweden, in response to the clear-cut demands of the United Nations on the humanitarian situation in Syria, have jointly submitted a simple and clear draft resolution that demands a cessation of hostilities across Syria for a 30-day period in order for the United Nations and its partners to be able to deliver humanitarian aid and services and provide critical medical evacuation to the sick and wounded, in accordance with the provisions of international law, and end the blockade on residential areas.Secondly, action on the part of the the State of Kuwait is based on our religious and national duty to our brothers in Syria. We have a legal, human and ethical responsibility to end their suffering. In that connection, we call on all Member States to support the draft resolution and vote in its favour. We should rise above our political differences to protect civilians.Thirdly, a failure to ende the systematic and horrendous carnage and bloodshed that has continued for seven years with various weapons would only serve to encourage the perpetuation of such crimes without accountability, as those who commit them are heartened by impunity.I now resume my functions as President of the Council.Ms. Eckels-Currie (United States of America): I thank Under-Secretary-General Lowcock for his briefing, particularly his noting of the systematic targeting of civilians in eastern Ghouta and the toll that it is taking on the people there.Yesterday, Russia's Permanent Representative requested this meeting in order to "make sure that all parties can present their views". The view that Mr. Lowcock presented today is, as the Secretary-General said and others have repeated, one of hell on Earth for the people of eastern Ghouta. I would also like to share the vision of some of the people of eastern Ghouta.Bilal is 22 years old, with a wife who is five months pregnant. He says, "We are waiting our turn to die; this is the only thing I can say". Abdullah is a construction worker, with a wife and six children. He says,"Bombs were falling everywhere near our house. We have been spending the last week digging into the rubble of nearby areas with our bare hands."Malik is a doctor treating the wounded. He says,"The hospitals have been overflowing with blood. We are doing what we can to help, but the situation is becoming unbearable."Those are just a few of the overwhelming number of horrific stories coming out of eastern Ghouta everyday. The pictures and videos are everywhere — screaming parents digging through rubble to find their children; doctors working frantically with no medicine and no equipment in underground hospitals to save whoever they can. Those are not terrorists showing up in these makeshift emergency rooms — they are civilians. They are ordinary people, under attack by a barbaric Al-Assad regime that is bent on levelling eastern Ghouta to the ground, with no regard for the 400,000 men, women and children who live there.No one needs to use their imagination to know what the Al-Assad regime is planning. It is exactly what we saw in Aleppo in 2016, and in Hama and Homs before that. The Al-Assad regime wants to bomb or starve of all of its opponents into submission. That is why, except for two small deliveries of aid, the regime has not allowed any medical convoys or deliveries of food into eastern Ghouta since November, and the bombing attacks have been relentless. The regime wants to keep bombing and gassing these 400,000 people, and the Al-Assad regime is counting on Russia to make sure the Council is unable to stop their suffering.Yesterday the Russian representative asked for the parties to present their views, and has put forward a deeply cynical one today. Those present have now also heard from the United Nations humanitarian leader and from people, like Bilal, Abdullah and Malik. The assault from the regime is relentless, and the suffering is overwhelming. The Russian Permanent Representative also asked that we "come up with ways of getting out of the situation." Yet it appears to be intent on blocking any meaningful effort to do so.None of us on the Council need to look very far for the way out. Thanks to the tireless efforts of our colleagues from Kuwait and Sweden, the way is sitting in front of us. We have a draft resolution establishing a 30-day ceasefire to help shield the people of eastern Ghouta and allow for deliveries of food and medicine to arrive. All 15 of us have spent the past three weeks negotiating that text, patiently attempting to work with each other, including the Russian delegation. We believed we had an agreed text. There are no surprises here. The United S/PV.8186 The situation in the Middle East 22/02/2018 8/19 18-04815 States is ready to vote on the draft resolution — right here and right now. All of us should be ready. Sweden and Kuwait have consulted everyone on that text. They have done their part. There is no reason to delay. Literally, the minute this meeting ends, the Council can take the clearest possible step to help — vote for a ceasefire and vote for humanitarian access.What the people of Eastern Ghouta need is not complicated, and do not just take our word for it. The International Committee of the Red Cross head of delegation in Syria summed it up, "This is madness and it has to stop". The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Prince Zeid, asked,"How much cruelty will it take before the international community can speak with one voice to say enough dead children, enough wrecked families, enough violence, and take resolute concerted action to bring this monstrous campaign of annihilation to an end?"UNICEF can hardly put words on a page. All UNICEF said in a haunting statement was, "No words will do justice to the children killed, their mothers, their fathers and their loved ones". The Secretary-General made his point clearly yesterday. He supports the cessation of hostilities because eastern Ghouta cannot wait.Yesterday Russia's Permanent Representative asked what we should do about eastern Ghouta. The people of eastern Ghouta, United Nations officials, humanitarian and human rights leaders and, indeed, pretty much the entirety of the Council have answered: stop the bombing of eastern Ghouta and allow medical assistance in. The rest of the Council is ready to act. We urge the Council to move forward with the ceasefire and humanitarian draft resolution immediately.Mr. Ma Zhaoxu (China) (spoke in Chinese): I would like to thank Russia for its initiative in convening this meeting. I also thank Under-Secretary-General Lowcock for his briefing.Recently, the security situation in parts of Syria, including its capital, Damascus, and the eastern Ghouta region, has escalated, causing significant civilian casualties, which is drawing broad attention from the international community. China would like to express its profound sympathy to the Syrian people for their suffering. We condemn all acts of violence that target civilians and civilian facilities and harm innocent lives. China has always believed that there is no military solution to the Syrian issue; it would only aggravate the suffering of the Syrian people. A political settlement is the only way out.The present situation is now such that the international community needs to support the Syrian parties in the resumption of dialogue and negotiations under the United Nations mediation as soon as possible and in seeking a solution that is accepted by all parties through a Syrian-owned and Syrian-led political process. That is the only way to fundamentally ease the humanitarian situation in Syria and rid the Syrian people of their suffering at an early date.Terrorist organizations are still launching attacks in Syria, which have caused significant civilian casualties and impeded humanitarian relief efforts by the United Nations. The international community should strengthen its cooperation on counter-terrorism, adopt unified standards and resolutely combat all terrorist organizations designated as such by the Security Council.As part of the Syrian issue, the humanitarian aspect in the country is closely linked to Syria's overall situation, in addition to its political process. Actions taken by the Security Council on Syria's humanitarian issue should not only help ease the overall humanitarian situation in the country, but also help consolidate the momentum for a ceasefire in Syria and be conducive to the bigger picture of a political settlement to the issue. China calls upon the Security Council to remain united on the issue of Syria, speak with one voice and create favourable conditions for substantive progress in Syria's political process at an early date.Mr. Delattre (France) (spoke in French): I would like to thank Mr. Mark Lowcock for his enlightening briefing of the situation of the inhabitants of eastern Ghouta. Mr. Lowcock has said it all — the torrent of fire that is indiscriminately falling eastern Ghouta is relentlessly pushing the limits of horror and human suffering. There are no words to describe what is taking place in eastern Ghouta as we speak.The regime is not merely bombing its own people. It is methodically targeting hospitals and vital infrastructure for the population with the macabre aim of ensuring that the injured who have not perished during the shelling do not survive the wounds inflicted upon them. We must insist that the attacks against hospitals and health-care personnel constitute war crimes, and the perpetrators must be held accountable.22/02/2018 The situation in the Middle East S/PV.8186 18-04815 9/19 The reports we have received from non-governmental organizations and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights are unbearable. Twenty eight attacks struck 20 hospitals in eastern Ghouta since January. More than 700 individuals are in need of urgent medical evacuation. Those evacuations are systematically blocked by the Damascus regime, which has been the case for months. More than 400,000 people, including 130,000 children, have been besieged for months by the regime as part of a siege that is reminiscent of the Middle Ages.We should make no mistake: the Syrian regime and its allies are brandishing the fight against jihadist fighters, the need for which no one is disputing, as justification of an offensive aimed at entirely different goals. Its real intentions are indeed to annihilate any and all opposition and break the morale of civilians by indiscriminately massacring them. The offensive against eastern Ghouta, which has seen an unbridled acceleration in recent years — the worst of which is undoubtedly yet to come — has added to both the methods and consequences of the new Aleppo. Let us recall that in that city the intensification of bombing preceded a reconquest operation and unknown levels of violence that never sought to shield civilians or rule out the use of chemical weapons. We shall be particularly vigilant on the latter.Yesterday, through President Macron, France emphatically condemned the indiscriminate shelling of residential areas and civilian infrastructure. We called for the immediate establishment of a ceasefire to enable medical evacuations and humanitarian access to the people. The Secretary-General also spoke resolutely along the same lines. As was recalled this morning by the French Foreign Minister, Mr. Jean-Yves Le Drian, any lack of action is an indication of guilt. We must act swiftly, for the Council has the means at its disposal, if the willingness is put forth.Sweden and Kuwait, the commitment of which France commends, have proposed a draft resolution demanding an immediate cessation of hostilities to enable humanitarians to evacuate the wounded and gain access to the people. The draft resolution before us does not seem to me to be a political judgement. It conveys the humanitarian imperative that, as such, must bring us together. Accordingly, we have noted Russia's intention to propose changes to the draft resolution. We will consider them, but it is crucial that we quickly adopt the draft resolution so that a cessation of hostilities takes place immediately, as addressing the situation on the ground is of the utmost urgency.A cessation of hostilities is not a concession. It is the minimal form of response to the repeated requests of the United Nations and humanitarian actors, which have been communicated by members of the Council. Subsequently, it is up to the regime's supporters to ensure full respect and to respond to all calls for access to humanitarian assistance and medical evacuations under international humanitarian law. It is inconceivable to us that a Council member could be opposed to that.At the same time, we must — and France stands ready to — redouble our efforts to establish a neutral environment that will allow for a credible political process and the holding of elections in Syria. Since the beginning of the Syrian crisis, France has consistently advocated for the priority of achieving a negotiated solution to the military situation and of finding a political solution that satisfies the aspirations of the Syrian people, ensures lasting peace and stops terrorism in its tracks. France will not deviate from the road map adopted by the international community. We have already said, and will say once again, that only a political, inclusive solution, established under the auspices of the United Nations through enabling a political transition within the framework of the Geneva process and resolution 2254 (2015), will end the suffering of the Syrian people in a credible and lasting manner.I should like to conclude with both a warning and an appeal. Not only has the situation in Syria reverted to the tragic darkest hours of the crisis, but, if we fail to react robustly and immediately — let us make no mistake — the worst is yet to come. The worst is the endless escalation of the humanitarian crisis that is crushing the people, any semblance of humanity and the very values underpinning the United Nations. A widespread ground campaign directed against eastern Ghouta might well be the next deadly stage. The worst is also the expansion of the conflict. The combination of circumstances before us today might lead to a potentially major regional or even international confrontation. That risk must be taken very seriously.In the name of our shared values and interests, I call on every member of the Council to join and act together. We owe that to the civilians who are dying by the hundreds in the hell in eastern Ghouta. We owe it to the security of the region and of the world, which S/PV.8186 The situation in the Middle East 22/02/2018 10/19 18-04815 we have the collective responsibility to protect. We owe it to upholding the credibility of the United Nations, which is our shared heritage. Let us beware that the Syrian tragedy does not also become the grave of the United Nations.Mr. Meza-Cuadra (Peru) (spoke in Spanish): We thank Mr. Lowcock, Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, for his briefing today on the tragic situation facing the more than 400,000 people living in eastern Ghouta and in other cities.We heard with dismay that, in that area, the basic principles of international humanitarian law and human rights continue to be disregarded. That has been evidenced by the incessant and merciless bombardments resulting in hundreds of civilian casualties — many of whom are women and children — on a daily basis. Far from decreasing, the bombardments have intensified over the past several days and weeks, as has been the case with regard to the number of people with urgent medical issues who are dying because they cannot be evacuated. We deeply regret that humanitarian convoys are unable to reach besieged and difficult-to-access areas, such as eastern Ghouta, among others, despite repeated appeals from the United Nations and various countries, including Peru, to facilitate immediate, safe and unrestricted access in eastern Ghouta, as well as other areas of Syria.All those facts, which are ultimately allowing for and fuelling a hell on Earth, as the Under-Secretary-General just pointed out to us, warrant our strongest condemnation. We must remind all parties, including the Syrian authorities, of the responsibility to protect the civilian population. The United Nations has determined various actions that can be taken to alleviate the suffering of civilians in eastern Ghouta and other affected areas. We stress the importance of the immediate implementation of a 30-day cessation of hostilities to allow for providing aid and setting out and implementing the humanitarian assistance response plan and the five priorities that Mr. Lowcock mentioned. Those are all indispensable and urgently needed measures that Peru fully supports.Implementing them will require a genuine political will to reverse direction and turn them into a reality. Accordingly, we thank Sweden and Kuwait for their generous efforts to reach a consensus on a draft resolution on a cessation of hostilities, which we hope can be adopted as soon as possible. It is of the utmost importance that Council members, in particular those who are able to exercise their influence on the ground, show the world their unity, sense of duty and willingness to compromise, and that we send a clear signal that prioritizes human beings over other interests.The Council must be able to rise to the occasion and fulfil its sensitive and important responsibilities. All can count on my delegation's commitment to carrying out actions that will alleviate the human suffering in eastern Ghouta and throughout Syria.Mr. Van Oosterom (Netherlands): We thank the presidency for convening this meeting, and I thank Mark Lowcock for his sobering briefing. I will address the following three points: first, the escalation of violence in eastern Ghouta, secondly, international humanitarian law, and, thirdly, action by the Security Council.First, with regard to the escalation of violence in eastern Ghouta, we are meeting at a moment of grave distress for the people in eastern Ghouta and elsewhere in Syria. We have seen the extreme escalation of violence in Idlib and eastern Ghouta, which was initiated a few weeks ago by the Syrian regime and its allies. That has severely intensified over the past several days and continues without pause, as Mark Lowcock clearly described. We condemn all indiscriminate attacks directed against civilians. Communities in eastern Ghouta have experienced the most intense bombardments since the beginning of the siege in 2012. Mortars are also being fired into Damascus. Families do not have a safe place to hide. Women and children are dying. Last Monday, the United Nations reported, over a period of just 13 hours, at least, 92 civilian deaths in eastern Ghouta, and the total death toll since Monday appears to stand now at approximately 300.We continue to receive reports of attacks on hospitals and of the renewed use of chemical weapons, thereby leading to the inhumane suffering of civilians and those who try to help them. We pay tribute to the humanitarian efforts of the White Helmets. We condemn targeted attacks against them. While the indiscriminate bombardment of civilian-populated areas continues, desperately needed humanitarian aid, including medical aid, for the people of eastern Ghouta cannot be delivered. We condemn the incessant violence and the barbaric tactics of besiegement. We have seen those tactics before. If we think back to Aleppo in December 2016, the same scenario took place. The regime turned 22/02/2018 The situation in the Middle East S/PV.8186 18-04815 11/19 that city into an unlivable hell where civilians were imprisoned, constantly targeted from the air and cut off from any form of aid. The Council should not stand by and watch a repetition of such events in eastern Ghouta.Secondly, concerning the erosion of international humanitarian law, in witnessing the sheer disregard for human life, we must ask ourselves: What has become of the hard-won gains in the area of international humanitarian law? The lack of compliance with the Geneva Conventions by parties to the Syrian conflict erodes the very norms enshrined therein. It also erodes the rules-based international order. We cannot let that happen. The carnage in Syria must stop. The Council must take effective, credible and decisive action today. The world is watching. We call upon all parties to the Syrian conflict, in particular the Syrian regime and its allies, to stop the targeting of civilians, stop the attacks on hospitals and facilitate immediate access for humanitarian organizations to deliver much needed aid.That brings me to my third point, which is action by the Council on the cessation of hostilities. We thank penholders Kuwait and Sweden for negotiating a draft resolution during the past two weeks that addresses the dire situation in Syria. We pay tribute to the prudent, inclusive manner in which Sweden and Kuwait have organized negotiations on the draft resolution. We wholeheartedly support the Swedish-Kuwaiti appeal to support their text.The draft resolution includes clear and implementable measures. We fully support an immediate cessation of hostilities in Syria to enable aid convoys to deliver food and medicines to all those in need, and the safe medical evacuation of the critically ill and wounded. That must happen as soon as possible. Parties to the Syrian conflict and those with influence on them have a heavy responsibility to assure the safety of humanitarian operations and to ensure that no forced evacuations of civilians take place.In conclusion, some Council members say that the draft resolution cannot be implemented because it is not realistic. But with sufficient political will on the part of the parties involved in Syria, the cessation of hostilities can become a most urgently needed reality. The Council showed forceful action when it adopted resolution 2393 (2017) in December 2017 to alleviate the suffering in Syria by allowing for vital cross-border humanitarian aid. Let us again show forceful action. Let us prove to the world that we can agree to put the safety of civilians first, throughout Syria.The human suffering in Syria, in particular in Ghouta, must end. We need a cessation of hostilities now. We call on the Russian Federation in particular to use its influence, do its utmost to achieve that objective and allow the Council to act effectively. Let us adopt the realistic, clear and balanced draft resolution as it stands, end the violence and allow access for humanitarian assistance.Mr. Alemu (Ethiopia): We thank Under-Secretary-General Mark Lowcock for his briefing. We appreciate his efforts and understand the challenges he faces.We are deeply concerned about the military escalation in eastern Ghouta and its devastating impact on civilians. We are also equally concerned about escalating conflict in other parts of Syria. The continued reports of attacks against medical facilities, resulting in a number of civilian deaths and injuries, is indeed extremely worrying. We stress that it is absolutely imperative to protect civilians in eastern Ghouta and other affected areas.Nonetheless, we should never overlook the fact that the capital, Damascus, is being shelled from eastern Ghouta — one of its suburbs. All the same, it is impossible to deny the fact that life-saving aid must reach all Syrians in need of urgent assistance. In that regard, while we welcome the fact that the United Nations inter-agency convoy delivered life-saving assistance to more than 7,000 persons on 14 February, we acknowledge that, given the severity of the humanitarian situation, it is obviously not enough.To address humanitarian needs, the United Nations and its humanitarian partners should be allowed safe, improved and unhindered humanitarian access. As the Secretary-General recalled in his statement on 20 February and through his strong appeal yesterday in the Chamber (see S/PV.8185), a cessation of hostilities is desirable to enable humanitarian aid deliveries and medical evacuation. We see no problem with reaching a consensus on the matter. In that connection, members of the Council have been engaged in constructive discussions on how to ensure the implementation of a cessation of hostilities.As the situation on the ground becomes increasingly complex, we understand that implementing a humanitarian pause will not be easy. We understand S/PV.8186 The situation in the Middle East 22/02/2018 12/19 18-04815 the concerns of some in that regard. We do not ignore the possibility that terrorist elements might exploit that tool to advance their goals. It will require the political will and tangible cooperation, in good faith, of all Syrian actors, as well as of all States with influence over the parties. Let us not forget that the situation in Syria is becoming extremely complicated and that the humanitarian situation has not remained unaffected. We are extremely worried about the current trajectory.As a human tragedy unfolds before our very eyes, it is expected that the Council will take meaningful, collective action that could help save lives on the ground. That is why we have reiterated that the Council should extend its unified support for the humanitarian work of the United Nations and its partners. Only by working together will the Council convey a strong and unified message that could help facilitate the much-needed humanitarian work of the United Nations and alleviate the continued suffering of the Syrians. In that regard, the humanitarian draft resolution will perhaps provide us with a good opportunity to demonstrate our resolve for concrete action. It may not be a perfect text but we believe it paves the way for all parties to coordinate their existing efforts to halt hostilities for the sake of civilians who are in an extremely difficult situation.Let me take this opportunity to thank the two penholders Kuwait and Sweden, which have been working tirelessly to achieve a consensus outcome. We hope they will continue their much-appreciated efforts until the last minute to address the concerns — real, legitimate concerns — of all delegations.Let me conclude by reiterating that the escalating violence in eastern Ghouta and other parts of Syria should reinforce the importance and urgency of finding a comprehensive political solution, without which the suffering of Syrians will continue unabated.Ms. Wronecka (Poland): I would like to thank Mr. Mark Lowcock for his briefing.As our Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Jacek Czaputowicz, stated yesterday with regard to eastern Ghouta, there is no justification for the indiscriminate attacks on innocent civilians, including children, or on civilian infrastructure, such as health facilities. They must stop immediately and all parties to the conflict must strictly comply with their obligations under international humanitarian law. We would like to stress that all actors should use their influence to bring about immediate and improved conditions on the ground.Once again, we urgently call for the cessation of hostilities in the whole of Syria. Attacks against civilian targets, including medical facilities, must stop now in order to relieve the enormous and unreasonable suffering of the Syrian people. We therefore call upon all parties to alleviate the suffering of civilians, including children, by granting them urgent, free and safe access to humanitarian assistance.With regard to the de-escalation zones, which include eastern Ghouta, I should recall that they were aimed at ensuring a ceasefire and humanitarian access in accordance with international law, including international humanitarian law. In the light of this fact, I call on all parties engaged to respect their ceasefire-related commitments. I also call on States members of the Security Council to use their leverage on the parties in order to implement relevant previous commitments and to create conditions for a permanent ceasefire.In conclusion, I would like to stress the importance of maintaining the unity of the Council on the question of humanitarian access. We should find a mutually acceptable way to express a clear position of the Security Council in this regard. Accordingly, Poland would like to reiterate its support for the work of Sweden and Kuwait as penholders of the draft humanitarian resolution for Syria. Now more than ever do we need to make every possible effort to adopt the draft resolution as soon as possible. It is the Council's responsibility not to fail to stop the ongoing humanitarian tragedy in the eastern Ghouta.Mr. Hickey (United Kingdom): I thank Under-Secretary-General Lowcock for his very detailed and clear briefing today. It was very powerful to hear through him the voices of the people of eastern Ghouta.Russia called this meeting today to allow us to present our understanding of the situation on the ground and come up with ways of getting out of the situation. We have heard very clearly from Under-Secretary-General Lowcock today and from the Secretary-General yesterday about the situation on the ground (see S/PV.8185). This is hell on Earth; the scale of the human suffering and destruction is unbearable. The suffering of the Syrian people, while primarily the responsibility of the Syrian regime, brings shame on all of us in the Security Council.Let us be very clear about the main cause of this hell on Earth. It is the direct result of an escalation by 22/02/2018 The situation in the Middle East S/PV.8186 18-04815 13/19 the Syrian regime of its aerial bombardment of civilian areas, using cluster bombs and chemical weapons and systematically killing hundreds of its own civilians. As others in this Chamber have said today, these are breaches of international humanitarian law and are war crimes. The United Kingdom will be unrelenting in its campaign to ensure accountability and justice for these crimes using all mechanisms at our disposal.We owe it to the people of eastern Ghouta to highlight the utter devastation facing them and then to take measures to stop it. According to the Syrian American Medical Society, in the first 48 hours of this week, 250 civilians were killed and 460 injured. Those who survived these attacks have been further targeted by the regime while trying to get help for their injuries. There have been 22 separate attacks on 20 different hospitals in the three days since Monday. We applaud the incredible work of the brave doctors on the ground who risk their own lives to save others. And like the Netherlands, we salute the heroes of the White Helmets who have demonstrated incredible bravery, courage and resilience to save the lives of thousands of Syrians on all sides of this conflict.From the start of the conflict, the Al-Assad regime has peddled the myth that all of those opposing Al-Assad are terrorists. This is manifestly not the case. The people of eastern Ghouta are not terrorists. Jabhat Al-Nusra has only a small presence in eastern Ghouta; its fighters number less than a quarter of 1 per cent of the population of that area. Nothing can justify the barbaric bombardment we have seen in recent days or the blocking of humanitarian aid or the denial of medical evacuations. We also condemn the mortar shelling from eastern Ghouta of civilian areas of Damascus and attacks against the Russian embassy in that city.The Security Council has failed to uphold its responsibilities in Syria. We all know why this is the case, but we have all agreed that there can be no military solution to the conflict — only a political one. The actions of the Al-Assad regime in recent weeks and the military escalation in an area guaranteed by Russia and Iran as a de-escalation zone show cynical disregard by the regime for every member of the Security Council and for our resolutions. It is therefore vital that we all send a clear and unified message in response.The solution to the situation is not difficult. We need to see an immediate cessation of hostilities, including an immediate end to the aerial bombing of eastern Ghouta. If everyone in this Chamber were to commit unequivocally to this today, it could have an impact on the ground. It could save the lives of thousands of innocent men, women and children who are being killed as we speak here in this Chamber today. We therefore welcome the draft resolution put forward into blue by you, Mr. President, and by the delegation of Sweden, and we look forward to a vote later today.In conclusion, yesterday we discussed the principles of the United Nations Charter, which our predecessors drafted in the name of the peoples of the world to help save succeeding generations from the scourge of war (see S/PV.8185). It is clear that we have fallen woefully short of this aim. We have failed the people of eastern Ghouta. But let us reverse this trend today. Let us adopt the draft resolution and take the concrete actions needed to ease the suffering in this zone of death and destruction.Mr. Ndong Mba (Equatorial Guinea) (spoke in Spanish): Equatorial Guinea thanks the Russian Federation for convening this meeting of the Security Council and hopes to contribute to the adoption of a decision aimed at alleviating the enormous suffering and regrettable loss of human life in eastern Ghouta and other parts of Syria. We thank the representative of the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Mr. Mark Lowcock, for his informative briefing.For the Republic of Equatorial Guinea, the changing humanitarian situation in eastern Ghouta requires urgent action to alleviate the critical state of affairs of the most vulnerable members of the civilian population. In recent days, the number of victims and amount of material damage to infrastructure have increased considerably, and the international community is obliged to take some urgent action so as to halt the ongoing loss of lives, mostly of children and women.We reiterate the appeal made by the delegation of Equatorial Guinea on 14 February for the parties to the conflict to allow humanitarian aid to reach those most in need (see S/PV. 8181). The cessation of hostilities is imperative in order to ensure safe access for relief teams, the distribution of humanitarian aid and the evacuation of the wounded and sick. Equatorial Guinea calls on all parties to the conflict to take the necessary steps to cease hostilities.S/PV.8186 The situation in the Middle East 22/02/2018 14/19 18-04815 Frank, direct and inclusive dialogue is the only viable way out of the Syrian crisis. The Council must redouble its efforts and persuade the opponents to return to the negotiating table. In that sense, resolution 2254 (2015) remains a valid instrument. The recent history of this conflict has taught us the devastating implications that it can have for the entire region. A definitive and sustainable solution to the conflict is in the interests of all the countries of the world.The Republic of Equatorial Guinea urgently calls on all parties to the conflict, be they directly or indirectly involved, to declare a ceasefire with immediate effect that will be respected and guaranteed by all parties so as to allow for the evacuation of civilians and the delivery of medical care, drinking water and food that will save hundreds of human lives. Even as we debate this issue here in the Chamber, the people of eastern Ghouta and elsewhere in Syria are on the verge of perishing. We must consider any proposal to be submitted from the humanitarian perspective, taking into account the suffering of the population of eastern Ghouta and Syria.Mr. Llorentty Solíz (Plurinational State of Bolivia) (spoke in Spanish): My delegation thanks the delegation of Russia for having asked the presidency to convene this meeting, for I think it very important to exchange views about what is happening in Syria. We also grateful for the briefing by Mr. Mark Locock.Bolivia reiterates its regret that the crisis in Syria has to date led to so many lives being lost and so much destruction. According to Mr. Lowcock's office, more than 500,000 people have died since the beginning of the conflict, 13.1 million people require humanitarian assistance, of whom 2.9 million are trapped in besieged or hard-to-reach, and 6.9 million persons have been displaced internally. We regret that recent events have led to more people dying or needing humanitarian assistance. We call for the earliest possible beginning of demining operations and for the provision of humanitarian assistance — such as to the city of Raqqa — in order to facilitate the safe and dignified return of the families that were displaced as a result of the conflict.We also regret that the latest events in Syria have once again served to underscore the urgent need to revitalize the Geneva political process, while strengthening the tangible results achieved in Astana and Sochi, in consultation, of course, with all the parties concerned. We reiterate what several of our colleagues have said during this meeting: there is no military solution to the situation in Syria, only a political one.We also again reiterate our great gratitude for the work being done by the staff of the humanitarian assistance agencies and groups on the ground. We demand that the parties involved comply with their obligations under international law, in particular international humanitarian law and international human rights law.We reiterate to the parties involved that they must respect the agreements and the de-escalation zones, as well as avoid attacks on civilian facilities — such residential areas, schools and hospitals — in line with international humanitarian law, so as to ensure the protection of civilians and unrestricted access for humanitarian agencies to provide much-needed assistance.I understand that we all agree with those principles, as they are basic, fundamental principles of international humanitarian law. Each and every one of us has spoken repeatedly about the obligations of the Security Council under the Charter of the United Nations, including its highest responsibility in terms of the maintenance of international peace and security. Nevertheless, my delegation cannot agree with double standards being applied on any issue, and much less on humanitarian ones. We must not drag down the Security Council by using it as an instrument for a different agenda. Nor, as we have also said several times, should we allow the Council to become an echo chamber where we repeatedly recite well-known areas of war.In referring to double standards, I will desist from referring to the humanitarian situation in other places around the world. I will limit myself just to Syria. My delegation is surprised, and does not understand, at how the Security Council has not even been able to express itself on the terrorist attacks on the Russian Embassy in Damascus, a member the Council. We have counted six such attacks in the past two weeks, followed by silence on the part of the Council. That should draw our attention as to double standards.I repeat that we totally reject the politicization of any humanitarian issue. We know that the situation in Syria is urgent. We need to think very carefully about how we can address each of these situations, given that each has its particular characteristics.22/02/2018 The situation in the Middle East S/PV.8186 18-04815 15/19 With regard to the draft resolution that has been circulated for the Council's consideration, first of all, my delegation would like to sincerely express its gratitude for the efforts of the delegations of Sweden and Kuwait. We have seen them work with great dedication, consulting with the various delegations as part of what of course is a complicated process. That is the nature of negotiations. We hope that the various calls for the Council to do something will come to fruition. . However, I think we have to recognize that putting to a vote a draft resolution, as several delegations have called for today, in the knowledge that it will not be adopted by the Council shows that the goal is not of a humanitarian nature, the aim is political. Putting to a vote a draft resolution while knowing that it will not be adopted means that the goal is not to alleviate the humanitarian situation but to garner a few headlines in the media. That is why we say that we should avoid making the Council an instrument for political ends.We very much welcome the fact that the Russian delegation has put forward language to enable us to continue the negotiations, which is essential. I agree with what my colleague the Ambassador of Sweden said, that is, the Council is being tested in alleviating the humanitarian situation in Syria. The Council is indeed being tested, and that test is to achieve unity in the Council. If we do not, then the meeting at which the draft resolution is put to the vote will go down in history as just a few headlines. But it will come to nothing and will in no way alleviate the humanitarian situation in Syria.I therefore issue a fraternal call on my colleagues the members of the Security Council — especially my beloved brothers the Ambassadors of Sweden and Kuwait — that we do everything we can to send out a signal for there to be a change in direction with regard to what the Council has been doing repeatedly over the past months, and show that by being united we will in some way be able to meet the expectations of the rest of the membership and meet the responsibilities assigned to us by the Charter.Mr. Tanoh-Boutchoue (Côte d'Ivoire) (spoke in French): At the outset, I wish to thank the Russian Federation for having called for this meeting.I also thank Mr. Mark Lowcock, Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, for his helpful briefing on the latest developments in the humanitarian situation in Syria, which has reached a critical threshold.Côte d'Ivoire remains deeply concerned by the ongoing deterioration of the humanitarian situation, largely due to the resurgence of fighting on the ground, particularly in eastern Ghouta where since Monday, I regret to say, 40 civilians have been killed and more than 150 wounded, and many hospitals and schools have been destroyed. In the face of this extreme escalation of hostilities, my delegation would like, following the call issued yesterday in this Chamber by Secretary-General António Guterres (see S/PV.8185), to appeal to the sense of responsibility of the parties involved to end the tragedy of eastern Ghouta. It urges them to exercise restraint with a view to an immediate cessation of hostilities in order to enable the resumption of the delivery of humanitarian aid, including medical evacuations, to alleviate the suffering of the Syrian population.Côte d'Ivoire reiterates its conviction and principled position that the response to the crisis in Syria cannot be military. On the contrary, it should be pursued through an inclusive dialogue and political process, as provided for in the road map set out by resolution 2254 (2015).Finally, in the light of the tragic humanitarian situation in eastern Ghouta — which Mr. Lowcock so somberly described earlier — Côte d'Ivoire supports the draft resolution proposed by the delegations of Kuwait and Sweden, calling for a cessation of hostilities for a period of 30 days with a view to allowing immediate humanitarian access to the besieged populations of the region. The Council must set aside all political calculations and other distractions and undertake the commendable task of rescuing the inhabitants of eastern Ghouta and other regions of Syria, who also happen to be Syrians, from the hell in which they are living.Mr. Temenov (Kazakhstan): We thank the delegation of the Russian Federation for initiating this open briefing on the very critical humanitarian issue in Syria, and thank Mark Lowcock for his update.Like others, we express our serious concern about the continued severity of the devastating humanitarian situation in Syria, including in eastern Ghouta, Idlib and northern Hama governorates, Rukban and Raqqa. Kazakhstan urges all parties within and outside the country to prevent further violence and enable humanitarian organizations to access and assist people in need. Since early February, with the military offensive against eastern Ghouta, there have been more than 1,200 civilian casualties.S/PV.8186 The situation in the Middle East 22/02/2018 16/19 18-04815 We truly need a cessation of hostilities and all military operations throughout Syria to enable the delivery of humanitarian aid and services and the medical evacuation of the critically sick and wounded, in accordance with international law. Kazakhstan considers it critical for the Security Council to adopt a workable and effective resolution on a cessation of hostilities in Syria, a draft of which is now being considered by Council members. Kazakhstan calls on all parties to find consensus and unite in their efforts to undertake an immediate suspension of all war activities in eastern Ghouta and other parts of Syria, allowing humanitarian aid to reach all those in need, as well as the evacuation of all patients requiring urgent treatment that cannot be provided there.My delegation supports the five requests identified by the Emergency Relief Coordinator on 11 January during his mission to Syria, and calls upon all parties to facilitate the implementation of these five requests and others, as specified in relevant Security Council resolutions, so as to ensure principled, sustained and improved humanitarian assistance to Syria in 2018. In this context, we look forward to a meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the guarantor countries of the Astana process — namely, the Russian Federation, Turkey and Iran — who intend to gather in Astana in March to discuss all issues related to recent developments on the ground. The timing and the specific agenda are currently being specified. In this regard, the next round of the Astana process itself is scheduled to be held after the aforementioned meeting of the Foreign Ministers.Lastly, in May 2017 Kazakhstan welcomed the adoption of the memorandum on the creation of de-escalation areas in the Syrian Arab Republic. They have lessened hostilities between the conflicting parties. However, the ceasefire agreements in these zones are currently being violated. We attach the utmost importance to compliance by all conflicting parties with ceasefire agreements and their enforcement by the guarantor States. Likewise, each of the agreements reached in Astana should not remain on paper, but must be strictly complied with.The President (spoke in Arabic): I give the floor to the representative of the Syrian Arab Republic and urge him to limit his statement to five minutes in accordance with Security Council note S/2017/507.Mr. Ja'afari (Syrian Arab Republic) (spoke in Arabic): The delegation of my country was not aware of your decision, Sir, to limit my statement to five minutes. I oppose that decision and therefore reserve the right to express the views of my country in this important meeting devoted to the situation in my country.The President (spoke in Arabic): The representative of the Russian Federation has asked to make a further statement.Mr. Nebenzia (Russian Federation) (spoke in Russian): We fail to understand, Sir, why you have proposed limiting the statement of the representative of the Syrian Arab Republic on the important issue under discussion. His country is directly involved and where everything being discussed is taking place. We must afford an opportunity for the representative of Syria to speak for the full amount of time required to deliver his statement. I do not believe we need any artificial limits on his statement.The President (spoke in Arabic): I did not make a decision. I simply encouraged the representative of Syria to adhere to the provisions of note S/2017/507.I again give the floor to the representative of the Syrian Arab Republic.Mr. Ja'afari (Syrian Arab Republic) (spoke in Arabic): Once again, I reiterate that we were not aware of note S/2017/507. I believe that this act is unjust and raises many issues to which I already intended to refer in my statement. I hope that everyone will be patient enough to listen to the statement I shall make on behalf of the Government of my country. I shall not deliver a personal statement. All speakers have spoken on behalf of their Governments, and I shall do the same. I encourage all members to listen carefully to what I have to say.As I talk here at this moment, hundreds of rockets and mortars are targeting the capital, Damascus. To date, they have injured 37 people, including six children, and led to a number of martyrs, including two children. That comes as no surprise. As the Council is aware, every time a Security Council meeting is held to discuss the Syrian situation, there is a massacre here and a suicide bombing there, as well as the killing of civilians in some Syrian cities. We have seen not dozens, but rather hundreds of massacres over the past seven years. Mr. Lowcock did not get this information the way he gets messages from what he calls humanitarian workers in eastern Ghouta who know about international humanitarian law. Mr. Lowcock 22/02/2018 The situation in the Middle East S/PV.8186 18-04815 17/19 did not solicit the views of the Syrian Government, which we have expressed in hundreds of letters sent to him and to the Council. All those who in this meeting have used the word "regime" to refer to my country are neither objective nor impartial. They reveal their countries' involvement in the ongoing terrorist crisis in my country.We thank the delegation of the Russian Federation for convening this meeting to give us the opportunity to once again present the reality of the suffering of civilians as a result of the practices of armed terrorist groups or, as some call them, moderate armed opposition groups. Over the past seven years, they have been sowing death and destruction wherever they have operated. They have used civilians as human shields. They have targeted hospitals and schools, turning them into military centres. They have hurled missiles and rockets indiscriminately at residential and populated areas.Of course, as the Permanent Representative of France said before leaving this meeting, all of this is a form of resistance. He referred to the terrorists who bombard Damascus as the "resistance" that the Syrian regime is trying to suppress. This meeting is particularly important, as some actors — especially the United States of America and the so-called international coalition — have moved from the stage of aggression by proxy through their support for terrorism to the stage of direct aggression. Those actors have recruited terrorists from all four corners of the world. They call them jihadists and send them to Syria. Whenever terrorists have failed, those actors have been there — militarily, politically, through the media and the United Nations — to intervene in order to achieve what their terrorist proxies failed to achieve.Let us be clear. Some Council members — and I specifically mean the United States of America, the United Kingdom and France — would like to deprive the Syrian Government of its constitutional and sovereign right to defending its territories and people, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations back when we had wise founding fathers and international law and as guaranteed by all United Nations resolutions on counter-terrorism.Today, I have heard references to the draft resolution contained in document S/2018/146, on humanitarian issues. The penholders, Kuwait and Sweden, have been working on it for several weeks. I thank them for their efforts. However, those efforts are deeply flawed. The penholders did not coordinate with the Syrian delegation at all. They did not even ask to hear my country's view on the draft resolution that concerns it.Let us imagine for a moment that hundreds of terrorists had used the Bois de Boulogne as a centre to target civilians in Paris, launching dozens of missiles every day. Would we have seen a draft resolution calling for a humanitarian truce to give the moderate armed French opposition the opportunity to regain its power and launch missiles targeting Paris?Let us imagine for a moment that hundreds of terrorists had used Central Park here in New York as a centre to target civilians in Manhattan, and had launched dozens of missiles every day. Would we have seen a draft resolution calling for the medical evacuation of the moderate armed American opposition?Let us imagine for a moment that hundreds of terrorists had used Hyde Park as a centre to target civilians in London, launching dozens of missiles daily. Would we have seen a draft resolution calling for the delivery of humanitarian aid to the moderate armed British opposition? Would we have seen statements by high-level Secretariat officials, such as Mr. Lowcock, calling for stopping the fight against armed groups that they describe as non-State armed opposition groups? Unfortunately, that is how United Nations documents refer to terrorists nowadays — non-State armed opposition groups.Of course, those are all hypothetical scenarios that might seem far-fetched. However, that is the reality in Syria. It is the tragedy that we are seeing in Syrian cities every day, including the city of Damascus and its inhabitants. It is a bitter reality that the Syrian Government is facing as a result of the erroneous approaches adopted by the United Nations and the positions of some of its Member States. Damascus is the oldest populated city in history. It is seeing destruction, death and sorrow every day as a result of missiles, mortars and rockets launched by armed terrorist groups operating in eastern Ghouta. These terrorist groups — the Islamic State in Iraq and the Sham, the Al-Nusra Front and affiliated groups — are designated as terrorist groups in the Security Council. Today, 8 million people live in Damascus, among them hundreds of thousands who fled armed groups that attacked their villages and their homes in many parts of Syria, including eastern Ghouta.S/PV.8186 The situation in the Middle East 22/02/2018 18/19 18-04815 The United Nations today is going through a professional and moral crisis that is unfathomable. High-level Secretariat officials see no harm in adopting the positions of Governments that sponsor terrorism in my country. They are directly involved in distorting facts, manipulating figures, using insidious phrases and terminology, and depending on unreliable sources in their statements and reports. Of course, I cannot list all of those scandals today. I will only remind the Council of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons Fact-Finding Mission report (S/2017/567), issued in June 2017. The report states that among the open sources on which it relied was the testimony of British doctor Shajul Islam. For those who do not know who Mr. Islam is, he is a foreign terrorist fighting for the Al-Nusra Front in Idlib. He was convicted in the United Kingdom and was not allowed to practice medicine there as he was involved in crimes related to terrorism, such as kidnapping British journalist John Cantlie. That is but one example of some misleading reports issued by the Secretariat.We are convinced that those abhorrent practices will not stop and that some United Nations officials will ignore the serious information that we have conveyed to them about armed terrorist groups fabricating the story that the Syrian Government used toxic chemical substances against civilians in eastern Ghouta. Those groups are training some of their members to pretend that they have been exposed to toxic substances. Of course, those scenes are broadcast by well-known networks and correspondents of Mr. Lowcock, and the Syrian Arab Army is blamed for it. Although we have sent hundreds of letters to the Secretary-General, the President of the Security Council and specialized United Nations agencies specialized in counter-terrorism and the prohibition of chemical weapons, we are sure that some at the United Nations will not hesitate to believe that story and blame the Syrian Government. That is simply because certain agendas in the Organization compel some to join in the extortion of the Syrian Arab Republic and its allies that are fighting terrorism on behalf of all those present.For over two months now, the Syrian Government has been sending letters almost daily to the Secretary-General and the President of the Security Council documenting the number of missiles used, which have amounted in the past few weeks to almost 1,200. We have been also documenting the human and material losses of civilians in the city of Damascus as a result of being targeted by terrorists groups in eastern Ghouta. However, in its statements and appeals the Secretariat has no problem ignoring the suffering of 8 million people in Damascus. It has not hesitated to participate in the misleading campaign launched by some States to protect a few thousand members of armed terrorists groups in eastern Ghouta. They are sacrificing 8 million civilians in Damascus to protect a few thousand terrorists in eastern Ghouta. This is scene in short.Both international and United Nations sources are spreading news of a stifling siege on eastern Ghouta. That is not consistent with the indisputable reality on the ground. We are talking here about a vital area that is the main source of food for the city of Damascus. Commercial trucks constantly move back and forth to Ghouta. The Syrian Government has facilitated the delivery of humanitarian aid to people in eastern Ghouta, when conditions on the ground have allowed. We have also approved medical evacuations to Government hospitals in Damascus. The truth that we all know, and even high-level Secretariat officials know, is that armed terrorist groups are controlling the humanitarian aid that enters eastern Ghouta. They distribute it among its members and deprive civilians of any of it.There is another truth that the Secretariat is ignoring. Residents of eastern Ghouta have taken to the street in protest against the practices of terrorists who point their guns at innocent people. Of course, those besieged innocents are also sending messages, but Mr. Lowcock's radar is not receiving them. I would like to ask the Secretariat the following. How does it justify ignoring the reports and information that the Syrian Government has presented on thousands of hostages and kidnapped people being detained by armed terrorist groups in eastern Ghouta in the so-called Attawba prison? They require immediate medical evacuation. The United Nations is ignoring video footage posted by armed groups showing women and children, among the hostages, being pushed into metal cages and left on the street. It is a painful scene reminiscent of the times of slavery. It is true insanity that the Secretary-General spoke of yesterday and has been echoed by some colleagues today. Yes, there is terrorist insanity in eastern Ghouta and we must put a stop to it.What is even worse is that some in the Secretariat are trying to use the agreement on de-escalation zones to distort the facts and ignore repeated violations perpetrated by these armed terrorist groups. They are 22/02/2018 The situation in the Middle East S/PV.8186 18-04815 19/19 being instructed from the outside by actors that some of them are present in this Chamber. They are instructed to target Syrian military sites and launch attacks using rockets, missiles and car bombs on residential neighbourhoods in Damascus.These groups operating in eastern Ghouta that kill civilians in Damascus daily are armed terrorists groups, regardless of any change to their names, affiliations or alliances. Today they are Jaysh al-Islam, the Al-Rahman Corps, the Dawn of Islam and Ahrar al-Sham. Yesterday they were the Islamic Front, Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham and the Al-Nusra Front. I invite all members of the Council to take a look at the websites of those groups and the satellite television channels that Western satellites are helping broadcast. It will become apparent that they all share the same Wahhabi terrorist ideology, and that they all call for takfiri ideas and the annihilation of others. Any attempt to change their names and description by calling them moderate opposition or non-state armed groups will not change their terrorist reality. It will not prevent us, as the Government, from defending our citizens with the support of our allies, and fighting terrorism pursuant to the Council's resolutions on counter-terrorism.Some among us today are exploiting the suffering of the Syrian people and trading in their blood. They are demanding accountability while being direct partners in supporting and defending terrorism. They are involved in direct military aggression against my people, as was the case in Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Africa and Latin America. The dilemma that we are facing today is that the mechanism of work inside the United Nations is being held hostage to political and financial polarization. As a result, this mechanism of work completely disregard the crimes of the so-called international coalition led by the United States of America.As mentioned by my colleague the Ambassador of the Russian Federation, the international coalition completely destroyed Raqqa, killing hundreds of civilians and destroying shelters, infrastructure and bridges over the Euphrates river and everywhere in Syria, under the pretext of fighting the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). It used internationally prohibited weapons against civilians in Syria, including American Napalm, just as it did in Viet Nam. The international coalition targeted Syrian armed forces and allied forces more than once in order to break the siege on ISIL. The coalition and its militias made a deal with ISIL so that ISIL fighters, their families and their heavy weapons could leave Raqqa and other places in order to fight the Syrian forces and their allies elsewhere.The United Nations is completely disregarding the repeated aggressions of Israeli occupation forces on our territories as part of its support to armed terrorist groups. The Department of Peacekeeping Operations is clueless as to what is going on in the Golan. The United Nations itself is completely disregarding Turkish aggressions and violations against Syrian sovereignty, and the direct military aggression initiated now by Turkey on Afrin. Nobody has addressed this issue in their statements.In conclusion, responding to those who fear that eastern Ghouta might become a second Aleppo, I invite them to go to Aleppo today and see with their own eyes how millions, not thousands, have resumed their normal lives after Aleppo was liberated from terrorism. Indeed, eastern Ghouta will become a second Aleppo, as will Idlib and all areas that have suffered under the terrorism of armed groups in Syria.We will not succumb no longer to the extortion of those who have supported terrorism in Syria. We will not be complacent to the plans of the Governments of the five States that met in Washington, D.C., last month to divide Syria and ensure the failure of both the Sochi conference and the political process as a whole. That news was reported today in the United Kingdom. We will not sit idly by while those who use terrorism, take unjust economic measures and wage direct military aggression against the Syrian people seek to achieve their cheap political agendas. Rest assured that history will soon admit that we and our allies have fought a war on behalf of the entire world against terrorism, which is being supported by Governments that soon will be held accountable by their people and world public opinion. Those Governments have invested all they can in terrorism until it reached their cities, their own citizens and all safe places throughout the world.When I look at some of the faces in the Chamber and see the political hypocrisy therein, I recall the famous adage by the Great Russian writer Fyodor Dostoyevsky, who said: "Rest assured, hell is big enough for everyone. There is no need for people to compete so fiercely to be the worst."The meeting rose at 2.10 p.m.
Letter From The Representatives Of France, Kuwait, The Netherlands, Peru, Poland, Sweden, The United Kingdom Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland And The United States Of America To The United Nations Addressed To The President Of The Security Council ; United Nations S/PV.8217 Security Council Seventy-third year 8217th meeting Tuesday, 27 March 2018, 11.10 a.m. New York Provisional President: Mr. Blok . (Netherlands) Members: Bolivia (Plurinational State of). . Mr. Inchauste Jordán China. . Mr. Wu Haitao Côte d'Ivoire. . Mr. Dah Equatorial Guinea. . Mr. Ndong Mba Ethiopia. . Mr. Alemu France. . Mr. Delattre Kazakhstan. . Mr. Umarov Kuwait. . Mr. Alotaibi Peru. . Mr. Meza-Cuadra Poland. . Ms. Wronecka Russian Federation. . Mr. Nebenzia Sweden . Mr. Orrenius Skau United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland . Ms. Pierce United States of America. . Mrs. Haley Agenda The situation in the Middle East Report of the Secretary-General on the implementation of Security Council resolutions 2139 (2014), 2165 (2014), 2191 (2014), 2258 (2015), 2332 (2016) and 2393 (2017) (S/2018/243) This record contains the text of speeches delivered in English and of the translation of speeches delivered in other languages. The final text will be printed in the Official Records of the Security Council. Corrections should be submitted to the original languages only. They should be incorporated in a copy of the record and sent under the signature of a member of the delegation concerned to the Chief of the Verbatim Reporting Service, room U-0506 (verbatimrecords@un.org). Corrected records will be reissued electronically on the Official Document System of the United Nations (http://documents.un.org). 18-08569 (E) *1808569* S/PV.8217 The situation in the Middle East 27/03/2018 2/21 18-08569 The meeting was called to order at 11.10 a.m. Adoption of the agenda The agenda was adopted. The situation in the Middle East Report of the Secretary-General on the implementation of Security Council resolutions 2139 (2014), 2165 (2014), 2191 (2014), 2258 (2015), 2332 (2016) and 2393 (2017) (S/2018/243) The President: In accordance with rule 37 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure, I invite the representative of the Syrian Arab Republic to participate in this meeting. In accordance with rule 39 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure, I invite Mr. Mark Lowcock, Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, to participate in this meeting. Mr. Lowcock is joining today's meeting via video-teleconference from Geneva. The Security Council will now begin its consideration of the item on its agenda. I wish to draw the attention of the members of the Council to document S/2018/243, which contains the report of the Secretary-General on the implementation of Security Council resolutions 2139 (2014), 2165 (2014), 2191 (2014), 2258 (2015), 2332 (2016) and 2393 (2017). Recalling the latest note by the President of the Security Council on its working methods (S/2017/507), I want to encourage all participants, both members and non-members of the Council, to deliver their statements in five minutes or less. Note 507 also encourages briefers to be succinct and focus on key issues. Briefers are further encouraged to limit initial remarks to 15 minutes or less. I now give the floor to Mr. Lowcock. Mr. Lowcock: As all members of the Council know, the Syrian conflict has now entered its eighth year. When weapons speak, civilians pay the price — a relentless price with horrific violence, bloodshed and unspeakable suffering. The past few months have been some of the worst yet for many civilians in Syria. Today I want to start with the situation in eastern Ghouta. Since the adoption of resolution 2401 (2018) on 24 February, military operations in eastern Ghouta, in particular air strikes, have reportedly killed more than 1,700 people. Thousands more have been injured. Attacks on critical civilian infrastructure, such as medical facilities, continue to be reported. There have been at least 28 reported attacks on health facilities since mid-February and more than 70 verified incidents since the beginning of the year. The World Health Organization has reported that attacks on health facilities, health workers and health infrastructure were recorded during the first two months of the year at three times the rate that we saw during 2017. In recent weeks in Damascus city, at least 78 people were reportedly killed and another 230 injured by shells fired from eastern Ghouta. That includes reports of at least 35 people killed and scores wounded on 20 March, when Kashkul market in Jaramana, a suburb in the south-eastern part of the city, was struck by a rocket. Tens of thousands of civilians have been displaced from Douma, Harasta, Sagba and Kafr Batna in recent days and weeks. So far, reports indicate that some 80,000 civilians have been taken to places in Damascus city and rural Damascus. Nearly 20,000 combatants and civilians have been transported to locations in north-western Syria. Nearly 52,000 civilians from eastern Ghouta are currently being hosted in eight collective shelters in rural Damascus. That displaced population has endured months of limited access to food, medical care and other essential items. In the words of the United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator, Ali Al-Za'tari, who met and spoke to some of them, those people are "tired, hungry, traumatized and afraid". Most of the collective shelters do not have the capacity or infrastructure to accommodate such large numbers of people. They are extremely overcrowded and severely lacking in basic water, sanitation and hygiene facilities. There are a number of serious protection concerns related to risks of gender-based violence, unaccompanied and separated children and restrictions on movement. The United Nations is not in charge of the management of those shelters. However, since 13 March, together with humanitarian partners, we have mobilized a rapid response to provide evacuees with basic support in close coordination with the Syrian Arab Red Crescent and other local partners. So far, more than 130,000 non-food items have been distributed, 130 emergency 27/03/2018 The situation in the Middle East S/PV.8217 18-08569 3/21 toilets have been installed, and water trucking services have been provided to most shelters. In addition, supplies to feed more than 50,000 people and a total of 38 mobile health teams and 18 mobile medical teams are currently providing support to those in need inside the shelters. Humanitarian organizations also need access to the people still trapped within eastern Ghouta, in particular in Douma, where fighting and siege continue. The United Nations and its partners are ready to proceed to Douma with food for up to 16,500 people, as well as health, nutrition, water, sanitation and hygiene supplies, but facilitation letters need to be signed by the Government of Syria. I reiterate the Secretary-General's call on all parties to fully respect international humanitarian law and human rights law in order to ensure immediate humanitarian access and guarantee the protection of civilians, including in relation to displacements and evacuations. The United Nations and its partners require unimpeded access to all those affected by the situation in eastern Ghouta. That means access to the areas where civilians remain, through which they transit and to which they exit, such as collective shelters, in order to ensure that effective protection mechanisms are in place so that we can deter any possible violations and provide remedial protection support. Eastern Ghouta is not the only place in which humanitarian needs continue to increase. In north-western Syria, in recent weeks, an estimated 183,500 people have been displaced by hostilities in Afrin district in Aleppo governorate. The majority — some 140,000 people — have fled to Tell Rifaat and the remainder have gone to Nubl, Al-Zahraa, Manbij, Hasakah and surrounding areas. That massive influx of internally displaced persons (IDPs) is putting a strain on host communities, which are already overwhelmed. Two days ago, on 25 March, an inter-agency convoy to Tell Rifaat delivered assistance for some 50,000 people. However, overall, humanitarian partners are still struggling to gain sustainable access to the area. Moreover, access to Aleppo city for IDPs from Afrin district is currently restricted. Of particular concern are medical evacuations that are urgently required for severely sick people to receive care in specialized hospitals in Aleppo city. Four deaths due to the lack of proper health care have already been reported. Between 50,000 and 70,000 people are estimated still to be in Afrin city. Humanitarian access to the city and its outer perimeters is possible through cross-border operations mandated by the Council. Today, the Government of Turkey told us that it is positively disposed towards such access, and we plan to run convoys in the very near future. We know that needs are very substantial. In Idlib governorate, the situation remains catastrophic, with almost 400,000 people displaced since mid-December. Local capacity to assist is overstretched. Thousands more people are now arriving there from eastern Ghouta, with no sites or shelters available for the vast majority of them. We have received reports of an increase in violence in Idlib in recent days. According to local sources, on 20 March air strikes hit an IDP shelter on the outskirts of Haas village in southern rural Idlib governorate, reportedly killing at least 10 displaced people and injuring another 15. On 21 March, air strikes on Kafr Battikh village, also in southern rural Idlib governorate, reportedly killed scores more. The next day, the central market in Harim town was hit by an air strike, reportedly killing 35 people, including many women and children. On 12 March, air strikes also resumed in southern Syria, with attacks being reported in and around Dar'a city. There have been no air strikes in those areas since an agreement was reached last year on the establishment of a de-escalation zone for parts of the south of the country. That therefore appears to be a major unwelcome development. Let me turn to Raqqa. On 19 March, we received approval from the Syrian authorities for an assessment mission to Raqqa city by the United Nations Mine Action Service, the United Nations Department of Safety and Security, the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and the World Health Organization. As Council members know, we have been seeking agreement to that for some time. That was on 19 March. Three days later, on 22 March, the United Nations Department of Safety and Security deployed a team to conduct a security assessment. They report that while the city is considered calm and stable, considerable risk remains. Raqqa city is still highly contaminated with landmines, unexploded ordnances, explosive remnants of war and improvised explosive devices. We hope that access to Raqqa city will be possible for humanitarian aid deliveries via Qamishli, Manbij, Aleppo, Hamah S/PV.8217 The situation in the Middle East 27/03/2018 4/21 18-08569 and Homs, depending on operational and logistical arrangements. The United Nations and our partners are now preparing a humanitarian assessment mission, which is likely to take place next week. Next I shall address Rukban, on the Syria-Jordan border. United Nations partners received permission from the Syrian authorities on 8 March to organize a humanitarian convoy from Damascus to reach people in need along the Syria-Jordan border. Last week, on 19 March, the United Nations itself received permission to join that humanitarian mission. Preparations are ongoing, and a first humanitarian convoy is expected to deploy soon. As the Council knows, we have been seeking approval for that for many months. As we sit here today, almost at the end of the month, we have reached some 137,000 people in need through inter-agency convoys — that is, cross-line convoys sent to hard-to-reach and besieged areas — to Tell Rifaat, Al-Dar al-Kabirah and Douma. That is limited, incremental progress, compared to the first part of the year, thanks to the extraordinary efforts of the team on the ground and some of those around this table. But we are essentially just given crumbs — an occasional convoy here and there, often, coincidentally, shortly before our monthly briefings to the Council. A total of 5.6 million Syrians in acute need cannot live on crumbs, and with a quarter of the year gone, our level of access is currently far worse than it was this time last year. We need the support of all Council members and members of the International Syria Support Group humanitarian task force to do their part to exert their individual and collective influence over the parties. A few days ago, the Government of Syria and others asked for more United Nations help with humanitarian aid in eastern Ghouta. In response, we have, first, proposed that a team of United Nations emergency response experts be deployed to strengthen efforts on the ground. Visa requests for the team have been submitted. Secondly, we have confirmed a new allocation of $20 million from the Syria Humanitarian Fund, which is managed by my Office, for eastern Ghouta and those displaced from Afrin to provide shelter materials, improve sanitation for displaced people, ensure that safe water is available, provide life-saving medicines and medical services and put in place measures to enhance protection in relocation sites. The United Nations and its partners, on average, reach 7.5 million people every month with life-saving humanitarian assistance across the whole of Syria. Clearly, without that assistance, the situation would be even more catastrophic than it is now and the loss of life even greater. The United Nations has no money of its own to do those things. We can do them only because we receive voluntary contributions from our donors. I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has supported our appeal over the last year, including our top donors: the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom, the European Union, Norway, Canada, Japan, Denmark, Sweden, Qatar, Kuwait and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Resolution 2401 (2018) was adopted just over a month ago. I ask all in the Council to make the resolution a reality. Whatever the difficulty, the United Nations and its partners remain determined to follow through, for the sake of the Syrian people. The President: I thank Mr. Lowcock for his briefing. I shall now make a statement in my capacity as the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Recently, a Dutch photographer working with Save the Children published a photo album featuring 48 Syrian children, all seven years old. Those photos were school portraits, like we all had taken when we were young. The children were born in Syria, but they had to flee. They are as old as the Syrian war, so they have never seen their country at peace. Their memories of their homeland are fading. Sometimes they cannot remember their country at all, nor their family members left behind. But by giving those young children a public face, the photographer has tried to restore some of the dignity sacrificed to a war in which all humanity seems lost. I have here a photo of Nour. Those children were relatively lucky; they were able to escape. At the same time, inside Syria, during seven years of war, thousands of children have been killed. I myself am a father, and I am certainly not the only parent in this Chamber. Images of children affected by war should leave no one unmoved. Despite any differences between us, we should at least have one thing in common: the belief that protecting children should come first. Yet, such protection is lacking. The Syrian crisis is, above all, a protection crisis — a grave violation of the long-established norm to protect civilians and their belongings in the time of war. 27/03/2018 The situation in the Middle East S/PV.8217 18-08569 5/21 Together, we — the international community — have expressed our determination to prevent conflict and save succeeding generations from the scourge of war. And where conflict cannot be prevented, we have agreed to regulate the conduct of warfare. One of the very first steps to that end was taken in Russia, almost 150 years ago. In Saint Petersburg, it was decided to forbid weapons that cause unnecessary suffering. Since those first steps, the body of international humanitarian law has grown considerably, including through the adoption of the Hague and Geneva Conventions. The imperative of those laws has always been to protect civilians in conflict, to spare them from disaster, save them from harm and respect their dignity. Sadly, what we see in Syria today is the exact opposite. Every day, many are showing total disregard for civilians. In eastern Ghouta, the Syrian regime and its allies, including Russia, have trapped hundreds of thousands of civilians and are relentlessly continuing their offensive. The United Nations has reported air strikes on densely populated areas, blatant attacks targeting hospitals and medical personnel, the use of starvation as a weapon of war and the use of chemical weapons. Many innocent children, women and men are suffering. They should be protected. Yet instead, families are seeing their homes destroyed, their loved ones killed and their dignity shattered. In Afrin, the effects of the Turkey-led offensive are clear for all to see: a worsening of the already precarious humanitarian situation, with more than 160,000 displaced people and a further obstacle to efforts to fight the Islamic State in Iraq and the Sham (ISIS). I ask Turkey not to extend its military activities to other border regions in Syria or Iraq. Four weeks ago, the Council adopted resolution 2401 (2018). It is telling that in 2018, the Council should need to spell out that warring parties should immediately lift all sieges in Syria and grant unimpeded humanitarian access to those in acute need. Those are by no means exceptional demands. They are basic obligations under international humanitarian law, developed over decades to instil minimum standards of human decency in warfare. Not even the presence of terrorists is an excuse for disregarding those standards. It is humiliating that the Council is unable to enforce those minimum standards. If the Council is not willing or able to do it, who is? With all that in mind, we should not forget that the responsibility, and indeed the obligation, to execute the Council's decisions lies with individual Member States. So what should be done? First, we should reaffirm these norms and enforce the relevant resolutions. We call on all parties to the Syrian conflict — including the Syrian regime, Russia, Iran, Turkey and armed opposition groups — to respect and implement the Council's decisions. Secondly, we must strengthen resolution 2401 (2018), with United Nations monitoring of the implementation of the ceasefire and with full access for fact-finding missions to sites and collective shelters housing internally displaced persons. These missions are ready to go; we need their impartial information. Thirdly, with regard to accountability, if there is to be any credible, stable and lasting peace in Syria, the current culture of impunity must end. All those guilty of crimes must be brought to justice. The perpetrators of crimes, including ISIS and Al-Qaida, must know that they are being watched, followed and identified. They must know that files are being compiled with a view to prosecuting them for crimes that may include genocide. They must know that one day they will be held accountable. We urge all States to increase their support for the International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism to Assist in the Investigation and Prosecution of Persons Responsible for the Most Serious Crimes under International Law Committed in the Syrian Arab Republic since March 2011, which aims to ensure that information about serious crimes is collected, analysed and preserved for future prosecutions. The Netherlands again calls on all Council members to support referring the situation in Syria to the International Criminal Court. What will become of the children in the photographs I mentioned? Will they one day be able to return to Syria? Like all children, they long for a normal life, for stability, for safety. The Syrian regime believes in a military solution. But there is none. There are no winners in this war. But it is clear who is losing — the ordinary people of Syria. In these most extreme circumstances we commend the incredible courage and perseverance of the humanitarian aid workers. It is up to us to restore credibility to the Council. It is up to us to ensure a negotiated political process, in which all Syrians and other relevant actors are represented. And it is up to us to end the agony and restore dignity and humanity to the people of Syria. I now resume my functions as President of the Council. S/PV.8217 The situation in the Middle East 27/03/2018 6/21 18-08569 I give the floor to those members of the Council who wish to make statements. Mr. Alotaibi (Kuwait) (spoke in Arabic): We welcome you, Sir, in presiding over this important meeting. I am delivering this statement on behalf of Kuwait and Sweden. At the outset, I would like to thank the Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, Mr. Mark Lowcock, for his briefing. Today I will address three main areas: first, the status of the implementation of resolution 2401 (2018); secondly, measures needed to improve the humanitarian situation; and thirdly, the responsibility of the parties to implement the resolution. First, on the status of the implementation of resolution 2401 (2018), we are meeting today one month after its unanimous adoption by the Security Council, calling on all parties to cease hostilities without delay for 30 days following the adoption of the resolution. We deplore the fact that it has not yet been implemented. However, we must continue to do everything in our power to ensure the resolution's full implementation throughout Syria. The increased number of humanitarian convoys entering the besieged areas during the month of March shows that partial delivery was achieved by comparison to the complete deadlock in access in previous months. That indicates that progress can be made in implementing the resolution, and we must build on that progress. We affirm that the provisions of the resolution will remain valid beyond the first 30 days after its adoption. We look forward to continued reports from the Secretariat on the status of implementation through monthly briefings, as stipulated in the resolution. In that regard, we support the proposal for providing the Council with further regular updates. We appreciate the continued efforts of the United Nations to facilitate talks among all parties in eastern Ghouta with the goal of securing a ceasefire. We are particularly concerned about the continued military offensive by the Syrian authorities in eastern Ghouta, as well as air strikes on Dar'a and Idlib. The shelling of Damascus from eastern Ghouta is also a matter of concern. All of those acts of violence have claimed the lives of hundreds of innocent civilians. Secondly, on measures needed to improve the humanitarian situation, we must take the necessary measures to protect civilians fleeing eastern Ghouta and to improve the humanitarian situation in collective shelters. As we have said before, implementing the provisions of resolution 2401 (2018) is the only way to improve the humanitarian situation and to achieve tangible progress in that regard. Those provisions stipulate that there must be a cessation of hostilities and that access for humanitarian aid to reach the civilian population must be enabled. Regarding the humanitarian situation in eastern Ghouta, we have five points to convey to the relevant parties, which represent our special concerns about the protection of civilians. First, all evacuations must be voluntary. People must have the right to return and to choose safe places to go to. Secondly, any negotiations on the evacuation of civilians should include civilian representatives, such as local councils. Thirdly, humanitarian aid convoys should continue to enter eastern Ghouta for the benefit of those who decided to stay there. Those convoys should occur on a weekly basis, as stipulated in resolution 2401 (2018), according to the United Nations assessment of needs, including medical supplies, and with full access for United Nations staff. Fourthly, human rights violations, including detentions, disappearances and forced conscriptions, must end. Those are serious protection concerns for civilians staying in eastern Ghouta and for those leaving it. We therefore encourage the United Nations to register the names of those evacuated and their destinations and to reinforce its presence in the collective shelters for internally displaced persons, including through the use of monitors to protect them and prevent sexual violence. We call on the Syrian authorities to grant immediate permission for that. Fifthly, the deteriorating situation in the collective shelters for the internally displaced persons should be improved as quickly as possible as the number of new arrivals continues to rise. We are deeply concerned that the United Nations partners are bearing the brunt of a burden beyond their capacity. It will therefore be essential to make the maximum use of the United Nations, its staff and its resources in order to assist in managing the increasingly crowded collective shelters. We welcome the United Nations plans to increase staff on the ground to that end, and we encourage the United Nations to do the same for eastern Ghouta as soon as the security situation allows. We call on the Syrian authorities to grant visas for additional United Nations staff immediately. 27/03/2018 The situation in the Middle East S/PV.8217 18-08569 7/21 Thirdly, on the responsibility of the parties to implement the resolution, we have a collective responsibility, as members of the Council and, specifically, as parties with influence, to work with the Syrian authorities and urge them to implement the provisions of resolution 2401 (2018) according to international humanitarian law. We expect the guarantors of the Astana agreement, Russia, Iran and Turkey, to achieve progress towards the fulfilment of the commitments undertaken in the statement they issued on 16 March in advance of their summit meeting, to be held in Istanbul on 4 April. Those commitments include, first, ensuring rapid, safe and unhindered access for humanitarian aid to areas affected by the conflict; secondly, increasing their efforts, as guarantors of the ceasefire agreement, to ensure observance of the respective agreements; and thirdly, pursuing their efforts to implement the provisions of resolution 2401 (2018). In conclusion, we affirm our full commitment to continuing to follow up closely on the status of the implementation of the resolution in the monthly reports to the Council. We will spare no effort to make progress in its implementation. This month marks the beginning of the eighth year of the conflict in Syria. Sadly, there is still a need for an end to the violence, sustained humanitarian and medical aid through weekly convoys across conflict lines, evacuation operations, the protection of civilians and hospitals, and the lifting of the siege. Mrs. Haley (United States of America): I thank you, Foreign Minister Blok, for presiding over this meeting, and I thank Under-Secretary-General Lowcock for once again laying out the facts about what is happening in Syria. I also want to personally welcome Karen Pierce to the Council as the new Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom. I know all of us in the Chamber look forward to working with her. Today we have a very difficult subject to address: siege, starvation and surrender. That is the awful, unceasing rhythm of the Syrian war. As we meet today, the third step, surrender, is taking place in eastern Ghouta. After years of enduring siege and starvation, residents are surrendering eastern Ghouta. The terrible irony of this moment must be stated and acknowledged. In the 30 days since the Security Council demanded a ceasefire, the bombardment of the people of eastern Ghouta has only increased and now, at the end of the so-called ceasefire, eastern Ghouta has nearly fallen. History will not be kind when it judges the effectiveness of the Council in relieving the suffering of the Syrian people. Seventeen hundred Syrian civilians have been killed in the past month alone. Hospitals and ambulances are being deliberately targeted with bombs and artillery. Schools are being hit, like the one in eastern Ghouta that was bombed just last week, killing 15 children. Siege, starvation and surrender. I would like to ask my Security Council colleagues to consider whether we are wrong when we point to the Russian and Iranian forces working alongside Al-Assad as being responsible for the slaughter. Russia voted for the so-called ceasefire in Syria last month (see S/PV.8188). More than that, Russia took its time painstakingly negotiating resolution 2401 (2018), which demanded the ceasefire. If we watched closely during the negotiations, we could see our Russian friends constantly leaving the room to confer with their Syrian counterparts. The possibilities for what was going on are only two. Either Russia was informing its Syrian colleagues about the content of the negotiations, or Russia was taking directions from its Syrian colleagues about the content of the negotiations. Either way, Russia cynically negotiated a ceasefire that it instantly defied. Russia even had the audacity to claim that it is the only Council member implementing resolution 2401 (2018). How can that possibly be true when in the first four days after the so-called ceasefire, Russian military aircraft conducted at least 20 daily bombing missions on Damascus and eastern Ghouta, while the people of Syria remained under siege? The so-called ceasefire was intended to allow humanitarian access to sick and starving civilians. Russia even doubled down on its cynicism by proposing five-hour pauses in the fighting. It said that they were necessary to allow humanitarian convoys to get through, but Russian and Syrian bombs continue to prevent the delivery of humanitarian aid. Only after territory falls into the hands of the Al-Assad Government and its allies do they allow food and medicine to be delivered. Russia and Syria's rationalization is that they have to continue to bomb in eastern Ghouta in order to combat what they call terrorists. That is a transparent excuse for the Russians and Al-Assad to maintain their assault. Meanwhile, from the very beginning, the opposition groups in eastern Ghouta expressed their readiness to implement the ceasefire. They told the Council that they welcomed the resolution. Russia's response was to call those groups terrorists and keep pummelling S/PV.8217 The situation in the Middle East 27/03/2018 8/21 18-08569 civilians into submission, while the people of Syria continue to starve. Last week, after Syrian civilians had spent years barely surviving, an agreement was reached to allow them to leave eastern Ghouta. Who brokered it? Russia. So we see the cycle being completed. The people of eastern Ghouta are surrendering. That is the ugly reality on the ground in Syria today. Cynical accusations of bad faith from Russia will not stop us from speaking out, and their blatantly false narratives will not keep us from telling the world about Russia's central role in bombing the Syrian people into submission. Fifteen days ago, when it was apparent that the Russian, Syrian and Iranian regimes were utterly ignoring the ceasefire, the United States developed a plan for a tougher and more targeted ceasefire focused on Damascus city and eastern Ghouta. Despite overwhelming evidence that the ceasefire was being ignored, some of our colleagues urged us to give resolution 2401 (2018) a chance to work. Reluctantly, we agreed and put off introducing the resolution. Now, more than 80 per cent of eastern Ghouta is controlled by Al-Assad and his allies. Their deception, hypocrisy and brutality have overtaken the chance of a ceasefire in eastern Ghouta, and for that we should all be ashamed. If we were upholding our responsibility as a Security Council, we would adopt a resolution today recognizing the reality of what happened in eastern Ghouta. A responsible Security Council would condemn the Syrian authorities, along with Russia and Iran, for launching a military offensive to seize eastern Ghouta the same day that we called for a ceasefire. A responsible Security Council would condemn the Al-Assad regime for deliberately blocking convoys of humanitarian aid during its military campaign and removing medical items from convoys that attempted to reach eastern Ghouta. A responsible Security Council would recognize that the provision of humanitarian aid was never safe, unimpeded or sustained, and that there was no lifting of sieges. A responsible Security Council would express its outrage that at least 1,700 civilians were killed during a military campaign that it demanded to come to a halt — 1,700 civilians who should have been spared in the ceasefire we demanded, but who died on our watch. But we cannot. We cannot take those actions because Russia will stop at nothing to use its permanent seat on the Council to shield its ally Bashar Al-Assad from even the faintest criticism. And we cannot take those actions because instead of calling out the ways in which Al-Assad, Russia and Iran made a mockery of our calls for a ceasefire, too many members of the Council wanted to wait. That is a travesty. This should be a day of shame for every member of the Council and it should be a lesson about what happens when we focus on fleeting displays of unity instead of on what is right. For those who think otherwise, the people of eastern Ghouta deserve an explanation. Mr. Delattre (France) (spoke in French): At the outset, I would like to thank Mark Lowcock for his briefing and to commend him on his tireless efforts and those of his team in their response to the urgent and severe humanitarian situation in Syria. To address that urgency and severity, a month ago almost to the day the Security Council adopted resolution 2401 (2018). We thus collectively and unanimously demanded that all the parties to the conflict cease hostilities throughout the country to allow for sustained and unimpeded humanitarian access to civilians in need and for medical evacuations. A month later, what is the situation? Not only has resolution 2401 (2018) not been implemented, but the humanitarian situation in Syria has worsened. The civilian population is living in despair, trapped between bargaining and fighting, particularly in eastern Ghouta. Over the past few weeks, not only has the fighting has not subsided; it has doubled in intensity, with a land offensive launched by the regime, supported by its allies Russia and Iran. The carefully planned offensive was unremitting, using the double strategy of terror and parallel negotiations that was used in Aleppo to obtain the surrender of combatants and the displacement of civilians. For a month there has not been a single day when eastern Ghouta, which has been besieged and starved for years, has not suffered indiscriminate shelling by the regime and its supporters. They have systematically bombed schools and hospitals and killed more than 1,700 civilians, including more than 300 children. Those deaths are the result of a deliberate strategy of the Syrian regime to forcibly bend an entire population, annihilate any form of opposition and remain in power. Nothing should justify breaches of international humanitarian law. Not one humanitarian convoy has been authorized to enter eastern Ghouta since 15 March, and almost no humanitarian assistance has 27/03/2018 The situation in the Middle East S/PV.8217 18-08569 9/21 been delivered in recent weeks. Meanwhile, there are immense needs among those still in eastern Ghouta, the majority of whom are women and children. For several days we have been witnessing forced evacuations of populations from eastern Ghouta, which could constitute crimes against humanity and war crimes. We have demanded humanitarian access to eastern Ghouta in order to provide assistance to people in their own homes, where they wish to stay as long as the ceasefire allows. That was the reason for the adoption of resolution 2401 (2018). Instead, we have witnessed just the opposite — an escalation of violence to force a massive displacement of civilians. Bombing has forced civilians, approximately 80,000 people, to flee. The displacement of people from eastern Ghouta is an integral part of the military strategy of the Syrian regime to force the opposition to capitulate. Once again, civilians are the primary victims. As I said, those forced displacements could constitute crimes against humanity and war crimes. Evidence of such crimes will be collected, preserved and used. We were clear on that point during the Arria-formula Council meeting with the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights a few days ago. Some 55,000 civilians are now in eight collective camps managed by the Syrian regime around eastern Ghouta, without water or electricity and in disastrous sanitary conditions. Their lot has not improved; their hell has simply moved a few kilometres away. We are extremely concerned about the fate of those civilians who now live in overcrowded conditions, with no assurances of protection or security, with no guarantee that they will return home. How do we protect civilians in the situation I have just described? It is absolutely urgent to protect those who can still be protected. Although the 30-day cessation of hostilities demanded by resolution 2401 (2018) has still not been implemented, that demand remains, more urgent and relevant than ever. The resolution is still the framework for our collective action. In that regard, and in line with the briefing just given by Mark Lowcock, I would like to underscore three vital demands. First, it is indispensable and urgent that humanitarian convoys be allowed to enter eastern Ghouta daily and with adequate security. Although humanitarian needs are great, the regime continues to deliberately block aid. United Nations convoys must be able to enter and make deliveries. Fighting must cease long enough to allow for delivery, unloading and distribution of supplies, including of medical assistance. The second demand concerns civilians who remain in Ghouta, who have the right to emergency humanitarian assistance and to protection. Aid must reach them where they are. To that end, the United Nations and its international and local humanitarian partners must be able to work safely on site to assess the needs of those populations. It is an obligation under international humanitarian law, but it is the minimum required to provide tangible assistance to those concerned. The protection that is due them under international humanitarian law must be unconditionally guaranteed. In that regard I call again on the responsibility of all actors with influence on the Syrian regime. The third demand, which has taken on new importance in recent days, is for assistance to be provided to the displaced civilians in camps outside Ghouta. Very concretely, that means that those populations, who have been forced to leave everything behind in order to survive, must be assured of their safety, access to basic necessities and a chance to return home when they so desire. Care must be taken that they are not threatened with retaliation, threats or persecution of any kind. In order to ensure that they are protected, the United Nations and its partners must be able to escort civilians who have been evacuated from their point of departure to their destination in the collective shelters. The United Nations and its partners must be granted continuous access to civilians living in those camps. We hope that the United Nations can strengthen its support to displaced persons who have fled eastern Ghouta. That would call for an increase in the number of international staff on site. We hope that approval will be granted to that end as soon as possible. It would also call for security guarantees for humanitarian workers. The situation in Afrin is also extremely worrisome. A great many civilians are in a critical situation. More that 180,000 people have been displaced. A single convoy was authorized, yesterday, which is insufficient given the tremendous needs of the population. Ongoing fighting in Afrin has forced the Syrian Democratic Forces to halt operations against Da'esh, whose threat, as we all know, has not dissappeared. Our position on the issue is the same. The legitimate concerns of Turkey with regard to the security of its borders cannot in any way justify a lasting military presence deep inside Syria. S/PV.8217 The situation in the Middle East 27/03/2018 10/21 18-08569 More than ever, we need the fighting to end. We call on all parties on the ground to conclude the negotiations under way and respect a cessation of hostilities. We support the efforts of the Special Envoy for Syria, Mr. Staffan de Mistura, and his commitment to resuming the Geneva process and to reaching a lasting political solution in line with resolution 2254 (2015) that starts with the establishment of an inclusive constitutional committee, under the auspices of Mr. De Mistura. It is the only way to end the Syrian crisis. It is absolutely essential to work on both the humanitarian and political fronts. I appeal on behalf of France, first, to those who can make a difference on the ground, starting with Russia. It is never to late to save lives. Let us be well aware that without urgent, decisive action, the worst is undoubtedly yet to come in the form of a worsening and enlargement of the conflict. The time has come for us to learn seriously the lessons of the Syrian tragedy. This tragedy is the illustration of a new global disorder where the rappelling ropes have disappeared due to a lack of strong international governance, a lack of a power of last resort and a lack of convergence among key actors — to which we add the well-known attitude of Russia. In other words, if we want to avoid other tragedies of this type in future, it is essential to structure the multipolar world in which we now find ourselves around a robust multilateralism embodied by a reformed United Nations. It is the only alternative to the fragmentation of the world and the return to the zones of influence — and our history teaches us all the dangers of that — and it is with the settlement of the Syrian crisis, which is our priority today and which is the emergency before us, one of the other challenges of our generation. Ms. Pierce (United Kingdom): I thank you, Mr. President, both for being here today to underscore the vital importance of this topic and, in particular, for your very powerful statement. The United Kingdom supports your call for a referral of the situation in Syria to the International Criminal Court. I also wish to express our thanks to the Under- Secretary-General for his continued efforts to keep the Security Council informed of the toll that hostilities are having on civilians in Syria. We also thank him for the heroic efforts of all his teams on the ground. Their efforts are much supported by most of us on the Council. The Under-Secretary-General's briefing eloquently underscores why it is essential that the Council comes together to agree on concrete steps to allow the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs to fulfil its mandate to ensure humanitarian assistance and protection for everybody who needs it. Ambassador Haley has laid the situation bare, Ambassador Delattre has set out the regime's intentions, and Ambassador Alotaibi has focused on the need for protection and registration. I support their calls. I will not rehearse a catalogue of suffering that we have heard expressed so eloquently today, but that omission should not be taken as any indication that the United Kingdom is not as horrified as others by what is happening on the ground. Specifically, it is diabolical that access is actually worse in the face of such suffering. Diabolical is a strong word, but there are no others to describe what is happening. The worst destruction and suffering has continued in eastern Ghouta. Those who support Al-Assad have not taken steps to help stop the violence. Instead, Al-Assad and his supporters have violated the strong words of the Security Council in resolution 2401 (2018), making mockery of the Council's authority, as Ambassador Delattre stated. Since 11 March, an estimated 100,000 people have left eastern Ghouta and are in makeshift reception sites in rural Damascus. Thousands more have been bused to Idlib. Because there is no independent monitoring nor provisions for civilian safety, those fleeing and those staying remain vulnerable and at risk of mistreatment and abuse by the regime, including being detained, disappeared or separated from their families. Humanitarians, health workers and first responders on the ground report that the regime is deliberately targeting them. That is illegal, and those who help the Al-Assad regime are complicit in that illegality. The situation continues even for those who are left behind. An estimated 150,000 civilians remain in eastern Ghouta. They suffer from acute food shortages and lack of medical supplies. They are afraid, and above all they remember how the regime punished the civilians who fled from eastern Aleppo in December 2016. That is why Ambassador Alotaibi's call for protection and registration is so urgent. We welcome United Nations plans to scale up support to deal with the dire situations in the internally displaced persons camps and collective shelters. We call on Russia to use its influence with the regime to 27/03/2018 The situation in the Middle East S/PV.8217 18-08569 11/21 ensure that the United Nations and its partners can also provide assistance and protection for those who remain in eastern Ghouta. Whether civilians choose to stay or leave, it is essential that they be protected against attack and have access to the essentials to survive. This is not just a plea on the grounds of humanity; it is a requirement under international humanitarian law. It is the job of the Council and all members of the Council to uphold international humanitarian law. Those who side with the regime in its actions are themselves guilty of violating that law. In concluding, I would like to highlight two further areas. The suffering of the Syrian people continues in Idlib, where civilians have been under attack by regime forces for many years. More than a million internally displaced Syrians live there, including those who have fled eastern Ghouta. In Afrin, we recognize Turkey's legitimate interest in the security of its borders, but at the same time we remain concerned about the impact of operations on the humanitarian situation, and my Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary have raised the need for protection of civilians and access with President Erdoğan and his Ministers. It was good to hear from the Under-Secretary-General that there may at last be signs of progress in Afrin. After seven years of conflict, over 13 million people are in need of humanitarian assistance in Syria. The Al-Assad regime has created the situation and is now preventing humanitarian actors from relieving some of the horror it has inflicted. We call on Russia to use its influence to ensure that at a minimum the United Nations can fulfil its mandate to ensure humanitarian assistance and protection for Syrians on the basis of need, regardless of any other considerations. I was at Geneva in 2012. I think we all feel that that was a huge missed opportunity, in the light of events. The situation has escalated every year since that time, and, as the Under-Secretary-General said, the level of access is worse. The Council has a small opportunity to put measures in place to reduce the risk of reprisals. As you said, Mr. President, if the Security Council cannot do it, who can? Mr. Umarov (Kazakhstan): I join others in thanking Under-Secretary-General Lowcock for his comprehensive briefing. I also wish to welcome the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, His Excellency Mr. Stephanus Abraham Blok, who is presiding over today's meeting. Kazakhstan remains committed to all Security Council resolutions aimed at solving humanitarian issues in Syria. We believe that it is most important to preserve all possible humanitarian-access modalities, including cross-border assistance, which are indispensable in bringing humanitarian aid to millions of people in Syria. Implementing resolution 2401 (2018) is a collective responsibility, with each Council member and State Member of the United Nations playing a significant role. We must all continue to do everything we can to ensure full implementation across Syria. We look forward to continued reporting on the implementation of resolution 2401 (2018) to the Council through the regular Syria briefings and reports of the Secretary- General, as stipulated in the resolution. Urgent attention must be focused on long-term humanitarian assistance, with the assurance of safe humanitarian access by the United Nations and other aid agencies, and evacuation of the wounded. We commend the sterling contribution of the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the World Health Organization and the Syrian Arab Red Crescent for their provision of increased medical supplies and life-saving services, including surgical procedures. In that regard, we welcome the increase in humanitarian convoys gaining access to besieged areas in Syria in March, compared to previous months. It is necessary to take note of the worrisome humanitarian situation in Syria, as fighting in different parts of the country are causing massive displacement. We endorse the appeal of the United Nations to help stem the catastrophic situation for tens of thousands of people, from both eastern Ghouta and Afrin. We look forward to the next round of talks, to be held in mid-May in our capital, Astana, where the stepping up of efforts to ensure observance of the relevant agreements will be addressed. We also believe that the dialogue between Under- Secretary-General Mark Lowcock and the Government of Syria should be ongoing. We reiterate that all obligations under international humanitarian law must be respected by all parties. A further United Nations needs-assessment mission to these troubled areas, similar to that which Under-Secretary-General Lowcock led recently, may be required very soon. The Syrian authorities must cooperate fully with the United Nations and relevant humanitarian organizations in S/PV.8217 The situation in the Middle East 27/03/2018 12/21 18-08569 facilitating the unhindered provision of humanitarian assistance and thereby mitigating the suffering. Lastly, we are of the view that the crisis in Syria can be resolved only through an inclusive and Syrian-led political process, based on the Geneva communiqué of 30 June 2012 (S/2012/522, annex), subsequent Security Council resolutions and relevant statements of the International Syria Support Group. Mr. Meza-Cuadra (Peru) (spoke in Spanish): We appreciate the convening of this meeting and the briefing by Mr. Mark Lowcock, Under-Secretary- General for Humanitarian Affairs, on the humanitarian situation in Syria. We also welcome your presence here today, Sir, in presiding over our meeting. Peru deeply regrets that violence and human suffering continue to characterize the situation in Syria, 30 days after the humanitarian ceasefire demanded by the Council. Resolution 2401 (2018) remains in full force, and we consider that the Syrian Government and other actors with the capacity to influence developments on the ground are obliged to ensure its full implementation. The ceasefire should be immediate and enable unrestricted access to humanitarian assistance throughout Syrian territory. While there has been some limited progress in that regard, the delivery of humanitarian assistance must be continuous and unrestricted. In view of the Council's responsibilities in line with international law and international humanitarian law, Peru will continue to advocate for the protection of civilians in all conflicts and humanitarian crises. An indeterminate number of Syrian citizens, including thousands of women and children, have been driven out of eastern Ghouta by the violence. We note with concern that the shelters in the vicinity of Damascus cannot cope and that they lack food, clean water and medical supplies. We must remember that international humanitarian law has mandatory provisions for the evacuation of civilians. It is also compulsory to take measures to safeguard private property from looting and destruction. Syrian citizens must be able to return to their homes and businesses when security conditions improve. We must also protect the majority of the remaining population in eastern Ghouta, who are particularly vulnerable to reprisals, forced recruitment and sexual violence. We are also concerned about the humanitarian situation in Afrin, Idlib and Raqqa, among other areas of Syria. The responsibility to protect civilians cannot be conditional or subordinated to political or strategic interests. We highlight the efforts of the United Nations and other humanitarian agencies, such as the Red Cross and the Red Crescent, to assist people in such a difficult situation. They have our full support. Given the intensification of violence in recent weeks and its devastating consequences for the population, we must once again reiterate how urgent it is to make progress towards achieving a political settlement on the basis of resolution 2254 (2015) and the Geneva communiqué (S/2012/522, annex). In that regard, we hope that progress will soon be made in the establishment and composition of the constitutional committee agreed on in Sochi. All the Syrian parties, and especially the Government, must engage constructively in this. Mr. Alemu (Ethiopia): We thank Under-Secretary- General Lowcock for his comprehensive briefing. We want to express our appreciation to the United Nations and humanitarian partners for their continued selfless and courageous service in providing assistance to all Syrians in difficult circumstances. We remain concerned about the humanitarian crisis in all the areas of Syria where it is prevalent. As the Under-Secretary-General said, the Syrian war has entered its eighth year, bringing unspeakable suffering to the people of the country. The escalation of violence that we witnessed last month in eastern Ghouta and other parts of the country has been a source of extremely grave concern. According to the statement issued on 21 March by the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, shelter, protection, water and sanitation remain the key priority humanitarian needs of the internally displaced. In that regard, we thank the United Nations and its humanitarian partners for providing much-needed assistance. Alleviating the suffering of Syrians requires urgent and coordinated action on the part of all actors, while respecting the relevant resolutions of the Council, particularly resolution 2401 (2018). It was encouraging that the Council unanimously adopted resolution 2401 (2018), demanding a cessation of hostilities throughout Syria for at least 30 days so as to ensure the safe, unimpeded and sustained delivery of humanitarian aid and medical evacuations. In that regard, while much remains to be done to fully implement the resolution, compared to the previous month there has been positive 27/03/2018 The situation in the Middle East S/PV.8217 18-08569 13/21 action, including aid delivery to some of the areas that are especially badly affected and difficult to reach. The conflict has also diminished in intensity in some areas, according to the report of the Secretary-General (S/2018/243). However, this does not mean that the action taken has been sufficient. We therefore stress that it is vital to redouble our efforts to do everything possible to fully and comprehensively implement the resolution with a sense of urgency and enhanced political will. We believe that what the people of Syria need is a cessation of hostilities, along with protection and access to basic goods and services. All of those demands are contained and affirmed in resolution 2401 (2018). All Syrian parties should therefore respect and fully implement resolution 2401 (2018), and all States that have influence over the parties should try to bring the maximum pressure to bear on them, with the ultimate objective of helping to fully operationalize the resolution, which was adopted unanimously by the Council. In that regard, we hope that the Astana guarantors, Russia, Turkey and Iran, will play their role in implementing resolution 2401 (2018), strengthening the ceasefire arrangements and improving humanitarian conditions, as stated in their final statement of 16 March. In addition, while we acknowledge that the United Nations and its humanitarian partners have been able to reach millions of Syrians using all modes of aid delivery, the fact remains that humanitarian access, particularly inter-agency convoys, remains a critical challenge. In that connection, it is absolutely vital to ensure safe, sustained and need-based humanitarian access so that life-saving aid can reach all Syrians in need. Let me conclude by reaffirming that only a comprehensive political dialogue, under the auspices of the United Nations, can ultimately end the humanitarian tragedy in Syria. We reiterate our position that the only solution to the Syrian crisis is a political solution based on resolution 2254 (2015). We support the continued efforts of the Special Envoy and encourage all Syrian parties to engage with him constructively and meaningfully in order to revitalize the Geneva intra-Syrian talks and support the establishment of a constitutional committee, in line with the outcome of the Sochi congress. We fully concur with the Secretary- General, who states, in his report of 20 March, "Political efforts to bring the war to an end must be accorded priority and redoubled by all parties to the conflict." (S/2018/243, para. 48) While the primary responsibility for resolving the conflict lies with the Syrians themselves — a principle that is firmly embedded in resolution 2254 (2015) — the Council also has an important role to play in supporting the efforts in a spirit of unity, which we believe can have a positive impact on the ground in alleviating the suffering of all Syrians. That may be a tall order, in the light of the fragmentation that Ambassador Delattre mentioned earlier. However, the effort must be made. Mr. Inchauste Jordán (Plurinational State of Bolivia) (spoke in Spanish): We welcome your presence, Sir, and the fact that you are presiding over the work of the Security Council today. We would also like to thank Mr. Mark Lowcock, Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, for his briefing. We support him in the difficult work with which he is entrusted. We must once again express our regret that this conflict has continued for eight years and that we are still witnessing the ongoing sieges and violence being endured by the Syrian people, particularly women and children. In addition to living with the psychological consequences of the situation, they urgently need humanitarian assistance. We unequivocally condemn the ongoing bombardment of civilian infrastructure such as hospitals and schools, and the military activities in residential areas in the cities of Damascus, Afrin and Idlib, as well as in eastern Ghouta. They have only led to more civilians being killed, wounded and displaced. According to the most recent report of the Secretary General (S/2018/243), between December and February alone, there were 385,000 internally displaced persons and 2.3 million people living in besieged and hard-to-reach areas. We regret that so far there are still obstacles preventing the full implementation of resolution 2401 (2018). We call on all parties involved to make every effort to ensure the effective implementation of the resolution throughout Syria in order to facilitate the safe, sustained and unhindered delivery of humanitarian aid and services, as well as to enable the medical evacuation of those who are seriously ill or injured. In addition, according to the same report, since October 2017, 86,000 civilians have returned to the city of Raqqa, of whom 20,000 arrived in February alone. Regrettably, 130 civilians have died and 658 have been seriously injured by explosive remnants of war and anti-personnel mines. In that regard, we would like to highlight the visit by the United Nations mission to Raqqa last week. We reiterate that the work of clearing S/PV.8217 The situation in the Middle East 27/03/2018 14/21 18-08569 anti-personnel mines and explosive remnants of war is crucial to facilitating the safe return of the displaced. While it does not reflect what has gone on throughout Syrian territory, it is important to highlight the recent delivery of humanitarian aid through convoys, of which the first, on 5 March, was to Douma in eastern Ghouta, bringing food for more than 27,000 people. We also believe that cross-border assistance is an important part of the response to the situation, and we highlight the food assistance to 2 million people and the dispatch by the United Nations to areas of northern and southern Syria of 449 trucks carrying aid for 1 million people. We welcome the efforts of the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, all the humanitarian agencies concerned and the Russian Federation that have enabled humanitarian assistance to be delivered to various populations, in particular in eastern Ghouta, which three convoys recently entered. We call for that assistance to continue as safely as possible. In that regard, we believe it is important to strengthen the dialogue and coordination among the humanitarian agencies, the United Nations and the Syrian Government in order to facilitate the entry of convoys and humanitarian aid workers, as well as the safe and dignified return of refugees and internally displaced persons. We emphasize the dangerous work of the personnel of the various agencies and humanitarian assistance bodies, whose staff risk their own lives in carrying out their dangerous work on the ground. We therefore reiterate the importance of full respect for international humanitarian law and international human rights law. We want to take this opportunity to reiterate how important it is to build on the political momentum following the commitments made at the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi. That should be the channel for reinforcing the Geneva process, led by the United Nations in the context of resolution 2254 (2016). We hope for the speedy implementation of the Sochi outcome and, as a result, the establishment of a constitutional committee that can facilitate a viable political transition. In that regard, we support the results of the latest Astana meeting, which enabled the agreements establishing de-escalation zones to be strengthened. We hope they will be reflected on the ground so as to reduce the violence and meet the urgent humanitarian needs. We condemn any attempt to foment fragmentation or sectarianism in Syria and believe that it is the Syrian people who must freely decide their future and their political leadership in the context of their sovereignty and territorial integrity. Finally, we reiterate that the only way to resolve the conflict is through an inclusive, negotiated and agreed political process, led by and for the Syrian people, and aimed at achieving sustainable peace on their territory without foreign pressure of any kind. Mr. Nebenzia (Russian Federation) (spoke in Russian): We would like to welcome you as you preside over the Council today, Sir. We also welcome Ms. Karen Pierce, Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom, who is now here with us. We thank Mr. Lowcock for his briefing. The difficult humanitarian situation continues in a number of areas in Syria. The Russian Federation has been taking active steps to normalize things, including within the framework of the implementation of resolution 2401 (2018). While some here may not like it, it is a fact that we are the only ones who have been making concrete efforts to implement resolution 2401 (2018). Since we first established humanitarian pauses, with the assistance of the Russian Centre for Reconciliation of Opposing Sides in the Syrian Arab Republic, and the participation and oversight of the United Nations and the Syrian Arab Red Crescent, nearly 121,000 people have been evacuated, on a strictly voluntarily basis — let me stress that — from eastern Ghouta. Many of them have talked about how difficult it has been for them to live under the repressive regime established by the armed group militants. Civilians continue to flee eastern Ghouta through the Muhayam-Al-Wafedin humanitarian corridor. There is real-time video of this running on the Russian Defence Ministry's official website. In just the past few days more than 520 civilians have left Douma. Russian agencies have organized the distribution to them of hot food, food kits and individual food rations, as well as bottled drinking water. Yesterday alone, Russian military doctors treated 111 civilians, including 42 children. At the same time, the Russian Centre for Reconciliation continues to organize the return of residents of Saqba and Kafr Batna. On 24 March, as a result of an agreement reached by the Centre with leaders of illegal armed groups, another checkpoint was opened for fighters and their family members to leave from Harasta, Arbin, Zamalka, Ain Terma and Jobar. In the past few days, militias from the Ahrar Al-Sham 27/03/2018 The situation in the Middle East S/PV.8217 18-08569 15/21 and Faylak Al-Rahman groups and their relatives have been evacuated along the corridor and bused to Idlib governorate. In three days, more than 13,000 people were evacuated from Arbin alone. However, many have decided to remain, taking advantage of the presidential amnesty. Incidentally, there have been active efforts to plant stories about detentions and torture and possibly even executions. They are lies. The Syrian police are ensuring that these operations are safe, under the oversight of specialists from the Russian Centre for Reconciliation and representatives of the Syrian Arab Red Crescent. Yesterday 26 Syrian soldiers and civilians who had been taken prisoner by Faylak Al-Rahman were freed. In our view, those facts clearly attest to the difficulty and extent of the work being done by the Russian specialists on the ground, in communication with the Syrian authorities and the leaders of the armed groups. There are some members of the Security Council who prefer wasting their time on inflammatory speeches and letters making groundless claims about our country, probably to conceal their own unwillingness to do anything constructive to implement resolution 2401 (2018) in cooperation with the groups they sponsor. At the same time, yesterday the fighters from Jaysh Al-Islam who remain in Douma detonated four mines yesterday in several districts in Damascus. Six civilians died and another six were wounded. Al-Mazraa, a residential neighbourhood in the capital was shelled earlier. As a result of mine explosions around the Al-Fayhaa sports complex, a 12-year-old boy died and seven children were injured. Hundreds of people have died from mine explosions in Damascus overall. This is apparently the message that the militants are sending every day about the willingness to implement the ceasefire that they loudly proclaimed in their famous letter to the Secretary-General. I want to again point out the importance of clarifying the data used in the Secretary-General's report (S/2018/138), including on possible attacks on civilian infrastructure and the victims of such attacks. Where does that information come from? The February report has a footnote that mentions various United Nations agencies and departments of the Secretariat. The main source cited is the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, which does not have a staff presence on the ground. The big question, and what we are trying to get to the bottom of, is who is providing the United Nations staff with this kind of information? Is it the anti-Government groups and terrorist accomplices like the White Helmets? But they are interested parties. So why is there only a sprinkling of the information provided by the Syrian authorities? We call on the United Nations, humanitarian organizations and States to deliver urgent assistance to help the people who are evacuating eastern Ghouta. It is also essential to strengthen the United Nations presence around the humanitarian corridors. The Syrians need immediate assistance with the infrastructure reconstruction that the Syrian Government has begun in the liberated residential areas of eastern Ghouta. We would like to ask Mr. Lowcock to oversee that issue personally. We also hope that as soon as possible the coalition will create the conditions and provide the necessary security guarantees enabling a United Nations assessment mission to be sent to Raqqa and humanitarian convoys to the Rukban camp. The Syrian authorities gave their official consent to this some time ago, as Mark Lowcock confirmed today. We should note that we were shocked by the recent reports that more than 2,000 civilians may have died during the coalition forces' assault on Raqqa. Let me ask it once again — where were the weeping and wailing and calls for humanitarian aid then? We have noted the statistics in the Secretary-General's report on the numbers of people who have returned to Raqqa, but we would like to see similar information on other parts of Syria and the country as a whole. How many people are returning to their permanent homes? We would like to propose to the United Nations representatives that they designate the areas where those indicators are the highest as a priority for the delivery of humanitarian assistance and monitor how effectively it is being implemented. We also think it would be appropriate to include information on reconstruction assistance in the reports. Resolution 2401 (2018) stipulates that Syrian districts, including those that have been liberated from terrorists, need support in restoring normal functioning and stability. One of the key areas in that regard is mine clearance. We get the feeling that external donors are losing interest in delivering assistance to residents in areas under Syrian Government control. We are seeing signals from some capitals that only opposition-held enclaves should be helped. Such double standards go completely against the core principles of neutrality and impartial humanitarian assistance. We hope that we are wrong about this and that Mr. Lowcock will refute the S/PV.8217 The situation in the Middle East 27/03/2018 16/21 18-08569 possibility of such a trend. But if our suspicions are borne out, how does the United Nations intend to deal with the issue? Just the other day a meeting of senior officials was held in Oslo under the auspices of the United Nations and the European Union to address the humanitarian situation in Syria. No representatives of the Syrian authorities were invited. How does Mr. Lowcock view the prospect of another assessment of the humanitarian situation in Syria without the participation of its official representatives? Does he consider that a productive format? That is a very urgent question considering that the forthcoming second donor conference is scheduled for the end of April in Brussels. I would also like to ask Mr. Lowcock what is known at the United Nations about the facts of sexual services being provided in exchange for humanitarian assistance in the context of cross-border operations. There is information about that in the November report of the United Nations Population Fund, and the BBC did a journalistic investigation of the issue. If this issue is known about, why is it avoided in the Secretary- General's reports? And if it is not known about, it should be investigated. We hope that in close cooperation with the Syrian authorities and consideration of their views, the United Nations will agree on an emergency humanitarian response plan for this year as soon as possible, with an emphasis on the delivery of assistance to liberated areas. Ms. Wronecka (Poland): I would like to welcome you here today, Sir, and to commend the presidency's leadership. I would also like to thank Under-Secretary- General Mark Lowcock for his comprehensive but once again alarming update. Like many around this table, we share a sense of urgency on this issue, especially following the adoption of resolution 2401 (2018), which we adopted unanimously a month ago. Unfortunately, we have to recognize that it has not been implemented in the first 30 days since its adoption. We are meeting again when there has been no substantial change on the ground and the fighting is far from over. The military offensive in Syria continues and the human suffering is growing as a result. Any action, even against terrorists, cannot justify attacks on innocent civilians and civilian infrastructure, including health facilities. That must stop, and the parties to the conflict must strictly comply with their obligations under international humanitarian law. Accountability for serious violations is a requirement under international law and central to achieving sustainable peace in Syria. As indicated in the last report of the United Nations-mandated Commission of Inquiry, there is a need for the international community to take a broader view of accountability and to take urgent steps to ensure that the needs of Syrian conflict victims for justice and accountability are met both immediately and in the long term. We call upon all parties to alleviate the suffering of the civilians, including children, by granting them free and safe access to humanitarian assistance, including voluntary medical evacuation, which should be strictly overseen by the United Nations and the implementing partners in order to ensure the voluntary character of the process. While discussing evacuations, let me underline that people must have the right to return and to a safe location for settlement. Any evacuation negotiations should also include civilians. Humanitarian aid convoys to eastern Ghouta must continue for those who choose to stay. We would like to stress that all actors should use their full influence to immediately improve conditions on the ground. We urgently call for the cessation of hostilities in the whole of Syria. Attacks against civilians, civilian property and medical facilities must stop in order to alleviate the humanitarian suffering of the Syrian people. Some small positive steps have taken place, such as a larger number of humanitarian convoys reaching the besieged areas in March, especially when compared to previous months, when humanitarian access was almost completely blocked. That improvement shows that it is possible to make progress, although much more is needed. In that context, we call on Russia, Iran and Turkey — as the European Union did, and as the High Representatives did through their respective ministers after the Foreign Affairs Council of the European Union in February — to fulfil their obligations and responsibilities as Astana guarantors. It is also important to note that the cessation of hostilities may also provide a chance for the peace talks under the auspices of the United Nations in Geneva to gain momentum so that a political solution may finally be reached. Once again, let me underline that we should seek to reach an intra-Syrian framework political agreement, in line with Council resolution 2254 (2015). In that connection, we strongly believe that the conclusions of the Congress of Syrian 27/03/2018 The situation in the Middle East S/PV.8217 18-08569 17/21 National Dialogue in Sochi could and should be used to advance the Geneva process, especially with regard to the creation of a constitutional committee by United Nations Special Envoy Staffan de Mistura. In conclusion, let me stress the necessity of maintaining the unity of the Council on the question of the full implementation of the humanitarian resolution across Syria. The civilian population of Syria has already suffered too much. The adoption of the resolution was just the beginning of the process. We call on all with influence on the ground to take the necessary steps to ensure that the fighting stops, the Syrian people are protected and, finally, our joint humanitarian access and necessary medical evacuations continue. Mr. Ndong Mba (Equatorial Guinea) (spoke in Spanish): We welcome Mr. Stef Blok, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, to New York. We take this opportunity to congratulate him for the commendable presidency of the Netherlands during the month of March. The Republic of Equatorial Guinea is grateful for the holding of this informative meeting, which enables us to once again assess humanitarian resolution 2401 (2018), which we approved one month ago. We thank Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Mark Lowcock, who, as he always does, has just given us a very informative and detailed briefing on the developments on the ground in Syria. The 30-day ceasefire throughout Syria, established under resolution 2401 (2018) in order to carry out humanitarian operations, has expired. Despite the diplomatic efforts of the United Nations team in Syria, violence has increased in eastern Ghouta, in Damascus, in Idlib and in Afrin, where there is an ongoing Turkish military offensive. Daily air strikes and bombardments have increased, including in residential areas, among Government forces, opposition forces and non-State armed groups, making it difficult to ensure the protection of all civilians and the immediate, secure and sustained provision of humanitarian aid. That excessive resurgence of violence, orchestrated by the various parties, only serves to exacerbate and aggravate the already grim humanitarian situation in those conflict zones. As we have reiterated, the solution to the humanitarian crisis in Syria is tightly linked with a ceasefire. The prolongation of the conflict can only further aggravate the tragic humanitarian situation, which in turn creates greater instability and negatively affects neighbouring countries that take in the millions of refugees fleeing the war. As the Secretary-General underlines in his 20 March report: "Our common objective" — and one of high priority — "should be to alleviate and end the suffering of the Syrian people. What the Syrian people need immediately has been made abundantly clear and affirmed in resolution 2401 (2018). Civilians need a cessation of hostilities, protection, access to basic goods and services" — and access to humanitarian and sanitary assistance — "and an end to sieges." (S/2018/243, para. 48) All parties involved in the Syrian crisis must accept that none of them can achieve a military victory. Government forces, opposition forces and armed groups must accept that no matter how much death and destruction they cause in their country, there will be no victor but rather one single loser — the Syrian people. Similarly, national parties and international partners that have significant political and geostrategic interests and that have the capacity to exercise their influence on their respective allies must redouble their efforts and political commitments in order to bring sustainable peace and stability to the country. Any party that insists on political red lines that block the necessary commitments must also consider the setback caused by the loss of innocent human lives. It is evident that the Council has not entirely reached its goal by unanimously adopting resolution 2401 (2018). The Republic of Equatorial Guinea will support any humanitarian initiative that seeks to definitively put an end to the suffering of the Syrian people. In conclusion, I renew the tribute of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea to Mr. Lowcock and to the entire humanitarian team of the United Nations for their noble and tireless work in Syria to provide relief to the Syrian people living through a humanitarian catastrophe. Mr. Dah (Côte d'Ivoire) (spoke in French): Like others, my delegation would like to welcome Mr. Stef Blok to New York and to congratulate him on the holding of the current meeting in the Security Council. My delegation also wishes to thank Mr. Mark Lowcock, Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, for his informative briefing on the humanitarian situation in Syria. S/PV.8217 The situation in the Middle East 27/03/2018 18/21 18-08569 As we are all aware, the war in Syria has unleashed one of the most serious humanitarian crises in recent history and continues to have a devastating impact on the Syrian people. My country remains particularly concerned about the attacks and bombings, including those against hospitals and civilian infrastructure, that continue to punctuate the daily lives of people subjected to forced displacement in the areas of Afrin, Idlib and eastern Ghouta. Côte d'Ivoire condemns those actions and calls on the parties to take the steps necessary to protect people, civilian infrastructure and humanitarian personnel. More than a month after its unanimous adoption by members of the Security Council, resolution 2401 (2018), on which so much hope was pinned, has fallen woefully short of our expectations, much to our regret. The fact is that the demand for an immediate cessation of hostilities to allow safe and unhindered delivery of humanitarian aid and related services, as well as medical evacuation of the seriously ill and wounded, in accordance with relevant international humanitarian law, has still not been adhered to, despite our joint efforts. The ongoing fighting has forced hundreds of thousands of civilians to flee to camps and makeshift shelters where living conditions are extremely difficult. Côte d'Ivoire calls once again for the effective implementation of resolution 2401 (2018) with a view to resuming the delivery of humanitarian aid, including medical evacuations from besieged areas and camps for internally displaced persons, in order to ease the suffering of people in distress. We urge the Council to overcome its differences and to demonstrate unity in order to ensure the effective implementation of the resolution, which is more relevant than ever. My delegation reiterates its belief that the humanitarian situation will not improve unless significant progress is made at the political level, as the two issues are closely linked. We therefore encourage the parties to prioritize political dialogue and resume peace talks in the framework of the Geneva process, in accordance with the road map established by resolution 2254 (2015). Mr. Wu Haitao (China) (spoke in Chinese): I thank Under-Secretary-General Lowcock for his briefing. China commends the active efforts of the relevant United Nations agencies to alleviate the humanitarian situation in some areas of Syria. The conflict in Syria is in its eighth year and has caused terrible suffering for the people of Syria. The humanitarian situation in parts of the country has recently deteriorated. China calls on all parties in Syria to put its country's future and destiny, as well as its people's safety, security and well-being first, cease hostilities and violence without delay, resolve their differences through dialogue and consultation and ease the humanitarian situation in Syria as soon as possible. United Nations humanitarian convoys have now gained access to eastern Ghouta in order to deliver aid supplies to the people there. China welcomes Russia's establishment of temporary truces in eastern Ghouta, opening up a humanitarian corridor for Syrian civilians. As a result of the efforts of the parties concerned, some ceasefire agreements have been reached and a large number of civilians evacuated through the corridor. In the circumstances, it is important to continue to promote the implementation of resolution 2401 (2018) so as to alleviate the humanitarian situation in areas such as eastern Ghouta. China welcomes the meeting between Foreign Ministers held by Russia, Turkey and Iran in Astana, and commends Kazakhstan for hosting the meeting. We hope that the upcoming meeting of the Heads of State of the three countries and the next round of the Astana dialogue will contribute positively to restoring the ceasefire momentum in Syria and supporting the Geneva talks. The international community should continue to support the role of the United Nations as the main mediator, and back Special Envoy de Mistura's diplomatic efforts to relaunch the Syrian political process. Syria's sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity must be respected, and all Syrian parties must be encouraged to reach a political solution to the Syrian issue, based on the principle of the Syrian-led and Syrian-owned peace process, and in accordance with resolution 2254 (2015), with a view to fundamentally easing the humanitarian situation in Syria and continuing to advance the counter-terrorism agenda, as mandated by the Council's resolutions. The Council should remain united on the Syrian issue and speak with one voice. China stands ready to work with the international community and to contribute actively and constructively to a political settlement of the Syrian issue. 27/03/2018 The situation in the Middle East S/PV.8217 18-08569 19/21 Mr. Orrenius Skau (Sweden): As the representative of Kuwait has already delivered a joint statement on our behalf, I will make my remarks very brief. One month ago, the Council adopted resolution 2401 (2018) by consensus, in response to the deafening calls for action to address the horrific humanitarian situation in Syria. Today we have heard around this table a continued commitment to moving forward with the implementation of that important resolution. I wanted to speak last in order to identify some points of convergence. From the discussion today, I believe that there are a number of critical areas where there is broad agreement within the Council. First, we all share a deep disappointment and sense of dissatisfaction and frustration with the lack of implementation. While a limited increase in access for humanitarian convoys shows that progress is possible, much more is needed. The resolution remains in force and all parties remain obliged to comply. Secondly, we have heard a common concern about the continuing hostilities throughout the country, particularly the ongoing military offensive in eastern Ghouta. Those who leave the area should do so voluntarily, with the right to return and a choice of safe places to go to. At the same time, humanitarian aid convoys must continue to support those who choose to remain. Thirdly, we agree that efforts to strengthen the protection of civilians must be stepped up by the United Nations and its partners, both inside eastern Ghouta and for those leaving and in the collective shelters. I want to emphasize that preventing sexual and gender-based violence should be an integral part of those efforts. We condemn the attacks in February that affected health facilities. Many colleagues also reiterated today that resolution 2401 (2018) applies across the whole of the country. I just wanted to mention our concern about the Turkish operation in Afrin and the statements that Turkey has made about expanding its military operations in the north, beyond Afrin. We are also concerned about the protection of civilians fleeing Afrin, as well as the difficult conditions for those remaining. We call on all relevant parties, especially Turkey, to ensure the protection of civilians and facilitate cross-border and cross-line humanitarian aid deliveries, as well as freedom of movement, for internally displaced persons. The need for the full implementation of resolution 2401 (2018) remains as urgent today as when it was adopted. As Ambassador Alotaibi has said, we will spare no effort in making progress on the implementation of resolution 2401 (2018). We will continue to work actively and tirelessly to that end, be creative in considering possible further steps, and remain ready to reconvene the Council at any time should the situation warrant its renewed action. We are convinced that the unity of the Council, as difficult as it may be, is the only way to effectively make a real difference on the ground and alleviate the suffering of the Syrian people. For our part, even when terribly frustrated, we will never give up trying to achieve that change. The President: I now give the floor to the representative of the Syrian Arab Republic. Mr. Ja'afari (Syrian Arab Republic) (spoke in Arabic): At the outset, I would like to convey the condolences of the Government and people of my country to my colleague on the Russian Federation delegation in the wake of the tragic incident that claimed children's lives in the commercial centre in Kemerovo. A few minutes ago, I was checking the list of the States members of the Security Council and I realized that two — only two — of its 15 members have embassies in Damascus. That is why the statements made by the representatives of those two countries offered the most accurate description of the humanitarian situation in my country. They were able to provide an objective and fair assessment of the situation there. In late 2016, right here in the Chamber (see S/PV.7834), we announced the good news to our people in Syria that the Syrian Government would liberate eastern Aleppo from armed terrorist groups, and as a Government, an army and a responsible State we have done just that. Today we announce to our people the good news that the time has come to liberate all of eastern Ghouta from these armed terrorist groups. We declare that we will liberate the Golan, Afrin, Raqqa, Idlib and the rest of our occupied territory because, as a State, we reject the presence on our territory of any illegal armed group or occupying Power, regardless of the excuses, just like all other States represented in the Council. Such victories would not have been possible if we had no just cause. They would not have been possible without the sacrifices made by the Syrian Arab Army, the support of our people and the support of our allies and friends. S/PV.8217 The situation in the Middle East 27/03/2018 20/21 18-08569 Facts that have come to light recently with the liberation of eastern Ghouta from armed terrorist groups again prove what we have always told the Council since the first day of the global terrorist war waged by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Israel, Turkey, the United States, the United Kingdom and France against my country. We said that the suffering of Syrians is the result of the practices of armed terrorist groups against civilians. The testimonies of the tens of thousands of our people leaving eastern Ghouta underscore that those groups have continued to deprive them of their freedom, destroy their livelihoods, disperse their families and prevent them from leaving to areas under State control in order to continue using them as human shields. They have seized control of humanitarian assistance in order to distribute it to their supporters or sell it to civilians at exorbitant prices. They have also targeted the safe corridors allocated by the Government with explosive bullets and mortar shelling, which has led to the death of dozens of people, including some Palestinian brethren. We have borne witness to a state of hysteria in recent days and weeks in the Council as the Syrian Government has sought to exercise its sovereign right, combat terrorist groups and eliminate terrorists in Syria in order to restore security and stability to all Syrians and implement Council resolutions against terrorism. That state of hysteria proves that the States supporting those terrorist groups have never sought to end the suffering of Syrians. They have sought only to perpetuate and prolong their suffering in order to blackmail the Syrian Government, at the political and humanitarian levels, and save terrorists from their certain deaths. I would like to assure the supporters of terrorism, some of whom are present in this Chamber, that the plan that they have promoted for the past seven years has failed. Their plan was to deny that the Islamist takfiri groups were terrorists and instead present them as moderate Syrian opposition. That plan has failed. Eastern Ghouta has not fallen, as my colleague the representative of the United States stated. It was liberated in the same way we liberated eastern Aleppo. It is terrorism that has fallen in eastern Ghouta, not civilians. As the representative of the United States said, today should be a day of shame for the supporters and sponsors of terrorism and terrorist groups. They have supported those terrorist groups for years in order to topple the Syrian Government by force in favour of Islamist takfiri groups. Such actions have led to considerable suffering among the Syrian people, and I have proof of it. Two days ago, at the Senate Armed Forces Committee, led by Senator Lindsey Graham, the Chief of Central Command, General Joseph Votel, stated that "the change of the Government in Syria by force in favour a number of Islamist opposition groups has failed". The Security Council has to date held 49 formal meetings to discuss the so-called humanitarian situation in Syria and a number of informal emergency and Arria Formula meetings. The Council has read reports and heard briefings that were replete with falsehoods that senior officials of the United Nations sought to present in order to serve the policies of some influential Western countries that are members of the Council and to pressure the Syrian Government. Such reports and briefings were completely devoid of professionalism and objectivity. They have failed to take note of the attacks on the sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic, including the attacks by the international coalition, led by the United States, and those by the Turkish regime and the Israeli occupying force. Those same parties have also sought to provide all kinds of support to terrorist groups associated with Da'esh, the Al-Nusra Front and other militias fabricated in those countries. After 49 reports and hundreds of meetings, briefings and thousands of working hours, some countries continue to refuse to recognize that the humanitarian crisis in Syria is the result of an external investment in terrorism and unilateral coercive measures. Forty-nine reports have been issued, and I say today that my words are falling on deaf ears. People from the Netherlands say that beautiful flowers have thorns. The Netherlands is famous for its flowers. Perhaps that saying reflects the situation on the ground. Mr. Lowcock stated that the Kashkul was targeted by a missile but he did not specify its origin. He said there are eight shelters for those leaving eastern Ghouta. He did not mention the efforts of the Syrian Government to host the 150,000 civilians leaving eastern Ghouta. He does not know who manages those shelters. Perhaps aliens are taking care of the 150,000 civilians. Mr. Lowcock stated that the United Nations, its partners and the Syrian Red Crescent are helping people from Ghouta. He did not mention the Government at all. If the Government has no role to play, why ask it to help the Council? Why does the Council request its approval for the entry of humanitarian convoys? Mr. Lowcock stated that 153,000 people left Afrin and went to Tell 27/03/2018 The situation in the Middle East S/PV.8217 18-08569 21/21 Rifaat because of military operations. Who forced 153,000 people to leave Afrin? Was it not Turkey that forced them to leave? Was it not the Turkish aggression against Afrin that forced these people to leave? Mr. Lowcock mentioned the Syrian Government only once, saying that it approved the delivery of humanitarian assistance to the Rukban camp. He did not say that the United States was behind the obstacles preventing the deployment of the humanitarian convoy in question. The United States occupies the Rukban camp and the Tanf area. I will not go into detail now for the sake of time. I will not even go into the details of the forty-ninth report of the Secretary-General (S/2018/243). I will give only one example to prove that the report lacks objectivity and impartiality. The report devotes nine paragraphs to the suffering of civilians in eastern Ghouta and the damage to the infrastructure there as a result of Government military operations, as the report claims — nine paragraphs. As for the situation of the 8 million civilians in Damascus, the targeting by terrorist groups of the capital with more than 2,500 missiles, the killing and injury of thousands, and the destruction of homes, hospitals and clinics, the report dedicates only one sentence to Damascus. The report says, "Attacks on residential neighbourhoods of Damascus also continued from eastern Ghouta, resulting in deaths, injuries and damage to civilian infrastructure." (S/2018/243, para. 8) We hope that the United Nations will not adopt in eastern Ghouta the same approach that it has taken in previous situations by not providing support to the areas liberated or achieving reconciliation. We hope that the United Nations will adopt a new approach in line with the Charter and international law, based on full coordination and cooperation with the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic, which is the only party concerned with the protection and support of Syrians. We hope that the United Nations will not succumb to the dictates of certain influential Western countries in the Council that run counter to humanitarian action, the Charter and international law. During the past week alone, the Syrian Ministry of Commerce has distributed 4,000 tons of food to civilians leaving eastern Ghouta. I am not sure about the sources mentioned by the representative of France, because France does not have an embassy in Damascus. So its sources of information cannot be credible. In conclusion, the States sponsoring terrorism have instructed armed terrorist groups to use chemical weapons once again in Syria. I ask the Council to pay attention to this information. They asked them to fabricate evidence, as they have in the past, in order to accuse the Syrian Government. We sent this information to the President of the Security Council yesterday. According to that information, this theatrical act will be produced by the intelligence agencies of these countries, and the starring roles will be the White Helmets. The production will be directed by foreign media. This theatrical act will take place this time in the areas close to the separation line in the Syrian occupied Golan. Terrorist groups will use poison gas against civilians in Al-Harra. Afterwards, the injured will be moved to the hospitals of the Israeli enemy for treatment there. Council members can already imagine the testimony that will be offered by doctors of the Israeli occupation forces. The information we submitted also refers to another theatrical act in the villages of Habit and Qalb Lawza in the suburbs of Idlib, where a number of satellite transmitters and foreign experts have been spotted. This time, the cast will include women and children from an internally displaced persons camp on the Syrian-Turkish border. Once again, I provide the Council with this serious information. The President: There are no more names inscribed on the list of speakers. I now invite Council members to informal consultations to continue our discussion on the subject. The meeting rose at 1.15 p.m.