In a press conference briefing on Wednesday afternoon, Stéphane Dujarric, Spokesperson for the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, elaborated on the humanitarian aid efforts to support those in Northwestern Syria following the devastating 7.8 magnitude earthquake on February 6th. Although Assad’s government in Damascus decided to allow for three additional crossing points on Monday ahead of emergency the Security Council meeting, the snail speed decision in Damascus had already resulted in the loss of thousands of lives.
Following the Security Council meeting on Monday, Bassam al-Sabbagh, UN Ambassador of Syria, was asked to explain the delay in the decision to open the borders to which he scornfully responded, “Why are you asking me? We are not the ones controlling these borders.”
If Damascus is not controlling the borders, then who is? Assad’s government in Damascus was not allowing for humanitarian aid delivery through the northwestern borders of Syria before, and has since backpedaled to allow for a temporary three-month authorization. However, the agreement appears to be little more than a formality.
Is the problem really being solved? The Spokesperson for the Secretary General reported that an additional 22 trucks from the World Food Programme (WFP), carrying canned food and mattresses, crossed into Syria today, adding to the total 117 trucked that have entered with aid since February 9th. The program has assisted nearly 100,000 people and has since resumed its regular food assistance program to distribute food baskets to 170,000 people in the region. The UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund) has provided micronutrient supplements for 113,000 children under the age of five and 1,000 pregnant and lactating women for three months. While the numbers are clear and promising, the execution of the delivery is a bit murkier.
When asked about how humanitarian aid is being delivered to the occupied region and whether it is reaching the intended population in need, the spokesperson responded, “we want everyone to put politics aside, to put political affiliation aside and to focus on what is needed– and that is helping people.”
Another reporter pressed the issue, further citing local sources on the ground in the towns of Jinderis and Afrin that still have not received any aid. “Where is the UN aid going?” The spokesperson responded acknowledging that they are distributing in rebel-held areas through local partners. “Aid may not always have a UN logo on it”, he continued, “What I can tell you is that we are getting aid, and as much aid as we possibly can as quickly as we can, to all areas of Syria, whether they’d be under the Government control or be under non-Government control.”
UN Ambassador of France Nicolas de Rivière expressed his concern for aid to be properly distributed. “This is a humanitarian tragedy and should not be politicized”. The call for depoliticization has taken the front seat in the debate on how to distribute aid, however, on the global stage, a natural disaster of such magnitude seems to be the perfect storm for a strategic game of politics.
While Syria stalled for over a week on devising any formal solution to deliver aid, several members of the Security Council, including the United States and France, started to doubt the effectiveness of policy reform in Damascus to open more crossings. On Monday, the French ambassador revealed that a resolution has been drafted under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter that would allow for armed protection to ensure aid reaches the occupied region.
“It’s ready. It’s not political” was de Rivière’s curt response, when asked about the resolution following Monday’s Security Council meeting. He also lacked confidence in Russia approving such an agreement. “95% of humanitarian relief provided to Syria is paid by the European Union, the US, Japan, and Canada. Russia and China don’t give money to Syria and they are not ready to do it now”, he elaborated. He was interrupted by another reporter who further inquired on the possibility of Russia vetoing the resolution. De Rivière responded that if Russia were to veto, they would “prefer Syria to starve.”
Although the Chapter 7 resolution would ensure the delivery of aid, would Russia allow it? For the resolution to pass, all five permanent Security Council members would need to agree. Given Russia’s historically kindred military bond with Syria, Russia allowing aid to reach the hands of the Syrian government opposition-occupied region could sour the nations’ relationship.
“We want the aid to flow” Linda Thomas-Greenfield, U.S. Ambassador at the United Nations, emphasized. She detailed that the situation will be monitored closely and if the aid is not flowing the Chapter 7 resolution will be paramount to the success of aid in the disaster zone. Secretary General Antonio Guterres affirmed that “all forms of access should be open without restrictions.”
If the Russians were to approve a resolution, the aid would be formally delivered to meet those who are most in need while relations between Russia and Syria could potentially take a hit. On the other hand, if Russia were to veto the resolution, there would be no guarantee for UN aid to arrive, costing thousands more lives in the wake of an already overwhelming tragedy.
