A/76/PV.95 General Assembly

The General Assembly will now hold a debate pursuant to resolution 76/262, of 26 April 2022, on the situation as to which a veto was cast by a permanent member at the 9087th meeting of the Security Council, held on 8 July 2022, under the agenda item entitled “The situation in the Middle East”. In connection with that debate, the Assembly has before it a special report of the Security Council, circulated in document A/76/905.

At the stage of development of resolution 76/262, which provides for a General Assembly meeting to be convened in case of the exercise of the right to the veto in the Security Council, we warned the sponsors that such situations rarely imply principled disagreements among members of the Security Council. Rather frequently, the negative vote of a permanent member of the Council is nothing more than the consequence of a tactical struggle in the Council and the desire to portray the opponent in a negative light. Today we have gathered to discuss this specific situation. On 8 July, in the Security Council, the Russian Federation voted against a draft resolution on the extension of the cross-border mechanism in Syria, as presented by Ireland and Norway (S/2022/538) (see S/PV.9087). Subsequent to this, the United States, United Kingdom and France voted against our draft on the same topic (S/2022/541). The reason for the disagreements that prevented the Security Council from adopting either of the drafts that day was related to a single point: the scheme whereby the provision of cross-border assistance to Syria after six months could be extended for an additional six months. We insisted that, to that end, there would be a need for another, separate Security Council resolution. Western countries tried to secure an extension immediately for a period of one year. At the same time, neither they nor the Russian Federation disagreed that the scheme for the provision of humanitarian assistance to Syria on the whole required fine-tuning, and this is because Security Council resolution 2585 (2021), which was unanimously adopted by the Council one year ago (see S/PV.8817), was not duly implemented. Our analysis reflects the fact that that occurred largely due, indeed, to the fact that resolution 2585 (2021) did not contain a clear mechanism for not extending the implementation of the resolution for another half year after its first six months had elapsed if the Council membership deemed progress to have been insufficient. For this reason, the measures set out in the resolution essentially began to be implemented in May to June 2022, that is, right before its expiration. And all of this was done for a single goal: to try to placate Syria and the Russian Federation before another extension. The sly nature of our former Western partners lies specifically in the fact that they refused to consider the six-month extension of the cross-border mechanism — six plus six obviously equals 12 — and that in doing so they de facto acknowledged in advance that any measures to fine-tune the delivery system of humanitarian assistance to Syria were something that they had no intention of implementing. And this is a situation that neither the Syrians nor we could tolerate. Why is the cross-border mechanism system wrong? And why can it not be left unchanged? What are its shortcomings? This mechanism of delivery of humanitarian assistance to Syria from the territory of neighbouring States was launched pursuant to a Security Council resolution adopted in 2014 (resolution 2165 (2014)), when the country, which was being ripped apart by terrorists, was not in a position to independently provide assistance to all people who got trapped in areas besieged by terrorist groups. Accordingly, the cross-border mechanism was initially and exclusively designed as an emergency temporary measure to provide support for people who fell hostage to areas ravaged by a terrorist presence. Counter-terrorism successes of Damascus were achieved with the support of the Russian armed forces, and since then they have fundamentally changed the situation on the ground. The only areas not under Syrian Government control are the areas beyond the Euphrates, where the United States occupiers loot the hydrocarbon and grain resources on a daily basis, and in the Idlib de-escalation zone in the north-west of the country, which is occupied by the Hayat Tahrir Al-Sham, an internationally recognized terrorist organization. And in that specific part of the country, assistance continues to be provided through the sole existing crossing point, the Bab Al-Hawa checkpoint. The other three crossing points pursuant to the resolution 2165 (2014) were shuttered two years ago, and this, inter alia, ultimately allowed for a mutually acceptable scheme to be established for the unfettered provision of humanitarian cargo to north-east Syria from areas under the control of the legitimate Government of the country. It is important in this context to note that from the very beginning Syria viewed the cross-border mechanism as illegitimate and insisted that it be shut down ultimately. Damascus is absolutely right in that regard. The mechanism violates the core principle of the provision of humanitarian assistance as is set out in resolution 46/182, namely, the consent of the host State and its key role in the coordination of humanitarian- assistance deliveries on its soil. This principle is complied with everywhere except Syria. Eight or even five years ago we could not do without the cross-border mechanism, but today nothing is preventing Syrian sovereignty from being fully respected in this matter  — nothing, other than the unwillingness of Western countries to stop supporting international terrorists whom they trained and equipped to oust the legitimate Syrian authorities. It is the mindset of the neocolonialists and their resentment at their plans having failed that is making them torpedo the process of the restoration of Syrian sovereignty and territorial integrity  — and this, despite the fact that they formally declare their commitment to Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, including through Security Council resolutions. I will not delve into the details of our assessments of the cross-border mechanism. We regularly set them out in the monthly open briefings of the Security Council. Council members can easily familiarize themselves with those details. I will merely state that we are convinced of the need to ensure that cross-line mechanisms replace the cross-border deliveries of humanitarian assistance. We understand that that is difficult to achieve quickly for a multitude of reasons, which is why we consented to the 6+6 formula. Is this possible? Of course, it is possible. We all have before us the example of how deliveries across the Al-Yarubiyah crossing point in eastern Syria, which was closed at our insistence for the same reasons, were quite quickly reoriented to embody the cross-line system. Yet the hypocritical lamentations of Western countries that this was impossible and that it would cause the suffering of women and children abounded nonetheless. We will once again hear these lamentations today, most likely with allegations that Russia wishes to deprive people of food and basic necessities and to cause those same women and children to freeze in six months. Just know that this is not true. We will not object to the extension of the cross- border mechanism for another six months, but only on the condition that Security Council members comply with what we agreed upon one year ago when we unanimously adopted Security Council resolution 2585 (2021). That resolution not only talks about cross-line deliveries, but also about early-recovery projects as well as the need to ensure far greater transparency in the cross-border mechanism. This is part of the path that needs to be undertaken by the Secretary-General and his subordinates. There are also significant shortcomings in this regard, which allow international terrorists to continue to benefit from humanitarian- assistance deliveries, and that is something that needs to end. Assessing what transpired on 8 July, I would urge the Assembly to focus not so much on our views, but more on the views of the Permanent Representative of Syria, as each and every member could find itself in Syria’s place. For this not to happen, our former Western partners need to be helped to understand that the majority of the members of the international community do not recognize their right to govern the world, its resources and potential for the advancement of their parochial agenda, to implement their geopolitical projects, to oust inconvenient Governments as hey please and to shamelessly loot countries, peoples and entire continents. By exercising our veto on 8 July, the Russian Federation once again protected the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria. Who will protect the other States Members of the United Nations if they allow themselves to be dragged into others’ games? Who will shield them from being transformed into yet another Ukraine, which has become a weak-willed pawn in the West’s geopolitical chess game against the Russian Federation and is silently taking the lives of its citizens for the advancement of the interests of the United States and its NATO allies? Just think about it. I am confident that there will be many lies bandied about today about the Russian special military operation in Ukraine. In conclusion, I would ask the Assembly to carry out a simple experiment. I would ask that members place on their left the text of our draft resolution, which, on 8 July, the United States, the United Kingdom and France voted against, and on the right, they should place the text of Security Council resolution 2642 (2022), which was adopted by the Security Council on 12 July (see S/PV.9089) and was positively accepted and welcomed by the humanitarian community and majority of our Security Council colleagues. London, Washington and Paris do not count — they have long been allergic to anything Russian, from Russian initiatives at the United Nations to our culturalheritage. I would ask members to consider these two texts and try to find any substantive differences. They will not be able to do that because they are not there. That can only mean one thing. Back on 8 July, our former Western partners had before them a draft resolution that was acceptable to the entire membership of Security Council. However, owing to political considerations, instead of adopting the draft resolution, they preferred to provoke our veto. Is this how a conscientious member of the international community conducts itself? We believe it is not. For that reason, in the forthcoming Security Council reform, we advocate not the expansion of the Western camp  — there are more than enough representatives of that camp — but the inclusion of the States of Asia, Latin American, and, first and foremost, Africa, against which a historic error has been made. We hope that the majority of those in this Hall support such a position.

At the outset, my delegation associates itself with the statement to be delivered by the representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela on behalf of the Member States of the Group of Friends in Defence of the Charter of the United Nations. We would like to add the following comments in our national capacity. Despite the fact that my delegation already joined consensus on resolution 76/262, we and other delegations believe that some are repeatedly abusing that resolution in a politicized manner that does not serve the objectives declared at its adoption. The resolution is also not in line with the agenda item that it was submitted for, namely, strengthening of the United Nations system. All States Members of the United Nations are cognizant of the fact that the Security Council must shoulder its responsibilities in full compliance with the provisions of the United Nations Charter, in which the founding fathers established a clear voting system that ensures a balance between all international powers and prevents any new worldwide confrontations or the use of the Security Council as a platform to impose the agendas of some countries at the expense of others. Regrettably, the unfair geographical distribution of the Security Council, which does not reflect today’s reality, is exacerbating polarization in the Council and is pushing Western States members of the Council, most of which are also members of NATO, to attempt using the Council to serve their own political agendas, settle geopolitical accounts or impose their own standards. They do so by submitting non-consensual draft resolutions that are not in the interest of the States members of the United Nations system, especially developing countries. Curbing such practices therefore becomes a necessity and a moral duty. As a party concerned and primarily affected by providing humanitarian assistance to Syrians, who have been suffering for almost 10 years from an unjust war imposed upon them by terrorists and unilateral coercive measures, the Syrian Arab Republic has become a primary interlocutor in discussing any Security Council resolutions on the humanitarian situation in Syria. Accordingly, in all discussions of the Council on implementing Security Council resolution 2585 (2021), the Syrian Arab Republic delegation has expressed many concerns and pointed out major shortcomings in the resolution’s implementation, especially when the Council is sticking to a single mechanism to deliver humanitarian assistance across borders that does not respect Syrian sovereignty, despite the fact that the circumstances leading to its establishment in 2014 no longer exist. What is more important is the inability of this mechanism to guarantee that the humanitarian assistance will not fall into the hands of terrorist organizations designated on the Security Council’s lists. The delegation of the Russian Federation has shown that it understands these concerns and has called for seriously addressing them. However, the efforts of my delegation and those of the Russian delegation have unfortunately been met with intentional disregard and adverse positions by the United States of America, the United Kingdom and France. For a full year, those countries have set obstacles to the implementation of resolution 2585 (2021) through their continued politicization of humanitarian action and by linking any relief or development support with conditions and dictates that run counter to the principles of humanitarian action as provided for by the General Assembly in resolution 46/182. My delegation therefore expresses its total agreement with the Russian Federation’s position. We also appreciated its rejection of the draft resolution (S/2022/538) extending the terms of resolution 2585 (2021) for another year without any improvements that would have responded genuinely to the humanitarian needs of the Syrians in an effective, balanced, transparent and measurable manner or, more importantly, supported the implementation of early- recovery projects, including assistance for an important and vital sector, namely, the electricity sector. The position of the Russian Federation was consistent with its full commitment to the principle of respect for the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of Syria, which has been underlined in all the relevant Security Council resolutions. It also genuinely expressed its keenness to alleviate the suffering of the Syrian people and improve the humanitarian situation of all Syrians, without discrimination, by supporting the efforts of the Syrian Government, the primary partner of the United Nations and its agencies in undertaking that task. The Russian position in rejecting the draft resolution was to halt Western politicization. It was to ensure that the humanitarian dimension took priority over any other consideration. It was necessary to curb such misinformation by the three Western countries that have been manipulating public opinion by spreading their allegations of concern for the humanitarian situation in Syria, while imposing illegal and immoral unilateral coercive measures, leading to catastrophic consequences for all aspects of the lives of the Syrian people. It is paradoxical that the three Western permanent members of the Security Council criticizing the Russian Federation for voting against the initial draft resolution extending the provisions of resolution 2585 (2021) are the same ones that voted against draft resolution S/2022/541, put forward by the Russian Federation to achieve the exact same objective. It is therefore only fair that the General Assembly also request to listen to the justifications of those three countries.

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union and its member States. The candidate countries North Macedonia, Montenegro, Ukraine and the Republic of Moldova and the potential candidate Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as Monaco and San Marino, align themselves with this statement. This is the second debate held pursuant to resolution 76/262. We appreciate the opportunity to continue to speak about the importance of humanitarian access in Syria with the full United Nations membership. However, we deeply regret the veto cast by the Russian Federation on draft resolution S/2022/538, proposed by the co-penholders, Ireland and Norway, for a 12-month renewal of the cross-border mechanism in Bab Al-Hawa. The co-penholders’ proposal for a full-year renewal had wide support from Security Council members, with 13 votes in favour. The Secretary-General, the European Union and the humanitarian community as a whole had also continuously called for a 12-month renewal. Humanitarian actors and beneficiaries must have enough predictability to be able to plan and organize their life-saving assistance. Ultimately, the mechanism was renewed, through Security Council resolution 2642 (2022), for six months, with a further extension of an additional six months requiring a separate resolution. For now, United Nations humanitarian assistance can continue crossing at Bab Al-Hawa, which is the single remaining border crossing. Continued cross-border humanitarian access to north-west Syria is critical for the 4.1 million Syrians who depend on the vital humanitarian assistance delivered through that mechanism. While the European Union recognizes that the six-month renewal of cross- border access is an important outcome, we urge the Security Council to renew the cross-border mechanism for a further six months by January 2023. At present, there is simply no viable alternative to the cross-border operation to meet the needs of millions of people in north-west Syria. The current mandate expires in winter, at a time when people in north-west Syria will be most in need of humanitarian assistance. Let us be clear: life-saving and life-sustaining actions must not be disrupted, targeted or politicized. Safe, unhindered and sustained access to all those in need in Syria must be maintained. The humanitarian needs in Syria have increased, and will likely continue to increase, especially in the light of the food crisis due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Today more than 12 million Syrians are food insecure, relying on external food assistance for their survival. In the face of that significant need, the European Union and its member States are the largest donors supporting Syrians in the country and the region. At the sixth Brussels Conference on Supporting the Future of Syria and the Region, held in May of this year and hosted by the European Union, the international community pledged close to €6.4 billion for 2022 and beyond, including more than €4.8 billion pledged by the European Union and its member States. The European Union reiterates its call for a political solution and remains firm in its commitment to that goal. Finally, the European Union emphasizes that no normalization, lifting of sanctions or reconstruction will be possible until the Syrian regime engages in a political transition, in the framework of resolution 2254 (2015) and the Geneva process.

I have the honour to deliver this statement on behalf of the Nordic countries — Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and my own country, Denmark. Although we regret the need to convene another debate about the use of a veto in the Security Council so soon after the latest one (see A/76/PV.77 and A/76/PV.78), we welcome this opportunity to discuss the recent use of the veto by Russia. We underline the significance of the adoption of resolution 76/262. The adoption of the veto initiative is an important step in making the Security Council more transparent and accountable, and has paved the way for our debate today. As signatories to the Charter of the United Nations, we entrusted the Security Council with the responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. The use of the veto to prevent the Security Council from discharging its duties is a matter of great concern. In this case, it forced the Security Council to scale down life-saving humanitarian assistance to millions of vulnerable people at a moment when it is needed more than ever before during the Syrian conflict. Security Council draft resolution S/2022/538, put forward by Norway and Ireland, reflected a fair and careful compromise among the views expressed during the negotiations. More important, it reflected the urgent needs of the Syrian people and was in line with the recommendations of the Secretary-General and the humanitarian organizations operating on the ground. They have consistently stressed the need for a predictable 12-month extension of the mandate to allow for adequate planning and implementation of the humanitarian response. We deeply regret that Russia’s use of the veto forced the Security Council to ignore those calls based on the urgent humanitarian needs on the ground. We must put humanitarian needs above politics, and the fact is that there are no humanitarian grounds to justify a veto on cross-border assistance to those in humanitarian need. That is yet another example of the abuse of the veto by a permanent member of the Security Council. This meeting is another opportunity to convey the urgent need for increased restraint in the use of the veto and for more transparency and accountability when the veto power is used. This debate provides a much-needed occasion for Russia to explain itself and for other Member States to express their opinion on this matter. On that note, allow me to share the viewpoints of the Nordic countries. Since the outbreak of the war in Syria in 2011, Russia has used its veto 17 times in relation to the Syrian conflict alone. In 2014, there were four border crossings that helped to ensure food, water, shelter, critical medical services and other life-saving support for Syrians in need. Today, due to consecutive Russian vetoes, we are down to one last lifeline through the Bab Al-Hawa crossing. Russia’s use of the veto disregards what the Secretary-General and the humanitarian community have called for. It undermines operational certainty and predictability for humanitarian actors operating on the ground. It leaves the mandate to expire in the middle of the winter in Syria, when the humanitarian needs are most urgent. We underline our strong expectation that the Security Council will deliver and renew the mandate in January 2023, at the latest, based on the humanitarian needs of the Syrian people, as outlined in the special report of the Secretary-General due in December. Anything else would be to disregard the lives and needs of the Syrian people and would be a manifest failure by the Security Council to assume the responsibilities that we, as Member States, vested in it. In the light of yet another veto in the Council, we are once again reminded of why the reform of the Security Council is necessary. We also encourage all Member States to support the French-Mexican initiative and the code of conduct of the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency group. Finally, let us express our strongest possible support for the humanitarian co-penholders, Norway and Ireland. Without their tireless efforts, the cross- border humanitarian aid to Syria would have been at risk of not continuing at all, and the consequences of such a failure by the Security Council would have been borne by the Syrian people alone. At a time when Russia stood isolated in the Security Council with its veto, we are also grateful for the role played by the elected members. Without the collective voice of conscience of the elected 10 (E-10) in the Council, there is no guarantee that an agreement could have been found. In combination with the invaluable efforts made by Ireland and Norway, two small States elected as non-permanent members of the Security Council, that serves only to once again underline the essential role that the E-10 plays in the effective functioning of the Council. As we are now forced to already look ahead to the next renewal of the cross-border mechanism in Syria, we hope that today the General Assembly will send a clear signal that life-saving humanitarian assistance must not be politicized and that it should never be made subject to a veto. Countless human lives depend on it, and, ultimately, the legitimacy of this very Organization depends on it.

The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is honoured to take the floor on behalf of the delegations of Algeria, Angola, Belarus, Bolivia, Cambodia, China, Cuba, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Nicaragua, the State of Palestine, the Russian Federation, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, the Syrian Arab Republic, Zimbabwe and its own, all of which are members of the Group of Friends in Defence of the Charter of the United Nations. Our Group of Friends was established in response to the increasing threats against the Charter of the United Nations and, therefore, the urgent need to reaffirm and defend its purposes and principles, which today remain as relevant as in 1945. We refer, among other things, to the increasing resort to unilateralism; attacks against multilateralism; the claiming of non-existent exceptions; attempts to ignore, and even substitute, the purposes and principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter with a new set of so-called rules that have never been discussed in an inclusive or transparent manner; and selective approaches or accommodative interpretations of the provisions of our Organization’s Charter. We believe that such practices are contrary to international law and in no way contribute to addressing, through a revitalized and truly inclusive multilateralism, always guided by the principle of good faith and values such as solidarity and international cooperation, the complex, emerging and common challenges faced by all humankind today. Instead, they contribute to an increase in uncertainty, distrust, instability and tensions around the world. On the contrary, such practices contribute only to increasing uncertainty, mistrust, instability and tensions across the world. We are participating in today’s debate as a result of the activation of the mechanism established by resolution 76/262, although we believe that this plenary meeting is unnecessary, since the basic issue and the matter under consideration have already been overtaken by reality, as demonstrated by the adoption of Security Council resolution 2642 (2022). Nevertheless, we welcome the transparency with which the delegation of the Russian Federation today explained the motivations behind it exercising its veto right with regard to the draft resolution contained in document S/2022/538. Nevertheless, we would like to stress that any outcome issued or adopted by the Security Council must at all times ensure full respect for the sovereignty, the right of peoples to self-determination, the territorial integrity, the political unity and the independence of States Members of our Organization, including the Syrian Arab Republic, while emphasizing that the positions and legitimate concerns of the States concerned must be duly taking into account in order to ensure their full ownership of all such processes. In that regard, we express our strong support for all measures anchored in the Charter of the United Nations, the norms of international law and, among other things, respect for the principles of humanity, neutrality and impartiality, which genuinely seek to improve the humanitarian situation in Syria and alleviate the prolonged suffering of the Syrian people. For instance, we are convinced that a positive step in that direction would be the complete and immediate lifting of all unilateral coercive measures that have illegally and cruelly been repeatedly applied against the entire Syrian people over the past 40 years, which have even been expanded and intensified during the time of the current coronavirus disease pandemic. It is important to recall that those so-called sanctions have had a devastating impact on the lives of the Syrian people as a whole and their livelihoods given their systematic nature and broad scope, while hindering the very work of the United Nations and its humanitarian agencies on the ground, impeding, among other things, the broadening of humanitarian activities and the implementation of early-recovery projects, as called for in Security Council resolutions 2585 (2021) and 2642 (2022). We must also stress that the illegal application of those unilateral sanctions impedes the full achievement of economic and social development of nations subjected to them, particularly developing countries, such as Syria. Apart from representing a massive violation of human rights and causing great pain and suffering for entire populations, that reality, coupled with interference in the internal and sovereign affairs of States, is exacerbating conflicts and crises, including by creating what is later referred to as so- called human-made humanitarian crises. Such crises were actually deliberately created precisely by the sponsors of such illegal measures, which have now clearly become structural factors and fundamental drivers of contemporary crises. It is against that backdrop that today we warn of the negative impact of the possible entrenchment of a Cold War-era mentality, based on confrontation, deepening divisions and the imposition of divergent visions and agendas. We find ourselves at a juncture where the strengthening of the rule of law, multilateralism, diplomacy and political dialogue are more necessary than ever before. We therefore call on all members of the Security Council to fulfil their obligation to maintain international peace and security in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, to both seize and rise to the moment, to reach out and engage with one other, and to show greater flexibility and reach compromises that truly serve the purpose of maintaining international peace and security and ensuring the well-being of all our peoples, without double standards, politicization of any kind or selective approaches that ultimately undermine the important responsibilities entrusted to that organ. In conclusion, the Group of Friends in Defence of the Charter of the United Nations pledges to spare no effort in preserving, promoting and defending the validity and primacy of the Charter of the United Nations. That requires, on the one hand, ensuring the complete and immediate lifting of unilateral sanctions and, on the other, continuing to work hand in hand to ensure that the cross-border mechanism for humanitarian deliveries to the Syrian Arab Republic — always with the country’s full consent and in close coordination with its competent national authorities — serves its true purpose, while avoiding any misuse or politicization of the humanitarian needs of the heroic Syrian people. Very briefly, allow us to make a few remarks in our national capacity. For the sake of consistency and to avoid selective approaches, we believe that it would have been useful to hear in today’s debate the motivations that led the delegations of the United States, France and the United Kingdom to vote against the draft resolution contained in document S/2022/541, which referred to the same issue of the cross-border mechanism for the delivery of humanitarian aid in Syria. Accordingly, let us hope that the mechanism — on which we have convened today for the second time since its establishment — does not become a new tool to instrumentalize the General Assembly to attack its Member States. If that were the case, it would completely undermine the purpose for which resolution 76/262 was adopted. Finally, while the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela calls on the members of the Security Council to forge the necessary consensus for the Council to fully comply with the high responsibilities entrusted to it, we understand that, in the face of attempts to exploit temporary divisions and impose geopolitical interests and neocolonialist domination agendas, there will always be occasions where casting a vote in opposition becomes an inexorable duty to defend and ensure respect for the purposes contained in the Charter of the United Nations.

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the three Benelux countries  — Belgium, the Netherlands and my own country, Luxembourg. We align ourselves with the statement delivered by the representative of the European Union, in its capacity as observer. The Benelux countries welcome the timely convening of this meeting in accordance with resolution 76/262 of 26 April 2022, which established a standing mandate for the General Assembly to hold a debate in the event of the use of the veto in the Security Council. This is already the second time that that mandate has had to be activated, less than three months after its adoption. We deeply regret the outcome of the vote of 8 July 2022 in the Security Council (see S/PV.9087) and the use of the veto by the Russian Federation against the draft resolution to extend the United Nations mechanism for cross-border humanitarian assistance to Syria for a period of 12 months. We thank the co-penholders of the draft resolution (S/2022/538), Ireland and Norway, for all their efforts, which were guided solely by the humanitarian needs of the Syrian people and the imperative to maintain the cross-border mechanism at Bab Al-Hawa as a vital lifeline for millions of people in north-west Syria. The Secretary-General and the wider humanitarian community, as well as the vast majority of Security Council members, have specifically called for a renewal of the provisions of resolution 2585 (2021) for a period of 12 months. Russia alone chose to ignore that call, jeopardizing the ability to effectively deliver humanitarian assistance to over 4 million people in need. Unfortunately, this is not the first time that the veto has been used in relation to humanitarian aid for the Syrian people. When it was established on 14 July 2014 by the Security Council with the unanimous adoption of resolution 2165 (2014) (see S/PV.7216), the United Nations cross-border mechanism was applied to four border crossings in order to ensure that humanitarian aid reached those in need throughout Syria via the most direct channels. However, in recent years, due to the repeated use of the veto, the scope of the cross-border mechanism has been gradually reduced. It was first limited to two border crossings in January 2020, after the Russian Federation and China vetoed it on 20 December 2019 (see S/PV.8697). It was then limited to one border crossing in July 2020, after the Russian Federation and China vetoed it, first, on 7 July 2020 (see S/2020/661), and then on 10 July 2020 (see S/2020/693). We welcome the compromise reached on 12 July in the form of Security Council resolution 2642 (2022) but are concerned about the operational impact of a limited six-month renewal. Humanitarian actors risk being caught in a perpetual cycle of contingency planning, undermining effectiveness and confidence in their operations. In addition, access across the border continues to be threatened by a diplomatic sword of Damocles, placing an additional psychological burden on those in need. Russia’s use of the veto on 8 July has blocked the way to continued and predictable cross- border humanitarian access to north-west Syria. Let us be clear: our debate today is about the need to ensure humanitarian access in order to provide life-saving aid to people who desperately need it. It is not about the principle of sovereignty, which cannot be used to justify the arbitrary denial of consent for humanitarian access. We would like to reiterate that aid operations across the front lines enjoy broad international support. However, the reality is that those cross-front line operations are not sufficient to deliver vital aid to north-west Syria on the scale required. We recognize the need to support resilience, self-reliance and early recovery as part of the humanitarian response. However, without a political solution in line with Security Council resolution 2254 (2015), the conflict in Syria will simply not end. Let me reiterate the European Union’s position that, until such a political solution is firmly in place, the European Union will not fund any reconstruction efforts, lift sanctions or normalize relations. We urge all members of the Security Council and all States Members of the United Nations to respect humanitarian principles and international humanitarian law. We urge all Council members to follow through on the intention expressed in resolution 2642 (2022) to extend the cross-border mechanism for a further six months and to ensure more comprehensive and sustainable cross- border access, so that aid can continue to flow across the border uninterrupted during the winter, when people need it most. It is imperative to ensure humanitarian access at a time when unprecedented numbers of people need life-saving assistance. Millions of lives and the credibility of the United Nations are at stake. Let us work together to be up to the task of fulfilling our responsibility.

I have the honour to deliver this statement on behalf of the member countries of the Pacific Islands Forum with a presence in New York. We are grateful to have the opportunity to address the General Assembly today. We commend the work of the countries that championed the veto initiative that has enabled this important conversation this morning (resolution 76/262). It is our hope that these mandated meetings will, over time, lead to better standards governing the use of the veto so that its use is more transparent and limited to only when it is needed. At the outset, we wish to state plainly our disappointment that the Russian Federation, a permanent member of the Security Council, voted to block a draft resolution with humanitarian intent. Under the Charter of the United Nations, the Security Council has the primary responsibility to uphold international peace and security. That includes a duty to prevent innocent people from further suffering. While we are pleased with the Council extending the cross-border mechanism in Syria, the delay and uncertainty has been unacceptable and completely avoidable. The use of the veto on a humanitarian draft resolution is of particular concern. The provision of humanitarian assistance should be in line with international humanitarian law and follow the internationally agreed humanitarian principles of neutrality, impartiality, humanity and independence. Providing people in the most difficult circumstances with a means of survival should be above geopolitics. The Secretary-General’s most recent report on Syria (S/2022/492) makes it clear that humanitarian needs have never been greater. The World Food Programme estimates that 12 million people are suffering from food insecurity, of which 2.5 million are severely affected. Malnutrition rates are increasing rapidly, millions of people lack access to safe and reliable water supplies, and less than 8 per cent of people have been fully vaccinated against the coronavirus disease. In that context, the use of the veto to block a draft resolution that would ease such immense human suffering and provide operational certainty for responding humanitarian organizations for a minimum of 12 months is a travesty. In our own Blue Pacific region, our leaders have declared a climate emergency. The peoples of our small island States understand well the importance of a fair and functioning multilateral system in protecting the most vulnerable. As members of the Pacific Islands Forum, we have consistently opposed the unconstrained use of the veto. Its use must be limited and transparent. In situations like this, where the veto is used to prevent life-saving assistance from reaching some of the world’s most vulnerable people, we can see clearly how outdated and obstructionist the veto really can be.

Ireland and Norway were the co-penholders of the Security Council draft resolution that we gather in this Hall to discuss today. Our draft resolution (S/2022/538) was the result of careful and diligent engagement with all Council members, humanitarian actors and many members of the General Assembly. On 8 July, our draft resolution received the support of the vast majority of Council members (see S/PV.9087). However, it was subject to a solitary veto cast by the Russian Federation. As we have said many times before, any use of the veto is an abuse of the veto. That is our principled position. Yet that particular veto was shocking. It placed a humanitarian lifeline for 4 million Syrians at risk. In our view, that was an unconscionable act. However, the veto was not the end of the story. Four days later, after difficult and intense negotiations, the Council convened to adopt Security Council resolution 2642 (2022), proposed by Ireland and Norway (see S/PV.9089). Of course, the six-month renewal period was shorter than we as co-penholders had aimed for, shorter than the humanitarian community asked for and shorter than beneficiaries of that lifeline need. But the crucial thing is that the humanitarian operation at Bab Al-Hawa remains open, providing a vital lifeline to millions of Syrians in need. Cross-border authorization saves and sustains lives. That is an undeniable fact. We all know that the structure of the Security Council requires reform. The threat of the veto hangs over far too much of our decision-making. It cast a dark shadow over these very negotiations in particular. Its existence means that sometimes we have to settle for less than what we — and, indeed, the majority of States Members of the United Nations — believe is needed. That is why the veto initiative is so important. Today, members of the General Assembly have their say. As we look forward to the future renewal of the life-saving humanitarian assistance lifeline for Syria, the Security Council needs to hear and to heed those voices. The Security Council must live up to its responsibility to ensure humanitarian relief continues to be delivered to Syria. We owe the long-suffering people of Syria nothing less.

We welcome the opportunity for the General Assembly to convene and discuss this critical issue and use the important mechanism to enhance the transparency and accountability between the Security Council and the General Assembly. However, we do regret the necessity of the General Assembly meeting for a second time under the veto initiative (resolution 76/262), only three months after its adoption. We deeply regret the veto that was cast in the Council (see S/PV.9087). That sole veto by the Russian Federation prevented the adoption of a draft resolution (S/2022/538) that would have set up a six-plus-six extension of the authorization for the cross-border humanitarian aid operation into Syria. That formulation already presented a significant compromise from the 12 months that the Secretary-General and humanitarian agencies on the ground told the Council — and indeed, the world  — was the minimum needed to serve the nearly 4.1 million people, 2 million of whom are children, through the only remaining humanitarian crossing in north-west Syria. It is not just a border crossing; it is a lifeline. As co-penholders in the Council, Norway and Ireland’s objective was always very clear: that humanitarian aid must reach all people in need in Syria. After engaging intensively over the past year, we set out what we considered to be a fair and careful compromise, which was, regrettably, vetoed. The veto cast certainly cannot be considered to be in the interests of international peace and security. Because of one member, the Security Council stumbled in its responsibility to put the needs of Syrians first and to ensure humanitarian relief can reach those who rely on it. It is fortunate that the Council was able to live up to its responsibility and finally come together around a new draft that was adopted last week (resolution 2462 (2022)). But let me be clear: delays in Council action have a real-world impact for those who rely on this life-saving aid. The Council’s inability to act in a timely way undermines its credibility. For the humanitarian organizations operating on the ground, a predictable mandate is necessary to be able to plan and implement the humanitarian response via cross-border and cross-line operations, as well as for the implementation of early-recovery projects. The cumulative cost for the Syrian people resulting from the ambiguity of the cross-border mechanism in past years has already been unacceptably high. The resolution adopted allows for a six-month extension with the expectation of an additional six months when confirmed by the Council. We cannot have another situation where the people, humanitarian organizations and United Nations staff in north-west Syria have to sit and wait while Security Council negotiations run into overtime, especially in the depths of winter when assistance is most urgently needed. We hope that today’s meeting sends a strong message about the General Assembly’s expectation that the Council lives up to its responsibility to place the humanitarian imperative over politics at all times. It is incumbent upon every one of us to come together for the sake of the people of Syria, to support humanitarian deliveries by any modality and, indeed, to reach a desperately needed political solution for the people of Syria. In order to put an end to their need and suffering, we call on all to support the parties in engaging urgently and constructively with the efforts of the Special Envoy to reach a political solution in Syria.

Costa Rica regrets and condemns the veto of the draft resolution contained in document S/2022/538, which would have extended the entry of humanitarian aid through the only remaining open cross-border crossing in Syria for one more year. That aid would have taken the form of life-saving medicines, vaccines, food, water, dignity kits for women and girls, gas and educational supplies to a people enduring unimaginable and constant suffering — aid representing hope for a region where hope is in short supply. Within the Security Council, there was near- unanimous support for an operational timeline that would give humanitarian actors the opportunity to deliver such aid, on which no less than 4 million people depend. However, one voice called for splitting the 12-month operational calendar in half and proposed leaving the population of north-western Syria without access to aid during the harsh winter months, precisely when humanitarian needs would be most acute. A single actor derailed the timely delivery of supplies needed to save the lives of millions of people that have lived in a spiral of uncertainty for 11 years now, the humanitarian impact of which has only deteriorated over time. Ireland and Norway worked masterfully and tirelessly to devise a solution that would address that single voice, while prioritizing the ultimate goal of providing humanitarian assistance. Their solution, a six- plus-six-month extension, was a genuine compromise on the provision of humanitarian aid. For Costa Rica, it is inconceivable that such a compromise should be imposed on an issue so fundamental to the values and purposes that unite us as an international community. The vote on the draft resolution should have been straightforward — for the 13 States that voted in favour on 8 July (see S/PV.9087), it was. Time is a luxury that the people of Syria do not have. The failures of the Security Council to maintain international peace and security create multiple crises, leaving refugees in need of material and psychological assistance and causing damage to infrastructure and the environment that is difficult to remedy. Such crises feed the massive international arms trade that continues to drain the coffers of many States while increasing the insecurity of vast populations who are afraid to let their children outside for fear of them coming into contact with a landmine or stray bullet or caught in the crosshairs of a drone. Crises do not take breaks, and neither can those most directly affected by them. The wounds live with them daily, as do the scars of struggles lost, childhoods denied and community livelihoods in ruins. Failures erode confidence, not only among Member States, but in the viability and legitimacy of the Security Council and the United Nations system itself. The unity we so desperately seek cannot be reduced simply to achieving political consensus but must be expressed in absolute fidelity to the values and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

My delegation aligns itself with the statement delivered by the representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela on behalf of the Group of Friends in Defence of the Charter of the United Nations. I would like to make the following remarks in my national capacity. In accordance with the principles of independence, humanity, neutrality and impartiality, Iran has always supported the United Nations and the international community in their efforts to assist Syria. We have frequently stated that the provision of humanitarian aid to Syria is critical and that political circumstances must not be allowed to prevent aid from reaching people in need. That must be done in a manner that fully respects Syria’s political sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity and in compliance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. In line with our consistent position, we have reiterated that the cross-border aid delivery mechanism should be considered as an exceptional and temporary measure imposed by specific circumstances and that humanitarian aid to those in need must be delivered in cooperation and full coordination with the Syrian Government and from within the Syrian territory. That will help to prevent the diversion of aid to unintended persons. During the discussions of the issue in the Security Council, my delegation was actively engaged with the co-penholders of the draft resolutions S/2022/538 and S/2022/546, the Syrian delegation and Council members in order to bring the process to a successful conclusion. We welcome the adoption of Security Council resolution 2642 (2022) and consider it a crucial step toward addressing Syria’s urgent needs. In that regard, we would like to highlight the following points. First, while resolution 2642 (2022) extends the cross-border mechanism for a period of six months, it also sets out explicit demands for early- recovery projects and increased transparency in relief efforts. The resolution underlines the critical need to increase cross-line delivery throughout Syria. In this context, we call on all parties to carefully adhere to the basic principles governing humanitarian assistance, as well as to ensure neutrality and transparency. Secondly, we demand the lifting of unilateral sanctions against Syria, which impede the implementation of the resolution. In that context, the implementation of early-recovery projects, such as electricity, which are critical to restoring access to basic services, must not be affected by unilateral sanctions. Such illegal measures also stymie Syria’s reconstruction efforts and delivery of humanitarian relief in a variety of ways, even delaying the return of refugees and displaced persons. Accordingly, we call for the removal of sanctions in the context of the ongoing coronavirus disease pandemic. Thirdly, resolution 2642 (2022) requests the Secretary-General to provide a special report on the humanitarian needs in Syria. The report should include overall trends related to unhindered and safe United Nations cross-line operations that should reach all parts of Syria, early-recovery projects and detailed information on the humanitarian assistance delivered throughout United Nations humanitarian cross-border operations, including their transparency, the distribution mechanism, the number of beneficiaries, operating partners, locations of aid deliveries at the district level and the volume and nature of the items delivered. Lastly, resolution 2642 (2022) encourages the convening of a Security Council informal interactive dialogue in order to regularly review and follow up on the implementation of the resolution, including progress in early-recovery projects. We believe that, through such a mechanism, the Council will be able to monitor progress in the effective and balanced implementation of the resolution.

The past weeks have been a time of anxiety for the Syrian people, the United Nations system and international humanitarian partners. Despite the fervent calls from the United Nations and the humanitarian international community for a 12-month renewal of the cross-border mechanism and the strong support of the overwhelming majority of its members, the Security Council had to settle for a six-month extension. For the next six months, 4.1 million people living in north-west Syria will have shelter and food. We are glad that they are safe for now. However, when the mandate of the United Nations cross-border mechanism ends on 10 January, it will be in the dead of winter. North-west Syria is an unforgiving landscape, which experiences extremely harsh weather conditions. That is literally the worst time that one can think of to reconsider life-saving humanitarian support. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that a viable alternative with the capacity to reach the most vulnerable people in Syria will be conceived in the next six months. After more than a decade of suffering, the people of Syria deserve better than that. Since 1945, almost everything about the United Nations has changed, except the right of the veto, and the veto power has too often failed the people of the world. This weaponized privilege is the very reason that the Security Council is unable to carry out its mandate. The far-reaching consequences of the abuse of the veto have increased international instability and deepened humanitarian crises. This licence to pursue self-interest is the very reason why the international community has lost its trust in the United Nations. The question therefore is: why do we allow the Security Council to exploit vital humanitarian issues? The General Assembly has priority and power over all other organs of the United Nations. When necessary, the General Assembly has the authority to hold all other organs of the United Nations, including the Security Council, to account. In this Hall, we enjoy the equality of voice and vote. No member can wield power over another. No member can abuse its privileges to pursue its own interests. Today’s debate is a seminal moment for the international community and for the people of Syria. It provides us with the opportunity to recall that it was the General Assembly  — not the Security Council  — that established the principles and modalities of humanitarian assistance and adopted resolution 46/182, which established the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Humanitarian access must be governed by international humanitarian law, not by self-serving veto privileges. The Security Council should focus on finding political solutions to conflicts. It is not within the Council’s purview to decide who needs humanitarian aid. Today and in the very near future, the General Assembly must speak up and say that people in need cannot be held hostage to abuse of the veto power. We must all reiterate that there is an imminent and grave danger of serious harm to the people of Syria, that addressing the suffering and vulnerability of people in north-west Syria is a moral and humanitarian imperative and that it is in the vital interest of the international community. We must all remember that the General Assembly has the authority to say that the United Nations vital cross-border aid operations must continue for as long as they are needed. This is a humanitarian issue that in no circumstances should be politicized by the Security Council.

Humanitarian aid represents one of the core actions of the United Nations and many of its international partners. It is one of the vital services that save lives, bring comfort and generate hope wherever there is suffering and hardship, which, as we know, exist in many places. That is why this noble action should always be removed from politics. Humanitarian action does not discriminate; it must reach everyone in need, however difficult or challenging it is, however remote the endangered are or however dangerous the circumstances may be. How could we properly accept that life-saving aid to millions of Syrians, Yemenis, Sudanese or the multitude of others in need become embroiled in political disagreements or as a means to extract concessions or score points. We would be playing with people’s lives. We would be holding their hopes hostage. Unfortunately, that is exactly what Russia did on 8 July (see S/PV.9087). It vetoed Security Council draft resolution S/2022/538, which sought to renew the cross-border of humanitarian mechanism in Syria for 12 months, the bare minimum that humanitarian agencies had asked for in order to be able to plan and organize the effective delivery of aid for millions of people in north-west Syria. The draft resolution was rejected by only one of the 15 members of the Council — Russia — undermining consensus and once again putting its interest above the humanitarian needs of the Syrians. It was a decision that ignored children, girls, mothers and entire families in dire need, as well as the brave humanitarian workers who believe that the Security Council is on their side, as it should be. But it was not, owing to the right of a member to use the veto at will, as a carte blanche. By threatening to starve more than 4 million people for whom the cross-border mechanism is the only lifeline and by showing concern only for pleasing and bolstering the Al-Assad regime, which is responsible for the humanitarian disaster and the use of chemical weapons against its own people, Russia dealt another blow to the credibility of the Security Council and the United Nations in general. It also provided another illustration of the detrimental effects of the use of the veto by exacerbating the arbitrariness and uncertainty of the role of the Council in discharging its core responsibilities. It is the hallmark of irresponsible behaviour of one permanent Council member, with dangerous consequences for the entire United Nations membership. My country is currently serving as an elected member of the Security Council. We respect the Council, and we are conscious of the extent of its huge responsibility, since, in everything it does, or does not do, it plays a vital role in questions that make a difference between life and death. But we see up close how that organ, which in the eyes of millions inspires hope and represents just power by acting on behalf of the United Nations membership and of what we commonly continue to call the international community, can be used for short-sighted interests against the common interests of humankind — the billions of people who have placed their hopes in it to live in peace and dignity. The abuse of the veto undermines the legitimacy of the Council and the United Nations. It opens the gates of fragmentation, disintegration and the decay of the rules-based international order. We cannot and should not let it happen. We must speak loudly against such an anomaly, use all means available and work to the best of our abilities to ensure that the veto is not used as an exercise of exclusive privilege, but as the discharge of a heavy responsibility. The use of a veto as an exclusive privilege without responsibility is a violation of the spirit of the historic compromise that created both the Charter of the United Nations and the veto. It betrays the aspirations of the world to achieve peace and security. That is not good for the Council, it is not good for the United Nations, and it is not good for any of us.

I want to speak of three things: first, the issue of the use of the veto; secondly, the humanitarian situation in Syria; and, thirdly, the responsibilities of the members of the Security Council. The facts on the ground, the growing humanitarian needs, the obligations under international humanitarian law and the massive support of the international community could not make the situation any clearer. However, the adoption of Security Council draft resolution S/2022/538 to extend humanitarian access for a period of one year was blocked in the Council in pursuit of a political agenda. I wish I could say that it came as a surprise, but the seventeenth veto by Russia of a draft resolution on Syria since 2011 is part of a far broader strategy, together with the policy of the Syrian Government, to control, deprive, punish and exploit a segment of the population for its own perceived influence and political gain. As I said in this Hall more than a month ago (see A/76/PV.78), we continue to stress the paralysing consequences of abuse of the right of the veto, which is both anti-democratic and anachronistic. I take this opportunity to thank our colleagues from the Permanent Missions of Ireland and Norway with whom I spoke this morning, who, despite all the difficulties, have worked unrelentingly as co-penholders of the Syrian humanitarian dossier, and who, along with other Security Council members, came together to support a 12-month extension of the cross-border mechanism. We would like to reassure our colleagues from Norway and Ireland that we will continue to support them in their work. (spoke in English) That single vote in the Security Council stood in stark contrast to the resounding and united chorus of voices from the majority of the Council membership, the Secretariat, its agencies, humanitarian partners and civil society. There has been some talk of politicization today and how inappropriate such talk is, but those are respected international organizations reflecting the best instincts of humanity. There is nothing political about it at all. It is a simple declaration that states that the extension of the lifeline is needed for at least another year. The Secretary-General, who is not a political figure or subject to partisan influence of any kind whatsoever  — the representative of all of us and the Executive Officer of United Nations itself — called on the Security Council to extend cross-border access for at least another 12 months. That, he told us, is, in his own words, “a moral and humanitarian imperative ...” (S/2022/492, para.79). We also heard directly from partners who pleaded for the same and told us that they needed the 12 months. What is most disheartening is that Russia’s cynical veto was cast against the backdrop of rising needs, record levels of food insecurity and an accelerating economic and social crisis in Syria. The country has been in a state of civil war since 2011. By now, we all know those statistics, and they have been recited once again today. Nearly 15 million Syrians are in need of humanitarian assistance. More than 4 million people are reliant on humanitarian assistance in the north-western part of the country. And, as it has been pointed out, more than 80 per cent of them are women and children. Finally, more than 2.5 million Syrians are reached by cross-border assistance every month. While we welcome the extension until January and the fact that food and vaccines and other vital aid are allowed to continue to reach those most in need, I want to make it very clear that it is Canada’s expectation that the Security Council will renew the cross-border mechanism in six months’ time and that it will do so on time, without any politicization, any political games and the unjust and unjustifiable use of the veto to prevent humanitarian aid from reaching the people who need it. That is not something we are suggesting. We are calling on the Council. That is what we expect from the 15 members of that organ, who act on our behalf  — the greater United Nations membership. In discharging their duties, we expect Council members to act in accordance with the purposes and the principles of the United Nations and, yes, of the Charter of the United Nations. There has been much talk of the Charter today. The Charter speaks of State sovereignty. Of course, it does, but it also speaks of human rights. It also speaks of the rule of law. Let us not confuse friendship with the Charter with friendship with aggression or friendship with impunity. We have to understand that the Charter speaks of many things. But the United Nations is not simply a group of countries that got together under no umbrella of the rule of law or human rights, with some notion that all countries are free to act at their will, however they want and whenever they want. That is not what the Charter is about. For those who speak of unilateralism, what more grotesque example of unilateralism do we have this year than the unprovoked aggression against an independent sovereign State  — the State of Ukraine  — by the State of the Russian Federation. In that same vein, we want to remind all parties to that conflict of their obligations under international humanitarian law that they are obligated to facilitate rapid, safe, sustained and unimpeded humanitarian access to all Syrians in need. Security Council resolution 2254 (2015) also calls on the parties to immediately allow humanitarian agencies rapid, safe and unhindered access throughout Syria by the most direct routes and allow immediate humanitarian assistance to reach all people in need, in particular all besieged and hard-to-reach areas. We do not think that the cross-border modality is or should be the only modality through which humanitarian assistance is delivered to the people in Syria’s north-west. But we also have to understand that more than 800 truckloads a month move through Bab Al-Hawa, which dwarfs the five cross-line convoys that have been allowed to be deployed since August 2021. The cross-border mechanism is essential if we are going to, in fact, provide the humanitarian assistance that everyone, excluding those who object, sees as the critical priority for international intervention. We are proud as Canadians that our country has provided more than $600 million in humanitarian assistance since the beginning of the conflict. We will continue to provide such assistance, and we will also continue to support a long-term sustainable political solution to the conflict, in line with Security Council resolution 2254 (2015). Canada will therefore do its part without hesitation or quibbling. It would be nice to see the Council do exactly the same thing in January 2023, to ensure that the people of Syria, who are in such dire need, continue to be provided with the necessary assistance.

We regret that the General Assembly has, in accordance with resolution 76/262, been convened once again so soon after its most recent meetings just last month (see A/76/PV.77 and A/76/PV.78). At that time, and once again today, Singapore would like to reiterate its strong and consistent support for a more transparent and effective Security Council, which is accountable and able to respond swiftly and decisively to global crises. We are meeting today because a permanent member of the Security Council, namely, the Russian Federation, cast a veto on a Security Council draft resolution on humanitarian access and assistance for the people of Syria (S/2022/538). We recognize that the Council was eventually able to adopt Security Council resolution 2642 (2022) on the matter on 12 July. While a solution has been found for the moment for the situation in Syria, we remain concerned that the veto was used to block a draft resolution on humanitarian assistance. The use of the veto on that draft resolution has implications not only for the situation in Syria, but also for other humanitarian crises. It sets a bad precedent for the delivery of humanitarian assistance to other regions in the world affected by conflict or natural disasters. Singapore does not support the politicization of the delivery of humanitarian assistance to people in need. My delegation would like to take this opportunity to register its appreciation for the efforts made by the delegations of Ireland and Norway, as elected members of the Security Council and co-penholders of Security Council resolution 2642 (2022), to find a solution. We urge all members of the Security Council to work together in a spirit of flexibility on this critical issue.

I thank the President for providing this opportunity to discuss the situation created by the use of the veto by the Russian Federation in the Security Council on 8 July (see S/PV.9087). Security Council draft resolution S/2022/538, submitted by Ireland and Norway, would have extended the mandate for cross-border aid to Syria for 12 months, in line with the needs assessment reflected in the 16 June report of the Secretary-General (S/2022/492). In his report, the Secretary-General calls on the Council to renew the mandate for at least a year, noting that it is “a moral and humanitarian imperative to do so” (S/2022/492, para.79). The vetoed draft resolution enjoyed strong support in the Council, with 13 members voting in favour of it. The opportunity for the General Assembly to discuss the veto is of utmost importance, with respect to both the relevant legal arguments and its political implications. Its relevance is further heightened by the fact that the Assembly is the United Nations organ that has established the principles and modalities for humanitarian assistance, and also because, unfortunately, the Council will be seized with a discussion on a further mandate renewal in less than six months. The goal of the Assembly should be to help contribute to a positive outcome of that discussion in line with its central role on the issue. We are relieved that the Council was eventually able to adopt Security Council resolution 2642 (2022) mandating the extension of the cross-border mandate for six months, thanks to the tireless efforts of the co-penholders, as well as the strong cohesion among the Council’s elected members. Nevertheless, the outcome reflects, in essence, the position of the veto-casting State (S/2022/541), which was originally rejected by a vast majority of the Council’s membership, and for good reason. The process and the outcome have and will continue to create high levels of uncertainty and a lack of predictability for all those affected, with the next renewal discussion to take place in six months, in the middle of winter when needs will be at their highest level. This is not an acceptable situation, politically or operationally, given the enormous stakes and the potential for human suffering. In this case, the veto has been exercised with the sole aim of imposing leverage in a one-sided negotiation, including on issues beyond the one under consideration. As a result, the civilian population in Syria continues to bear a considerable humanitarian cost. We wish to comment today in a forward-looking manner on both international law questions that are relevant to the discussions and the role of the General Assembly in that regard. We first note that humanitarian access in the situation under discussion is governed by international humanitarian law. Conflict parties must allow and facilitate the rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian relief for civilians in need as long as such assistance is necessary. We also understand that such access is granted in principle with the consent of the host State, with the important proviso that consent cannot be withheld arbitrarily. As a result, the arbitrary denial of humanitarian access is a clear violation of international humanitarian law. In following the discussions in the Council and processing the information reflected in reports of the Secretary-General and elsewhere, we have been unable to find a valid reason for the Syrian Government to withhold its consent. Quite to the contrary, the Assembly has reflected on the arbitrary denial of humanitarian access in Syria and, more recently, has strongly condemned the intentional denial of humanitarian assistance in its annual resolutions on the situation of human rights in the country. We furthermore recall that the intentional starvation of civilians is a prosecutable crime under international criminal law and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. With respect to the situation in Syria, the Assembly has established 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, with the mandate to assist in the investigation and prosecution of persons responsible for the most serious crimes, which includes the starvation of civilians. It appears that denial of access in the situation under discussion is not only unlawful; it may also amount to one of the most serious crimes under international law. In resolution 46/182, the Assembly has created the blueprint for today’s international humanitarian system, including the Emergency Relief Coordinator, the Inter-Agency Standing Committee and the Department of Humanitarian Affairs — the forerunner to the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Given its central role in creating the humanitarian architecture that, inter alia, delivers cross-border humanitarian assistance, the Assembly has a natural role to play in considering its delivery in particular situations, in line with its past commitments, including the adoption of resolution 76/124, of December 2021. We appreciate the salient political and operational reasons for which the Security Council was asked to adopt a draft resolution to ensure the flow of cross- border aid to Syria eight years ago. But the procedural and operational uncertainty repeatedly created by the use of the veto ever since has taken a disproportionate amount of the international community’s diplomatic time and energy and has created unacceptable levels of uncertainty for the people directly affected. What should be a matter of course has turned into a distraction from the core task of the Security Council working towards an inclusive political solution that would address the root causes of the crisis and ensure accountability for the crimes committed in the Syrian conflict. Of course, we hope to see a different dynamic in the context of the mandate-renewal discussions half a year from now. However, based on previous experience, the membership must certainly also prepare for other scenarios. In so doing, we must consider how to ensure the delivery of humanitarian assistance to those who need it, both in line with the moral and humanitarian imperative stated by the Secretary-General and in accordance with international law. We will continue to contribute to that discussion.

Aotearoa New Zealand welcomes the convening of the General Assembly for this special veto-initiative meeting. New Zealand has opposed the veto from its inception. We remain strong in our conviction that there is no place for such an undemocratic and anachronistic device at the United Nations, especially when it is used in the pursuit of national interest. We are in this Hall today because a callous use of the veto (see S/PV.9087) prevented the Security Council from fulfilling its responsibility. Russia’s veto of a humanitarian draft resolution of the Security Council (S/2022/538) undermines the Council’s credibility. The draft resolution proposed by Ireland and Norway enjoyed the support of 13 members of the Council — a clear majority. The vetoed draft resolution contains elements necessary for easing the human suffering in Syria and was in line with international humanitarian law and the humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence. It provided operational certainty for implementing organizations on the ground. It was, in short, a good humanitarian draft resolution. New Zealand commends the work of Norway and Ireland, as well as the tireless efforts of the United Nations, led by the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. We applaud the humanitarian partners for delivering assistance where it is most needed, often in dangerous conditions. The Russian Federation’s choice to block the humanitarian draft resolution has caused unnecessary delay and uncertainty in providing crucial humanitarian assistance. We listened to the representatives of Russia and are not convinced by their explanations. We hope they are listening to us. We acknowledge that, ultimately, the mechanism was renewed, thereby allowing humanitarian assistance to continue crossing Bab Al-Hawa (Security Council resolution 2642 (2022)). However, the fact that the renewal was only for six months has reduced the operational certainty that humanitarian actors need for life-saving activities. It also means that the cross-border mandate will need to be renewed again in January, the middle of winter, just when people need cross-border assistance most. We all know the dire humanitarian situation in Syria. The report of the Secretary-General (S/2022/492) is clear on the critical importance of the cross-border mechanism. The report also spells out that aid is strictly monitored and delivered in a transparent way. New Zealand is appalled that people and aid organizations may again face uncertainty and fear because of the abuse of the veto by one permanent member of the Security Council. We sincerely urge the Council to renew the cross-border mechanism promptly and unanimously before it expires in January. New Zealand is a strong proponent of the veto initiative, and we hope that those meetings will encourage Council members to compromise for the collective good. We also agree with and would like to reiterate the point made by the representative of Liechtenstein that when the Security Council is unable to act, the General Assembly can play a constructive role in finding potential ways forward. We reiterate that the General Assembly can take its own decisions on the question before it, if it so chooses. Resolution 76/262 is not prescriptive in that regard.

Austria aligns itself with the statement made earlier today by the representative of the European Union, in its capacity as observer. We gather in the General Assembly Hall today because, on 8 July, at a Security Council discussion on providing humanitarian relief to Syrians, the Russian Federation cast its veto (see S/PV.9087). Thanks to the veto initiative (resolution 76/262), we now have the opportunity to hear the reasons for that step and to discuss the issue in the General Assembly. We also know that, meanwhile, another Security Council resolution was adopted (resolution 2642 (2022)). While we commend the Council on extending the mandate of the cross-border mechanism, we regret the fact that that extension provides a mandate for only half a year. As many of the previous speakers in this Hall today said, we would have also preferred a longer — 12-month — renewal. However, like others, we would have preferred not to see another veto cast in the Council on a draft resolution that had found the support of a large majority of Council members. The current renewal means that the people in Syria, who are already confronted with a dire situation, will have to face another layer of uncertainty in the middle of winter. Aid organizations that provide life-saving assistance will again have to deal with the uncertainty in the planning of their work. Today we heard the argument for the need for the Council to authorize more cross-line deliveries, but the factual situation on the ground shows that cross-line deliveries alone cannot provide help to all Syrians in need. With regard to the call by some Council members for more transparency in aid operations, it is clear that the monitoring mechanism established by Security Council resolution 2165 (2014) provides the best and most transparent way of ensuring that aid is delivered directly to those people who need it. Therefore, let me express Austria’s strong support already today for another extension of the mandate of the cross-border mechanism in January 2023, as foreseen in Security Council resolution 2642 (2022). Indeed, we would prefer to see a more substantial extension based on humanitarian needs thereafter. I would like to say a word about the veto and the responsibility of all of us to ensure that the tools of the Charter of the United Nations are used in the way they are supposed to be used. The Security Council holds the primary mandate to uphold international peace and security. The five permanent members of the Council have been accorded a special responsibility, with the right to cast a veto. However, the use of the veto should not be construed to hinder the Council in the discharge of its duty to fulfil its mandate. As Mr. Rae stated earlier, the veto should also not be understood as a free pass to violate the core principles of the United Nations Charter and international law. Like many in this Hall, Austria strongly hopes that in the interest of constructive multilateral cooperation at the United Nations, decisions that are supported by an overwhelming majority are not blocked by one Member State. That holds particularly true for humanitarian resolutions. Let me say a word on accountability. As we have stated many times before, I would like to also reiterate the need to refer the situation in Syria to the International Criminal Court. All parties responsible for breaches of international humanitarian law and human rights law, some of which may constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity, must be held accountable. Today, as we listen to the discussion, we see the strong support of the international community for keeping the cross-border mechanism alive past January 2023. The Council should listen to the calls made in this Hall. The Council needs to put people’s lives at the centre of its considerations. Until recently, there has been an overall understanding that the humanitarian domain can be discussed separately from geopolitical power dynamics. However, the space to do that now seems to be shrinking, which would not be good. We urge the Council to ensure unity on humanitarian files and to put people front and centre and power dynamics and geopolitics second.

For the second time since the adoption of resolution 76/262, at the end of April (see A/76/PV.69), we are meeting at the General Assembly, following a veto in the Security Council. The compromise finally reached in the Council on cross-border humanitarian assistance for Syria (Security Council resolution 2642 (2022)) has prevented the worst from occurring. Switzerland thanks Ireland and Norway for all their efforts. We thank the elected members of the Council for their unity and all members of the Council for their unwavering commitment to finding a consensus and ensuring that the Council shouldered its responsibility. The Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs clearly said, and several colleagues have emphasized this point, that such assistance is a matter of life and death for millions of people. We therefore welcome its extension. However, the veto by Russia blocked a 12-month extension, which would have been essential for ensuring proper planning for the delivery of humanitarian goods to particularly vulnerable people (see S/PV.9087). According to the report of the Secretary-General (S/2022/492), humanitarian needs in Syria today are greater than ever before. The uncertainty caused by the piecemeal extension of the mandate is an additional source of stress for the population and for all humanitarian workers. Today’s debate enables the General Assembly to confirm and broaden the considerable support for the mandate conferred by the Security Council on humanitarian organizations operating in north-western Syria. The mandate is now the only means available to the United Nations and its partners on the ground to conduct cross-border activities that are guided by the humanitarian principles of humanity, impartiality, neutrality and independence  — principles that are supported by the entire international community. Such action requires our trust in a climate of unity and responsible dialogue among States in order to continue to meet basic needs and save countless lives. Switzerland commends the progress made in the area of cross-line operations. However, we share the United Nations assessment that, at this stage, such operations can, at best, complement but not replace a well-funded cross-border operation. Furthermore, Switzerland is determined to seek a comprehensive political solution as the only viable way out of the crisis for Syria. Switzerland continues to provide humanitarian aid. Since 2011, it has provided more than $600 million to assist people who are affected by the crisis in Syria and in neighbouring countries. Such support includes organizations based in Damascus, as well as those that provide aid through cross-border and cross-line operations. That comprehensive approach covers all strategic objectives of the humanitarian response plan, including early-recovery activities. Our humanitarian commitment remains guided by humanitarian principles and international law. According to those principles, parties to conflict must allow the rapid and unimpeded delivery of aid to civilians in need, and they must do so in all circumstances. All States Members of the United Nations have a responsibility to people in need, in line with the Charter of the United Nations. Switzerland assumes that responsibility, including as a future member of the Security Council. We must ensure that humanitarian organizations can properly plan their operations and prevent men, women and children in north- western Syria from being exposed to a harsh winter without assistance. We will continue to work towards dialogue on that crucial issue to ensure ongoing and predictable humanitarian assistance, regardless of conflict lines.

For the second time in a period of a few months, in line with the stipulations of resolution 76/262, the General Assembly is meeting to discuss a situation in which the Security Council failed to adopt a draft resolution (S/2022/538), owing to the vote against the draft resolution of one of its permanent members, in accordance with Article 27, paragraph 3, of the Charter of the United Nations (see S/PV.9087). When resolution 76/262 was adopted, my delegation, while supporting the general thrust towards enhancing transparency before the wider membership, expressed certain misgivings about some aspects of the initiative (see A/76/PV.69). One of our main concerns was the blurring of the mandates of the Security Council and the General Assembly. The situation before us today is different from that of our previous debate, which was held when a single draft resolution had failed to be adopted by the Security Council, following a vote against it by permanent members of the Council. In that case, there was no further outcome. This time, however, the Council was dealing with concurring draft resolutions, and a second draft resolution (S/2022/546) was adopted four days after the veto. Despite the veto on 8 July, Security Council resolution 2642 (2022) was adopted, as Council members understood that it was paramount to have a resolution renewing the period of extension of the decisions in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Security Council resolution 2165 (2014), as determined by paragraph 2 of resolution 2585 (2021) of the Security Council. The assessment of the Organization for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, as well as other humanitarian agencies on the ground, was that an unplanned failure to renew such authorization for cross-border deliveries of humanitarian assistance to Syria would mean suddenly cutting off vital life-saving aid to millions of people at a time when needs are at their highest. If the Council moved from stalemate on 8 July to a compromise of the possible on 12 July, one can question whether today’s debate is really necessary, if we want to avoid politicization and the blurring of the mandates of the Security Council and the General Assembly. On 8 July, the Council was dealing with a divisive but crucial issue, and Brazil was in favour of the adoption of the vetoed draft resolution but was also in favour of compromise. We were in favour of unity in the Council, especially as it was dealing with a humanitarian crisis that involved millions of people, the majority of whom are women and children. That would have been the right message: that the Council is still able to respond to pressing humanitarian issues. As we understand it, resolution 2642 (2022) represents not the ideal but the possible balance between different positions of the Council members. It is then worth reflecting on whether or not the vote against draft resolution S/2022/538 by a permanent member of the Council in this case contributed to reaching a compromise. Was that not the kind of multilateral diplomacy the drafters of the United Nations Charter intended when establishing the voting requirements of the Council? In that case, have we not gone beyond the objectives of resolution 76/262 by discussing a vote against a draft resolution that led to the adoption of a compromise draft resolution? The compromise on the issue of the length of the extension of the authorization is an initial period of six months, that is, until 10 January 2023, when a new draft resolution will have to be adopted to allow a further period of six months. Meanwhile, the Council will hold interactive dialogues with all stakeholders involved in the operations, and the Secretary-General will prepare a report to be presented by 10 December. Let us work to ensure that, in January, we have a compromise ahead of time so that essential assistance is not interrupted in the middle of winter when needs are at their highest.

Let me be clear: the Australian Government is deeply concerned about Russia’s recent veto in the Security Council of a draft resolution (S/2022/538) that proposed to reauthorize cross-border aid to north-west Syria for a further 12 months (see S/PV.9087). While we acknowledge that Security Council resolution 2642 (2022), which was adopted on 12 July, reauthorizes cross-border assistance for a further six months, it is highly problematic that that mandate will now expire during the Syrian winter, when aid is needed the most. We also remain concerned about the risks to humanitarian supply lines and the continuity of aid operations associated with the extension of cross- border assistance for only six months. A further extension of this cross-border authorization in six months’ time will be crucial to ensure the ongoing delivery of cross-border humanitarian assistance, including food aid, essential medicine and other basic humanitarian goods, to people living in north-west Syria. We believe that the delivery of vital humanitarian assistance to those in need should not be subject to political expediency. More than 4 million people depend on humanitarian aid in north-west Syria and are largely reliant on cross- border assistance to meet their basic needs. In 2014, Australia co-authored Security Council resolution 2165 (2014) — the initial resolution authorizing cross-border humanitarian assistance during its term on the Security Council, providing since then a lifeline to millions of Syrians via United Nations-led cross-border activities. That support remains as critical as ever. Since 2011, Australia has responded to the crisis in Syria, with more than 500 million Australian dollars in humanitarian funding, providing immediate life-saving support and protection to vulnerable people in Syria and Syrian refugees in Lebanon and Jordan. The conflict in Syria remains one of the worst humanitarian crises facing the world today, with more than 14.6 million people in need of humanitarian assistance. Let me say that again: 14.6 million people in need of humanitarian assistance. We need to stay on the job.

The General Assembly meets again to discuss a veto cast in the Security Council. This time, the veto was cast by the Russian Federation on draft resolution S/2022/538, submitted by Ireland and Norway (see S/PV.9087), which sought to renew the Bab Al-Hawa border crossing for the delivery of humanitarian assistance to Syria for a period of 12 months. According to the special report of the Security Council (A/76/905), the draft resolution, which was supported by Mexico, as a member of the Council, received 13 votes in favour, 1 vote against and 1 abstention. For the second month in a row, the mechanism established under resolution 76/262 has been used. However, unlike the previous occasion, the Assembly is meeting after the Council adopted its resolution 2642 (2022) on the same issue, a few days after the veto was cast. That perfectly illustrates that the issue was one that could be negotiated. That does not mean that this exercise is useless. On the contrary, it allows for transparency and accountability in a situation in which the Council, even when there was some agreement on how to proceed on the issue, was forced to yield to the demands of a single delegation with the right to cast a veto. Despite the fact that resolution 2642 (2022), adopted on 12 July (see S/PV.9089), extended the Bab Al-Hawa border crossing mechanism for only six months, Mexico, of course, voted in favour of it for one reason. The renewal of the cross-border humanitarian assistance mechanism in Syria is vital for millions of people who are being held hostage to the conflict. Nonetheless, the extension of the mandate for only six months, amid calls for another resolution for further extension, has ensured that humanitarian organizations are able to plan and implement their assistance programmes. What is most regrettable is that an issue that should be solely humanitarian has become politicized. In that regard, Mexico would like to make five points that we believe are crucial. First, it is necessary to ensure a predictable and unimpeded humanitarian border crossing for north-west Syria. Secondly, humanitarian assistance cannot and should not be held hostage to political concerns. That is a strict obligation under international humanitarian law, which holds that all parties to the conflict must adhere to the principles of impartiality and neutrality. Thirdly, the political and diplomatic wear and tear that led to the mandate renewal focuses our attention and efforts on negotiating a genuine political solution, which addresses the causes of the conflict in Syria and enables the humanitarian crisis to be put to an end. Fourthly, we call upon all members of the Council — current and future alike — to find a lasting solution that will ensure that humanitarian organizations continue operations in Syria so that the Council can extend the mandate in January, thereby prioritizing the needs of the Syrian people. Fifthly and lastly, we again condemn the use and abuse of the veto. In this case, it serves only to jeopardize access to humanitarian assistance in a very costly conflict that has been ongoing for more than 10 years. In conclusion, I reiterate that it is important for the General Assembly, not the Security Council, to have the final word on the use of the veto. I therefore invite all delegations that have not yet done so to join the French- Mexican initiative calling for the suspension of the veto during cases of mass atrocity, which has already been signed by 106 States. Only if the majority of the States Members of the United Nations work together will we ensure that we end, once and for all, the excesses represented by the so-called right of the veto.

Eleven years have passed since the conflict in Syria began, as a result of the so-called “Arab Spring protests”, motivated by the geopolitical aims of the United States and its Western allies to overthrow the legitimate, independent Government of Syria. Since then, tens of millions of Syrian people have been experiencing a grave humanitarian situation and are under constant military threat and heavy economic pressure, including various kinds of illegal unilateral coercive measures and sanctions imposed by hostile forces, which constitute serious violations of humanitarian law and the basic human rights of the Syrian people. Today Western countries are making attempts at the United Nations to misuse humanitarian aid to the Syrian people for their own ulterior political purposes  — making a fuss about humanitarian aid in the international arena, but unable to dissemble their hypocrisy and true nature as criminal States against humanity. The work of the Security Council must be carried out in full compliance with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, in which the basic principles and procedures of the voting system in the Security Council are clearly stipulated so as to avoid any country or group of countries from monopolizing the process in a way that leads to heightened tensions and deprives the Council of the ability to carry out its primary mission of maintaining international peace and security. We strongly condemn the three Western permanent members that are taking advantage of the power imbalance in the Security Council and are not engaging appropriately in full consultative discussions in a flexible manner in order to reach a consensus agreement that would enable the Council to carry out its task successfully. It is the firm position of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea that any draft resolution concerning the Syrian Arab Republic must be adopted in respect of the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of the Syrian people and take into account the legitimate concerns of the Syrian Arab Republic, as it is the State most directly affected by that decision. The Russian delegation’s opposition to draft resolution S/2022/538, drafted by the co-penholders, at the 8 July meeting (see S/PV.9087) was because of the politicization of humanitarian aid and in order to ensure the most transparent and practical delivery of that aid to those who deserve it  — without any discrimination, selectivity or exclusion and in full respect of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Syrian people. However, the three Western permanent members of the Security Council have tried to tie the provisional agenda of the humanitarian aid with their own geopolitical interests and to politicize the issue in order to galvanize their unreasonable and senseless campaign against the Syrian Arab Republic and the Russian Federation. During the meeting, we clearly witnessed the hypocritical behaviour of the very same Member States that had criticized Russia for using the veto despite the humanitarian concerns in Syria, that now voted against the Russian draft resolution, despite the similarity of the two draft texts. It is absurd and even ironic to mention those countries, which purported to be committed to alleviating the suffering of the Syrian people but now impose illegal and unilateral coercive measures, obstruct the smooth implementation of the work of United Nations agencies and impede early-recovery projects in Syria. The world now faces the greatest danger — the high- handedness and arbitrariness of the United States and its vassal forces, which are shaking up the international order at the expense of peace and stability. The unilateral and unfair Cold-War mentality of the United States and its bloc-forming external policy is transforming the structure of international relations, leading to a new Cold War. The United States touts its interference in the internal affairs of others as righteous for the peace and stability of the world, while it denounces the defensive national safety measures of other sovereign States as unjust and provocative. The deteriorating situation on the Korean peninsula is one clear example of that. Today some Western countries have become more brazen in their attempt to use a specific country’s humanitarian issues as a primary political tool to infringe upon that country’s national sovereignty and overthrow its legitimate Government. The United Nations should not be subject to the political and financial pressure exerted by specific countries, but rather must preserve its impartiality, objectivity and credibility as the primary independent global organization. In conclusion, we reiterate our steadfast position that the work of humanitarian assistance at the United Nations should be conducted in an objective, transparent, non-selective, non-confrontational and non-politicized manner, and we extend our constant support and solidarity to the people and the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic in their just struggle to defend their national sovereignty and promote the genuine humanitarian development of their people.

Only 30 days after the first debate of the General Assembly on the implementation of resolution 76/262 (see A/76/PV.77 and A/76/PV.78), this mechanism was activated again when a veto was exercised in the Security Council (see S/PV.9068) during its consideration of a resolution on Syria under the agenda item on the situation in the Middle East. In short, in only 10 weeks since the adoption by consensus of the permanent mandate, with 83 co-sponsors, including Ecuador, three vetoes have prevented the adoption of two key Council draft resolutions. And although on the issue of the situation in the Middle East, the Security Council finally adopted resolution 2642 (2022) on the humanitarian situation in Syria, it was proper to convene this meeting, in keeping with the effective mandate of transparency and accountability that strengthens the role and authority of the General Assembly, as well as its relationship with the Security Council. On 8 June, in connection with Council draft resolution S/2022/431, on non-proliferation, I stated — and I reiterate today — that this mechanism promotes the strengthening of the United Nations system, as called for in agenda item 124, under which we are meeting today (see A/76/PV.77). Likewise, on 26 April, when resolution 76/262 was adopted (see A/76/PV.70), Ecuador emphasized that, in the face of the so-called veto right of the five permanent members of the Council, the other members of the Assembly have the right to participate. We therefore also invite all the members of the Assembly to contribute to this debate, which focuses the efforts and positions of the Member States, and we express our appreciation both to the President of the Assembly for convening this meeting and to the President of the Security Council for having transmitted the special report (A/76/905, annex), both within the established deadlines. With regard to the contents of the report, I reiterate the points made by Ecuador  — both in the General Assembly debate on the annual report (A/76/2) of the Security Council (see A/76/PV.79) and in the Council debate on working methods (see S/PV.9079) — and in accordance with Article 24, paragraph 3, of the Charter of the United Nations. On this occasion, Ecuador regrets that the veto was used despite the unanimous position of the 10 non-permanent members, which concretely reflects the cohesion of the majority of United Nations Members from all regions. Article 24, paragraph 3, which sets forth that the Security Council acts on behalf of the Members of the United Nations, cannot be ignored in the implementation of Article 27, paragraph 3. The lives of millions of people and attending to their humanitarian needs cannot be sidelined by the struggle between the members of the Council, after 11 years of conflict. Ecuador recognizes the central role played by Ireland, Norway and the other non-permanent members in the subsequent adoption of resolution 2642 (2022), which extended the border crossing at Bab Al-Hawa for six months, until 10 January 2023, with an additional extension of six months, until 10 July, subject to Council approval. Ecuador defends the need to systematically ensure the predictability, certainty and planning of humanitarian efforts through effective mandates of sufficient duration, particularly when it comes to border crossings, and all the more so since the obligation of all States to ensure humanitarian access emanates from international humanitarian law itself, as already noted by the delegations that spoke before me. For that reason, Ecuador invites all members of the Council not to wait until the end of the mandate, but to confirm that extension as soon as possible, so that it can fulfil its role. We also urge the Secretary-General to submit his special report on humanitarian needs in Syria as soon as possible, even if the deadline is not until 10 December 2022. We are concerned that the humanitarian situation in northern Syria continues to deteriorate, but we are confident that the Security Council will make every effort to act in a united manner and ensure compliance with international law and the implementation of its own resolutions.

I wish to start by thanking the President for convening today’s important debate in the General Assembly. The Syrian crisis has entered its twelfth year, and humanitarian needs in Syria are greater than ever. More than 14.6 million Syrians desperately depend on humanitarian aid to survive. That includes more than 4 million people in north-western Syria alone, where more than 90 per cent of the population live below the poverty line and are largely reliant on cross-border humanitarian assistance. We had hoped that the Security Council would have been able to maintain consensus on continuing cross-border operations by renewing resolution 2585 (2021) for an additional 12 months. Stable humanitarian access is essential, at least for the time being, and extension of the cross-border mandate must be guided by humanitarian considerations without preconditions or politicization. Japan recalls that the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 2585 (2021) last July, which has brought life-saving assistance to millions of Syrians. At this moment, cross-line operations cannot replace the scale and scope of the cross-border aid modality. We must therefore express our deep regret that Russia chose to cast a veto on 8 July (see S/PV.9087), blocking a straightforward 12-month mandate renewal of the critical cross-border aid delivery mechanism and ignoring the appeals of the Secretary-General, humanitarian aid agencies, non-governmental organizations and the Syrian people who are most in need. Nonetheless, Japan welcomes that a compromise was reached on 12 July (see S/PV.9089) to allow for the continuation of the mechanism for six months and praises the co-penholders, Ireland and Norway, for their constructive engagement with other Council members. Japan strongly urges all Council members to make decisions based on humanitarian needs in order to achieve a subsequent mandate renewal in January. Until a comprehensive and inclusive Syrian-led and Syrian-owned United Nations-facilitated political process is fully implemented in line with resolution 2254 (2015), cross-border operations will remain crucial in meeting the dire humanitarian needs of the Syrian people. Japan reaffirms its unwavering commitment to provide both humanitarian and early-recovery assistance to all Syrians who are facing difficulties. Since 2012, Japan has provided more than $3.2 billion in assistance to Syria and neighbouring countries. As an incoming member of the Security Council, Japan is committed to continuing to play a constructive role in bridging gaps among relevant stakeholders and improving the humanitarian situation in Syria.

Allow me first to express the appreciation of my delegation for the valuable efforts of the President and for his convening of this important meeting. The adoption by the General Assembly of resolution 262/76, entitled “Standing mandate for a General Assembly debate when a veto is cast in the Security Council”, empowers the General Assembly to undertake its role in the maintenance of international peace and security under the Charter of the United Nations. In support of that role, the State of Qatar participated in the basic group that presented the resolution before the Assembly last year. The convening of this meeting for the second time within two months since the adoption resolution 76/262 is an important occasion to allow Member States to discuss, at the most representative organ of the United Nations, the way in which the veto was cast in the Council on 8 July (see S/PV.9087), which is a matter of concern to the general membership of the United Nations. The matter has to do with providing humanitarian aid to vulnerable and displaced persons in Syria. The State of Qatar, which spares no effort to provide support and humanitarian assistance to communities affected by crises and emergencies, particularly countries in conflict and those emerging from conflicts, is considered among the primary parties that provide humanitarian assistance to the Syrian people. Qatar hopes that international and regional efforts will be pooled to provide humanitarian assistance to the Syrian people, including those in the north-western part of Syria. We need to renew the mandate to provide cross-border humanitarian assistance to Syrians under resolution 2165 (2014) and subsequent resolutions. The continued obstruction of that mechanism would hamper the work of States and humanitarian agencies in the field and would double the cost of providing humanitarian assistance, particularly in the wake of the effects of the coronavirus disease pandemic. The State of Qatar also stresses the importance of the unity of the international community, particularly in the Security Council, the entity tasked with maintaining international peace and security, including through compliance and the need to commit to the principles of international humanitarian law and to provide assistance to those in need without any delay or interruption, particularly when the matter has to do with food security and health requirements for more than 4 million people, especially the most vulnerable, such as women and children, The State of Qatar would like to stress the importance of making every possible effort to address the humanitarian needs of the fraternal people of Syria and would like to stress yet again that the only way to resolve the situation in Syria is through a political United Nations-led process that leads to a political transition in accordance with the Geneva communiqué (A/66/865, annex) and the relevant Council resolutions, including the full implementation of resolution 2254 (2015), and in a way that responds to the aspirations of the Syrian people and preserves Syrian unity and independence. In conclusion, the State of Qatar would like to stress the importance of cooperation among members of the international community, particularly in the Security Council, so that we can effectively alleviate the humanitarian impact of conflicts on those adversely affected, particularly the most vulnerable. The State of Qatar is ready to work with all parties in order to reach the required consensus on urgent humanitarian needs and for the maintenance of international peace and security, including preventing the use of the right of the veto in similar circumstances in future.

Malta aligns itself with the statement delivered by the representative of the European Union, in its capacity as observer, and would like to emphasize a few points in its national capacity. We deeply regret the decision of the Russian Federation to veto Security Council draft resolution S/2022/538, which would have renewed the Syria cross-border mechanism at Bab Al-Hawa for another 12 months. That humanitarian draft resolution would have ensured that 4.1 million Syrians in dire need of humanitarian aid got the assistance they desperately need for another 12 months, in line with the Secretary- General’s recommendation. It would have facilitated the operations of humanitarian organizations by providing them with certainty and predictability. As stated in the Secretary-General’s report (S/2022/492), at this time there are no alternatives in place that can match the scale and scope of United Nations cross- border operations. Malta also expresses its appreciation to Ireland and Norway, as co-penholders, for doing everything in their power to make sure that the Security Council fulfils its duty and moral obligation towards the people in Syria and maintains that vital lifeline. We also commend the 10 elected members of the Council for standing together and playing a constructive role throughout the entire process. Malta underlines the need to continue monitoring the humanitarian situation in Syria and to ensure the smooth and timely renewal of the resolution by January2023. Let us not forget that the catastrophic humanitarian situation was further compounded last year by extreme winter conditions and sub-zero temperatures, resulting in the highest level of acute humanitarian need in Syria. The needs of the Syrian people should be at the forefront of all our considerations. Humanitarian actions must never be politicized. In conclusion, Malta also emphasizes once again the need for a nationwide ceasefire in Syria and a political solution based on Security Council resolution 2254 (2015). That is the only way forward.

Estonia aligns itself with the statement delivered on behalf of the European Union. We welcome today’s General Assembly debate pursuant to the unanimously adopted resolution 76/262, an extraordinary initiative that Estonia was honoured to co-sponsor early on. Estonia deeply regrets that a veto was cast by the Russian Federation during the Security Council meeting on 8 July (see S/PV.9087), held under the agenda item “The situation in the Middle East”, which concerned the extension of cross-border humanitarian aid to the Syrian people for a total of 12 months at the only remaining crossing, Bab Al-Hawa, which is critical to assist more than 4 million people in the north-western Idlib region of Syria. The initiative by Norway and Ireland to mandate the border crossing for 12 months garnered the full support of 13 of the Council’s 15 members. Security Council draft resolution S/2022/538 was a necessary, appropriate and commensurate response to the threat to people’s lives. It would have facilitated the delivery of humanitarian aid in a long-term and predictable manner. The proposal was already a compromise, which Russia blatantly rejected. There are many members of the Council that support an even more expansive and responsive approach of opening more border crossings to fulfil the dire humanitarian needs. As we speak, more crossings and a lengthier mandate are needed for the planning of humanitarian operations and for the predictable and stable provision of life-saving assistance. We deplore the continuous negative trend of closing international border crossings, which once numbered four, due to constant threats and uses of veto by Russia and China. We are here today to recall that the Charter of the United Nations grants the Security Council the responsibility and power to maintain international peace and security and to act on behalf of the whole membership of the United Nations. The Russian veto was clearly not cast in a responsible manner. It is cynical, including regarding the timing of the renewal of the mandate in mid-winter, when the situation is the most precarious, and disregards the undeniable threat to the lives of Syrian people. It also seriously undermines the effectiveness and credibility of the Security Council. At the end of the day, Russia was isolated in its opposition to the extension of the cross-border provision of humanitarian aid and irresponsibly threatened that the alternative to their own six-month initiative (S/2022/541) would be the ultimate closure of the crossing altogether. Russia needs to stop politicizing the Council and hindering the fulfilment of the humanitarian needs of the Syrian people on the ground and must act, instead, in accordance with the humanitarian principles of impartiality and neutrality. We expect the Council to enable maximum sustainability to the border-crossing in future. Estonia continues to be ready to support United Nations initiatives ensuring humanitarian aid to the Syrian people. Finally, we also need to keep trying to find a political solution to the conflict, but that cannot come at the expense of the people in need of humanitarian assistance on the ground today.

Slovenia aligns itself with the statement made by the representative of the European Union and wishes to make some additional remarks in its national capacity. We welcome the opportunity to discuss this issue of critical importance — humanitarian access in Syria after the veto was cast in the Security Council on 8 July (see S/PV.9087) on a vital draft resolution (S/2022/538) proposed by the co-penholders, Ireland and Norway, for a 12-month renewal of the cross-border mechanism at the Bab Al-Hawa border crossing from Türkiye to Syria. The proposal for a 12-month renewal was based on the call by the Secretary-General and the humanitarian community operating on the ground, pointing out that predictability is a key concern for the efficient planning of humanitarian assistance delivery. Although the Security Council adopted resolution 2642 (2022) a few days later, on 12 July, extending the authorization for the United Nations to use the single crossing point for six months, with a further extension of an additional six months requiring a separate resolution, it is deeply regrettable and concerning that the veto was used by the Russian Federation in a way that would block life-saving humanitarian assistance. Under current conditions, there is no viable alternative to the cross-border mechanism to relieve the suffering of 4.1 million people in north-west Syria, for whom any disruption of this mechanism would have devastating consequences. For this reason, we join others in urging the Security Council to renew the cross-border mechanism before it expires. Slovenia is very concerned by the dire situation in Syria, in particular the upsurge of hostilities, numerous attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure, and the potential for further escalation. We call on all parties in Syria to depoliticize and allow unimpeded delivery of humanitarian aid to all in need. We also call on all parties to the conflict to comply with their obligations under international law and protect civilians and civilian infrastructure. Furthermore, we are very concerned at the security, economic and humanitarian impact of the Russian aggression against Ukraine on Syria. Since 2014, Slovenia has provided almost €10 million for humanitarian assistance to the Syrian people in the country and the region. Our funds were allocated to international organizations providing emergency relief to affected populations, including the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the World Food Programme. Let me conclude by joining all the speakers before me in stating that the only way to resolve the Syrian crisis is through a political settlement in accordance with Security Council resolution 2254 (2015).

We welcome the convening of this important meeting, in which the General Assembly is strengthening an indispensable mechanism for improving the accountability of the Security Council. Humanitarian assistance is one of the fundamental pillars of the United Nations and the embodiment of our shared responsibility to come to the aid of the most vulnerable wherever they are. For more than a decade, the Syrian population has been subjected to the severe and unacceptable onslaught of a war that has caused internal displacement, one of the largest refugee movements ever recorded, suffering, hunger and devastation. And with the political process seemingly at a standstill, the prospects for a change for the better in their lives seem very distant for the 12 million Syrians in acute need or living below the poverty line. It is a real tragedy. It is in that context and against that backdrop that the Security Council, month after month, takes up the situation in Syria in its political, humanitarian and chemical-weapons dimensions. It receives humanitarian and political briefings and reports with figures and updates usually showing the country in frank decline. To these are added briefings from humanitarian organizations on the ground. Council members also hear the voices of Syrians themselves, who are crying out for prospects for a better life. Maintaining stability in the provision of humanitarian assistance to this population has an important impact on the necessary advancement of the political solution in line with resolution 2254 (2015). That is why the Dominican Republic supports the cross-border mechanism for humanitarian assistance and why we opposed the closure of critical crossing points that served vulnerable populations in the Syrian north-east and north-west in 2019 and 2020. We took these positions, as we were convinced that saving a life and the dignity of people, caring for a woman in labour, providing education to a child or offering shelter to a family is worth more than any other consideration. In the face of a situation like that of Syria, nothing can come before finding solutions to alleviate human suffering. That is our shared duty. At the current juncture, we advocate for the provision of humanitarian services in a predictable manner, in line above all else with the humanitarian principles of humanity, impartiality and neutrality, while simultaneously working to increase the capacities of local organizations to address what is already too extreme and overwhelming a situation for any operation. Let us bring together our efforts so that the situation in which humanitarian decisions are blocked in the Security Council, which has been repeating itself in the Council, does not happen again, and so that we do not have to return to this Hall for such a reason. It is truly unacceptable that humanitarian actors on the ground with the responsibility to save lives are affected by this level of uncertainty and politicization of their operations.

Chile has made a permanent commitment to upholding international humanitarian law and the international protection of human rights. We agree, as do many other States Members of the United Nations, that ensuring the protection of the lives and dignity of people affected by disasters and armed conflicts around the world must remain a priority. Chile recognizes that humanitarian action must be governed by the principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality, independence and universality, in such a way that these principles are protected and respected in all situations and by all parties to conflict. We recognize that, in the face of a humanitarian crisis of any kind, it is essential that humanitarian assistance be provided, and that such assistance cannot and should not be politicized. Failure to act in a timely manner deepens crises and delays the urgent responses needed by affected populations. We wish to state for the record that a humanitarian crisis deserves our utmost concern because it means that the international community has failed to prevent it, having been unable to anticipate it. Our responsibility should therefore be greater, and we must make it easier for the international community to deliver the needed aid. We are aware that each humanitarian crisis calls for its own strategy for overcoming it. Accordingly, the opinions of the different non-governmental organizations and local communities that contribute to delivering aid on the front line should be taken into account. In conclusion, Chile reaffirms the importance of the application of international humanitarian law and the protection of civilians, essential critical infrastructure and humanitarian workers.

We have heard the last speaker in the debate on this item for this meeting. We shall hear the remaining speakers this afternoon at 3 p.m. in this Hall. The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 124.