A/77/PV.90 General Assembly

It would not have been my wish to convene this plenary meeting in the General Assembly today. I would have hoped that the Security Council could have overcome its deadlock on humanitarian aid delivery to northern Syria. Yet today’s debate is a clear demonstration that two United Nations organs  — the Security Council and the General Assembly — can and must work together on matters of international peace and security, especially in times of crisis. It is in that context that I welcomed the Security Council’s special report on the veto cast last week (see S/PV.9371). I thank the Council members for meeting the expectations of all Member States in submitting that special report in a timely manner. I also want to express my appreciation to the President of the Security Council for her coordination with my Office leading up to this meeting. It is my hope that this spirit of cooperation will continue in the future in order to ensure efficiency and coherence between our two mandates. We gather here today because a permanent member of the Security Council — the Russian Federation — vetoed Security Council draft resolution S/2023/506, renewing a cross-border mechanism to deliver life-saving aid to people in northern Syria. Let us be clear about what that means. The Bab Al-Hawa crossing with Türkiye has been used by the United Nations and aid agencies since 2014, and after the Council’s closure of the other three crossings in subsequent years, it has handled 85 per cent of United Nations aid deliveries. In the wake of Russia’s veto in the Council last week, United Nations aid convoys there have virtually stopped. At the same time, the humanitarian needs in Syria are soaring, with 4.1 million people across Syria’s north all but cut off from the food, water and medicine they need to stay alive. Eighty per cent of them are women and children, and the two massive earthquakes that rocked the region in February have left them desperate. The shocks reduced infrastructure to rubble and further displaced many who had already fled fighting elsewhere. A fresh outbreak of cholera has only compounded the harsh daily realities. The lives of those in need should never be reduced to tactics for geopolitical games. I urge the members of the Security Council to keep their needs foremost in their minds. Lest we forget, our 8 billion constituents are counting on us to act as one United Nations, and we have a moral responsibility to do so. When the United Nations wavers on issues that are as clear as humanitarian need, it cuts to the core of our credibility. In fact, it confirms a false perception that we as a whole cannot do what is right by the Charter of the United Nations, our collective conscience and our sense of solidarity and compassion. We must not give that mistaken belief any ground. Humanitarian action must always be guided by the principles of impartiality, neutrality and independence, and effective humanitarian assistance can therefore never be held hostage by any political interest. How can the General Assembly help the Security Council live up to the mandate entrusted to it under the Charter? What do members propose in terms of what more the United Nations as a whole and the Security Council in particular can and should do? For one, I intend to send the verbatim records of today’s debate to the President of the Council, as promised during our April debate on the use of the veto initiative (see A/77/PV.68). “It is a basic human right to live in a safe place, to feel safe, to be safe,” as the Syrian swimmer Sara Mardini has reminded us. Given the extraordinary lengths that Syrians are going to just to survive, it is only right that we ask if we are doing enough to protect human life. I call on the Security Council to be alive to the realities and oriented towards genuine solutions. I call on the Security Council to urgently prioritize long- term cooperation over division and the humanitarian imperative over brinksmanship. Together, we have the power to make a meaningful difference. The people of Syria are counting on us to deliver.

Before I begin my statement, I would like to express my surprise and disappointment. I do not recall the President of the General Assembly making such a politically biased statement at the beginning of our meeting last year (see A/76/PV.95). I also regret that the President has decided to sacrifice the principle of neutrality, which underpins his mandate, for the sake of mercantile Western interests. That is extremely disappointing. For the second year in a row, a General Assembly meeting convened in the context of resolution 76/262 on the exercise of the right of veto in the Security Council has been held to discuss the so-called cross-border mechanism for humanitarian assistance in Syria. I have good news for everyone. This time, there is every reason to believe that we will not meet anymore on this subject in the context of resolution 76/262, because all United Nations cross-border operations will in future be carried out not on the basis of a mandate issued by the Security Council but  — as they should be  — in accordance with the provisions of resolution 46/182, that is to say with the authorization of and in close coordination with the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic, with respect for its sovereignty and territorial integrity. That is a great achievement for all of us and I sincerely congratulate the General Assembly on it. Turning to our vote on the draft resolution submitted by the former penholders on the Syrian humanitarian file on 11 July (see S/PV.9371), it should be noted that, as was the case one year ago, we faced a deliberate attempt by our Western opponents to force us to use our veto right. If they had wanted to, it would have been entirely possible to agree on a mutually acceptable text. However, our Swiss colleagues, who essentially monopolized the penholdership of the draft resolution, preferred blatant blackmail to negotiations and diplomatic efforts. They arrogantly rejected the absolutely legitimate demands of Syria, on whose behalf that draft resolution had been proposed. That was especially important given that the previous resolution of the Security Council 2672 (2023) had essentially not been implemented. It was very important to strengthen the language on ensuring unfettered and sustainable access to all regions of the country through the contact line to allow the restoration of civilian infrastructure, water and electricity, supplies, schools, hospitals and housing and the implementation of projects in the area of sustainable development and mine clearance, which, inter alia, should have helped to create the conditions necessary for the exercise of the fundamental right of refugees and internally displaced persons to return to their homes. That was an absolute humanitarian imperative, especially given that one obstacle to overcoming the consequences of the earthquake and the coronavirus disease pandemic remains the lifting of the illegal unilateral sanctions imposed by the United States of America and the European Union, which have blocked the provision of humanitarian assistance and are a form of collective punishment for millions of ordinary citizens. However, almost all those elements, which Russia proposed on behalf of Syria, including in the Security Council draft resolution on humanitarian issues, were ignored by the penholders. The United States and their allies, in whose interests our Swiss colleagues were acting, were primarily concerned about the length of time for the extension of the cross-border mechanism rather than any actual improvements to the mechanism. And that is because their aim is not to help the Syrian people in any way but rather to preserve a lever by which they can exert pressure on the Syrian Government. They essentially advanced an ultimatum about extending the cross-border mechanism by 12 months. Then — by way of a compromise as they put it  — they proposed a nine-month extension. At the same time, all our genuinely humanitarian wording was painstakingly removed from the text of the Western draft resolution. In other words, instead of improving a text that was not working, it was proposed that we do not change anything for the better and also deprive ourselves of the opportunity to make amendments to the functioning of the cross-border mechanism in six months’ time. Of course, we could not agree to that and, as I already said, searching for a compromise is something our Swiss colleagues were not interested in, despite the calls and efforts of colleagues from Brazil, the People’s Republic of China, the United Arab Emirates, Mozambique, Gabon and Ghana, to whom we are extremely grateful. It is important to recall that Syria remains the only country in the world in which, with the authorization of the Security Council rather than of the legitimate Government, a cross-border mechanism for the delivery of humanitarian assistance is in place. While there were objective reasons to do that in 2014, that is no longer the case. Meanwhile, during all that time the countries of the West have been concerned only with providing humanitarian supplies to the Idlib enclave, which is under the control of Hayat Tahrir Al-Sham, acknowledged as a terrorist group by the Security Council. For the sake of those terrorists, we have been asked to turn a blind eye to the fact that the mechanism for delivery of humanitarian assistance across the contact line stipulated in Security Council resolution 2672 (2023) was not operationalized because it would not allow the cut-throats from Hayat Tahrir Al-Sham to grow rich, as they can, through the cross- border mechanism. We welcome the sovereign decision of Damascus to authorize the United Nations to use the Bab Al-Hawa crossing point for the cross-border delivery of assistance from Türkiye to the population of Idlib for six months. We are of the view that responsibility for normalizing the work of that channel, as well as its preservation, lies fully with the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. We will view attempts by any party to influence the bilateral dialogue between the United Nations and Damascus in that context as interference in the internal affairs of Syria. That step by Damascus is along the same lines as a similar decision taken in February following the destructive earthquake. The Syrian Government, guided by the need to provide assistance to all those in need on the country’s territory, voluntarily opened up two additional crossing points at Bab Al-Salam and Al-Rai to provide assistance to the victims. By doing so, Damascus confirmed that assistance to Syrians can and must be provided in accordance with universally accepted humanitarian principles. However, the need to preserve the cross-border mechanism, which was created in 2014 as a temporary and emergency measure, is no longer evident. I would like to underscore in particular that there are no longer any barriers to the provision of humanitarian assistance to Syria. A moment of truth has come for the donors. Either they are genuinely going to help Syrians, or they will continue their de facto blackmail, advancing ever more political requirements. Today the General Assembly will hear in this Hall from our Western colleagues many disparaging things about Russia and Syria, saying that our veto allegedly jeopardizes the lives of millions of Syrians. That lie will be repeated for a long time in the West as they try to ignore the fact that the United Nations and the global community have every opportunity to help Syrian refugees. However, to do that they must cooperate closely with the legitimate, internationally recognized authorities, which is something the West does not want to do. We acknowledge the changes that are taking place in the world are driving our Western colleagues crazy. But of course, we will also hear today that Russia is not helping Syria and only Western donors are doing so. We all know whom they are actually helping and how much the United Nations humanitarian appeal for Syria has actually been financed. It is also well known how much Russia is doing for Syria bilaterally. Therefore, I hope that such hypocritical insinuations are not going to mislead anyone. Russia has never wavered and will not waver in using its veto right, not only to protect its own interests and the interests of its allies but also to protect the interests of all our partners in the United Nations who are not afraid to conduct an independent policy and resist the dictates and blackmail of Western countries. Otherwise, the Security Council will become a NATO club. That is how we acted when we were defending the interests of our Syrian partners, and we do not regret our decision in any way.

I have the honour to deliver this statement on behalf of the Benelux countries  — Belgium, Luxembourg and my own country, the Kingdom of the Netherlands. We align ourselves with the statement to be delivered by the observer of the European Union. The adoption of resolution 76/262 in April 2022, commonly known as the veto initiative, presented a significant and welcome step towards increasing the accountability and transparency of the Security Council, while at the same time strengthening the role of the General Assembly. The Benelux countries were proud co-sponsors of that resolution. Since its adoption, we already have seen the veto used on four occasions. Russia used its veto power in each of those instances. We reiterate that the use of the veto is not a privilege. In the months leading up to the vote in the Security Council taken on 11 July (see S/PV.9371), the Secretary-General, the entire humanitarian community and the vast majority of Security Council members specifically called to renew the provisions of resolution 2672 (2023) for 12 months. The Russian Federation chose to ignore that call and to singlehandedly block even the nine months’ compromise that received overwhelming support from 13 Security Council members. Co-penholders Brazil and Switzerland worked tirelessly to reach a consensus in the Council, and we want to thank them profoundly for their efforts, which were aimed at ensuring life-saving, cross-border humanitarian aid into Syria — aid on which more than 4 million people depend. That is the eighteenth time since 2011 that the Russian Federation has used its veto against Syria-related resolutions. Regardless of what the representative of the Russian Federation just said, the simple fact is that Russia has politicized humanitarian aid for Syria by employing conditionality for its own and the Syrian Governments’ political objectives, including demands for sanctions relief and reconstruction in exchange for humanitarian access. And in case anyone needs to be reminded: those sanctions were imposed as a reaction to widespread and systematic violations of human rights law and international humanitarian law, including the use of chemical weapons against the civilian population of Syria. The need for unimpeded humanitarian access is at the heart of our discussions today — not the principle of sovereignty, which should not and cannot be used to justify the arbitrary denial of consent to deliver humanitarian aid to those who need it. Cross-line aid operations have always had broad international support. However, the reality is that cross-line operations do not suffice to provide life-saving aid to north-west Syria at the necessary scale. The unwillingness of the Russian Federation to continue discussions in the Security Council, thereby gravely imperilling the United Nations cross-border monitoring mechanism, creates immense uncertainty about continued, predictable and unimpeded humanitarian access. That is not theoretical. We have seen how precarious the situation becomes when humanitarian access to people in need in opposition-held areas is dependent on consent by the Syrian Government. Both cross- border and cross-line aid deliveries are now at the mercy of the Syrian Government — a Government that continues bombardments of its own population in the areas concerned. We believe that a strong United Nations presence in the affected areas and a robust monitoring mechanism are key to effective humanitarian deliveries, which are fully in line with the humanitarian principles. We therefore fully expect the Russian Federation to keep working on achieving a consensus on renewal of the cross-border mechanism. Without a political solution in line with Security Council resolution 2254 (2015), the conflict in Syria will simply not end. Our position is clear: unless and until such a solution is firmly under way, the European Union will not finance any reconstruction efforts, lift sanctions or normalize relations. For years, we have made every effort to support humanitarian aid delivery in Syria through consistent and predictable humanitarian contributions, including in the aftermath of the earthquake in February. It is imperative to ensure humanitarian access to Syria at a time when more people than ever are in need of life-saving assistance. Millions of lives are at stake. Let us all work together to live up to our collective responsibility.

I have the honour to deliver this statement on behalf of the Nordic countries — Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and my own country, Denmark. We find ourselves in this Hall once again deliberating on an incomprehensible situation. A permanent member of the Security Council has abused its veto power to block humanitarian aid from crossing into northern Syria — I repeat, to block humanitarian aid. The cross-border mechanism should never have been subject to a veto, and the use of a veto on this occasion represents a blatant disregard for the suffering of the affected people in Syria. We regret the need to convene another debate about the use of a veto in the Security Council, but we welcome this opportunity for the General Assembly to discuss the use of the veto exercised by Russia on 11 July (see S/PV.9371). We take this opportunity to underline the significance of resolution 76/262. The adoption of the veto initiative is an important step in making the Council more transparent and accountable and of course paved the way for our debate today. We would like to thank the Security Council for submitting its special report and would like to see it being formally adopted in a transparent way, as well as reflected in the Council’s annual report to the General Assembly. We, as members of the General Assembly and signatories to the Charter of the United Nations, have entrusted the Security Council with the primary responsibility to maintain international peace and security and to discharge its duties in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations. The misuse of the veto to prevent the Council from discharging its duties is a matter of great concern and in this case has forced the Council to inaction on a matter of life and death. Our meeting today is another opportunity to convey once again 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, for other Member States to express their opinion on this matter and then for the Security Council to heed the call of the General Assembly and to deliver. We would like to express our strongest possible support for the penholders, Brazil and Switzerland. The Secretary-General and humanitarian organizations operating on the ground have consistently stressed that humanitarian imperatives called for a predictable 12-month extension of the mandate in order to allow for adequate planning and implementation. The draft resolution submitted by Brazil and Switzerland (S/2023/506) proposed a nine-month extension and reflected a fair and careful compromise. It was in no way ideal but would have secured humanitarian relief through the harsh winter months. At a time when Russia once again stood isolated in the Council with its veto, we are also grateful once again for the role played by the elected members. The collective voice of conscience of the 10 elected members of the Council and the invaluable effort by the penholders send a strong and important message of unity when it comes to humanitarian work in the Council. The war in Syria has caused appalling amounts of human suffering, and earlier this year the people of Syria were hit by yet another catastrophe — an earthquake sent humanitarian needs soaring, to the great detriment of people in the most vulnerable situation, which added woes to an already dire situation. At a moment when relief is needed more than ever, it is appalling to observe a permanent member obstruct Council action that would provide critical humanitarian relief to people with immense needs. On 13 July, the Government of Syria announced in a letter that they had opened the Bab Al-Hawa border crossing. The United Nations has expressed the need to clarify that letter. And we, the Nordic countries, take this occasion to stress the importance of the independence, impartiality and neutrality of the United Nations. Furthermore, we wish to underline that the United Nations has to be able to communicate with all relevant State and non-State parties, as operationally necessary, in order to carry out safe and unimpeded humanitarian operations. We call on all parties, including Syria, to find a solution that will allow for sustained, predictable and unconditional humanitarian assistance, in line with international humanitarian law and humanitarian principles, including through the Bab Al-Hawa border crossing. We also call on the Security Council to undertake every effort to find a solution that will enable cross-border assistance to continue without conditions and in line with humanitarian principles. In the light of the latest developments, we encourage the wider United Nations membership to be ready to take decisive action in the General Assembly that will allow for the delivery of humanitarian assistance to the people, in line with international humanitarian law and humanitarian principles. In the light of yet another exercise of a veto in the Council, we are once again reminded of why reform of the Security Council is necessary. We encourage all Member States to support the French-Mexican initiative and the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency Group’s code of conduct. The Security Council does its work on behalf of all United Nations States Members. The Council’s decisions affect us all. It is therefore a mark of important progress that resolution 76/262 holds it accountable. We hope that the General Assembly today sends a clear signal that life-saving humanitarian assistance must not be politicized and should never be made subject to a veto. The legitimacy of this very Organization depends on it , and, most importantly, countless human lives depend on it.

I now give the floor to the representative of the European Union, in its capacity as observer.

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union (EU) and its member States. The candidate countries North Macedonia, Montenegro, Albania, Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova and Bosnia and Herzegovina, the potential candidate country Georgia, as well as Andorra and San Marino align themselves with this statement. One year ago, we met under similar circumstances in the General Assembly (see A/76/PV.95 and A/76/PV.96) after the Russian Federation used the veto to prevent the renewal of the Syria cross-border mechanism (see S/PV.9087). The European Union deplores the second veto exercised on this issue by the Russian Federation on the renewal of Security Council resolution 2672 (2023). That decision risks exacerbating the already dire humanitarian situation in north-west Syria and will gravely disrupt the delivery of life-saving humanitarian supplies to millions of people in need. The European Union will continue to provide life-saving humanitarian assistance to north-west Syria through all available modalities, including cross-line methods. However, we note that cross-line assistance alone cannot replace the lifeline provided by United Nations-coordinated cross- border assistance. We take note of the decision of the Syrian regime of 13 July to allow the United Nations and its agencies to cross through Bab Al-Hawa for six months to deliver aid in north-west Syria. That short- term, bilateral agreement does not provide sufficient predictability for humanitarian organizations to plan and deliver humanitarian assistance in a timely and efficient manner. Ensuring the continuation of the cross-border delivery of humanitarian assistance to people in north-west Syria through Bab Al-Hawa is of the utmost importance, as it represents the only lifeline for millions of people. The EU therefore calls for United Nations-coordinated cross-border delivery of humanitarian assistance to be urgently allowed, through the renewal of the Security Council resolution and a firm commitment of the Syrian regime not to politicize the delivery of humanitarian aid. We fully support the humanitarian penholders, Switzerland and Brazil. Their draft resolution (S/2023/506), which proposed to renew the border crossing at Bab Al-Hawa for nine months, was a genuine, constructive effort to balance the wishes of all Council members. That timeline was already a compromise, given that the Secretary-General, in his most recent report on the humanitarian situation in Syria (S/2023/464), and many humanitarian organizations have continuously called for a 12-month renewal in order to ensure predictability and proper planning. Ignoring the calls from humanitarian experts will only result in further deterioration of conditions for the Syrian people. Humanitarian assistance should make use of all access modalities and follow a whole-of-Syria approach. The EU will continue to support the delivery of humanitarian assistance to all those in need in Syria, wherever they are. Our commitment to that approach is clear. Following the earthquakes, the EU Civil Protection Mechanism and the European Humanitarian Response Capacity were mobilized, facilitating the delivery of aid to all Syrians affected by the disaster. That assistance included the amount of €1.3 million of the EU’s own humanitarian relief stocks and the amount of €9 million of aid from 16 offering countries. The European Union continues to insist on need-based aid, which is in line with the humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence. We will continue to advocate for all parties to depoliticize the delivery of humanitarian aid, in particular the use of all assistance modalities, including across the border, as well as cross-line assistance from Damascus. The European Union reiterates its firm position that life-saving and life-sustaining humanitarian actions must not be disrupted, targeted or politicized. Safe, unhindered and sustained access to all those in need in Syria must be maintained, in accordance with international humanitarian law. For the European Union, no normalization, lifting of sanctions or reconstruction will be possible until the Syrian regime engages in a political transition, in the framework of Security Council resolution 2254 (2015) and the Geneva process. Let me add that the EU and its member States have mobilized more than €30 billion since 2011, while remaining the largest provider of international aid and delivering humanitarian, stabilization and resilience assistance inside Syria and neighbouring countries. We will continue supporting Syrians inside Syria and in the region. At the recent seventh Brussels Conference, hosted by the EU, the international community pledged €5.6 billion for 2023 and beyond, including €3.8 billion from the EU alone. That is a tangible demonstration that the international community stands by the Syrian people and those countries hosting them. The millions of Syrian people in dire need deserve predictable and dependable access to life-saving services. Life-saving services require reliable crossing points to deliver humanitarian aid. That is why the European Union calls on the Security Council to undertake every effort to find a solution that will enable cross-border assistance to continue.

The Baltic States align themselves with the statement delivered by the observer of the European Union. We welcome today’s debate under agenda item 60, “Use of the veto”. This important initiative increases accountability and transparency in the use of the veto power. The Baltic States deplore the veto cast by the Russian Federation on 11 July (see S/PV.9371) under the agenda item on the situation in the Middle East, concerning the extension of the authorization to deliver cross-border humanitarian aid to the Syrian people for nine months through the Bab Al-Hawa border crossing. This is already the second time that the Russian Federation’s veto has put the delivery of life-saving aid to the Syrian people at risk. The draft resolution that Russia vetoed (S/2023/506) was a genuine and much-appreciated attempt to find compromise by the penholders, Brazil and Switzerland, and was supported by 13 Council members. Although Security Council members — permanent members in particular — have a special responsibility to maintain international peace and security, the Russian Federation has demonstrated again and again, most recently here today, its irresponsible behaviour and has therefore cast a shadow on the dignity of the entire Council. The Syrian regime’s decision to allow the United Nations and its agencies to use the Bab Al-Hawa border crossing for only six months to deliver aid in north-west Syria does not provide humanitarian organizations with enough space and assurances to plan and deliver assistance in the most efficient manner. Such a short- term bilateral agreement cannot be seen as an alternative to Bab Al-Hawa, as the latter has been used to deliver 85 per cent of the life-saving aid provided to the more than 4 million people of north-west Syria, as the President of the General Assembly mentioned. We also fully share the concerns of the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) over the conditions for the distribution of humanitarian aid set out in the Syrian regime’s letter. Those demands are neither consistent with the impartiality of the United Nations, nor are they practical. For those reasons, we encourage the Security Council to continue its efforts to find a solution that will allow humanitarian agencies to continue to deliver essential cross-border aid to the people of north-west Syria. We also urge the Syrian regime to retract its unacceptable demands, which infringe on the independence of the humanitarian operations of the United Nations. Whatever Russia claims, the reality is that the European Union and its member States remain the largest provider of humanitarian, stabilization and resilience assistance inside Syria and in neighbouring countries. The Baltic States continue to support United Nations initiatives that ensure the delivery of humanitarian aid to the Syrian people. Most recently, Estonia pledged €60,000 to OCHA and €40,000 to UNICEF, while Latvia pledged €70,000 to OCHA for activities related to the humanitarian crisis in Syria. Let me conclude by underlining the need to work towards a comprehensive and meaningful political solution in Syria, in line with Security Council resolution 2254 (2015) and the legitimate expectations of all Syrians.

The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has the honour to take the floor on behalf 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 very purposes and principles, which remain as relevant today as in 1945. We refer, among other things, to the growing resort to unilateralism, the attacks against multilateralism, the claims of a non-existent exceptionalism, the attempts to ignore and even substitute the purposes and principles contained 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 that to date remain unknown, and the selective approaches or accommodative interpretations of the provisions of the United Nations Charter. We consider that such practices contradict international law and in no way contribute to addressing  — through a reinvigorated and inclusive multilateralism and guided by the principle of good faith and such values as solidarity and international cooperation  — the complex, emerging and common challenges faced by humankind today. Instead, they contribute to an increase in uncertainty, distrust, instability and tensions around the world. We take part in this debate today following the activation of the mechanism established in resolution 76/262, although we find this plenary meeting to be unnecessary, as the core of the issue itself has already to some degree been overtaken by reality following the decision announced by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic on 13 July to grant permission to the United Nations and its relevant specialized agencies to use the Bab Al-Hawa crossing point for the delivery of humanitarian assistance to the Syrian civilian population in need in the north-west region of the country for a period of six months. Nevertheless, we welcome the transparency with which the delegation of the Russian Federation explained today the reasons for its veto of draft resolution S/2023/506 (see S/PV.9371). However, we would like to stress that any outcome of the Security Council must always guarantee full respect for the sovereignty, the territorial integrity, the political unity and the independence of the Member States of our Organization, including the Syrian Arab Republic, as well as the right of peoples to self-determination, while taking into account the positions and legitimate concerns of the concerned States themselves in order to ensure their full ownership of all processes. In that context, we seize this opportunity to also emphasize the importance of ensuring full adherence to the core principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and operational independence, as outlined in resolution 46/182, mindful of the fact that it is only through full coordination and national ownership, in the context of maximum transparency, that humanitarian activities will have the legitimacy needed to avoid any risk of being politically exploited by external actors. Similarly, we echo the request of the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic to allow the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Syrian Arab Red Crescent to supervise and facilitate the distribution of humanitarian aid in the north-west region of that brotherly nation, which is also a fellow member State of our Group and with which we stand in full solidarity. In that regard, we express our firm support for all measures that are anchored in the Charter of the United Nations, the norms of international law and the respect for the principles of humanity, neutrality and impartiality, and that are truly aimed at improving the humanitarian situation in Syria and alleviating the prolonged suffering of the Syrian people. For instance, a positive step in that direction would be the complete and immediate lifting of all unilateral coercive measures that have been illegally and cruelly applied against the entire Syrian people intermittently for the past 40 years, which were even expanded during the course of the coronavirus disease pandemic and had a detrimental effect on the rescue and recovery efforts following the tragic earthquake that occurred earlier this year. It must be recalled that those so-called sanctions have had a devastating impact on the lives of the Syrian people as a whole, as well as on their livelihoods, given their systematic nature and broad scope. The sanctions have also hindered the work of the United Nations and its humanitarian agencies on the ground, impeding the broadening of humanitarian activities and the implementation of early recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction projects, as called for in Security Council resolutions 2585 (2021), 2642 (2022) and 2672 (2023). It must also be underscored that the illegal application of those unilateral sanctions impedes the full achievement of economic and social development by the nations subjected to them, particularly developing countries such as Syria. That reality, coupled with interference in the internal and sovereign affairs of States, apart from representing a massive violation of human rights and inflicting great suffering and pain on entire populations, directly exacerbates conflicts and crises, including through the creation of what are later referred to as “human-made humanitarian crises”, which are actually deliberately created by the very people who promote such illegal measures and which have now become structural factors and fundamental drivers of contemporary crises. In the light of all of this, we want to draw attention to the negative impact of the potential entrenchment of a Cold War-era mentality that is based only on confrontation, the deepening of divisions and the imposition of disparate visions and agendas. We are at a point where strengthening the rule of law, multilateralism, diplomacy and political dialogue is more essential than ever. We therefore urge all the members of the Security Council to fulfil their responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, seize and rise to the moment, reach out and engage with one another, show greater flexibility and arrive at compromises that truly serve the purposes of maintaining international peace and security and of ensuring the well-being of all of our peoples, without double standards, politicization of any kind or selective approaches that ultimately undermine the important tasks entrusted to the Council. In conclusion, the Group of Friends vows to spare no effort in preserving, promoting and defending the influence and validity of the Charter, for which we need both to ensure that unilateral sanctions are lifted in a complete, immediate and unconditional manner and to continue working together to ensure that the cross- border delivery of humanitarian assistance to the Syrian Arab Republic, with the consent of its Government and in full coordination with it, serves its real purpose, while avoiding any misuse or politicization of the humanitarian needs of the Syrian people.

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, although we are disappointed to be meeting again on the same topic. We commend the work of the countries that have championed the veto initiative, which has enabled this important conversation. It is our hope that over time these mandated meetings will lead to better standards governing the use of the veto, so that its use is more transparent and limited. We wish to state plainly at the outset of this meeting our disappointment that the Russian Federation, a permanent member of the Security Council, voted to block a humanitarian draft resolution (see S/PV.9371). Under the Charter, the Security Council has the primary responsibility to uphold international peace and security. That includes a duty to prevent innocent people from further suffering. Regarding the situation in Syria, the Pacific Islands Forum leaders have previously called on all members of the Council, individually and collectively, to provide leadership. 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. The work of providing people with the means of survival in their most difficult circumstances should be above geopolitics. The use of the veto has plagued the United Nations since its inception. It is alarming that its use enables inaction in situations that endanger international peace and security. It is on that premise that we reiterate the importance of reforming the Security Council in ways that can ensure transparency, accountability, accessibility, and equal representation for all States Members of the United Nations. We emphasize the continued need for full, safe and unhindered humanitarian access for humanitarian and medical personnel. The Secretary-General’s most recent report on Syria (S/2023/464) paints a grim picture of the humanitarian needs. There are 12.1 million people facing acute food insecurity, and 15.3 million, half of whom are women and girls, require humanitarian aid. The catastrophic earthquakes earlier in the year have exacerbated the humanitarian needs. Millions of people lack access to safe, reliable water supplies. In that context, the use of a veto to block a draft resolution that would ease the immense human suffering and provide operational certainty for the response by humanitarian operations is simply a travesty. We encourage genuine dialogue to find long-term solutions to address the issue of sustained access and delivery of humanitarian assistance to vulnerable people and communities in Syria. In our own Blue Pacific region, our leaders have declared a climate emergency. The peoples of our many small island States well understand the importance of a fair and functioning multilateral system in protecting and assisting 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. And it is in situations like this, where the veto is used to prevent life-saving assistance from reaching some of the world’s most vulnerable people, that we can see clearly how outdated and obstructionist it is.

For the third time since its adoption of the veto initiative in April last year (see A/76/PV.69), the General Assembly has been convened in its regular session as a result of a veto cast in the Security Council, this one on 11 July (see S/PV.9371). It was the eighteenth veto cast by the Russian Federation in the past 12 years with the aim of blocking Council action on Syria. The vetoed draft resolution (S/2023/506) put forward by the two co-penholders, Brazil and Switzerland, would have extended the mandate for cross-border aid through the Bab Al-Hawa border crossing for nine months, in line with a needs assessment reflected in the report of the Secretary-General (S/2023/464), which made it clear that most United Nations humanitarian assistance, which is of essential importance for millions of people in the north-west of the country, is routed through the Bab Al-Hawa crossing. The draft resolution enjoyed strong support in the Council, with 13 members voting in favour of it. We thank the co-penholders for their tireless efforts, for creating strong support for the draft resolution and for ensuring cohesion among the elected members of the Security Council. No Security Council product on this topic has been adopted since. It is vital that the Assembly discuss the relevant legal arguments and political implications of this veto, both because of the institutional relationship between these two main organs and because of the fact that the Assembly has established the principles and modalities for humanitarian assistance. We thank the President of the General Assembly for the prompt scheduling of today’s debate. The veto cast last week mirrors that cast by the same State almost exactly 12 months ago (see S/PV.9087). But the circumstances have changed in two vital aspects. First, the earthquakes and aftershocks that hit southern Türkiye and northern Syria in February affected almost 9 million people in Syria and resulted in the opening of two additional border crossings. Secondly, following the veto, the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic indicated that it would consent to reopening the Bab Al-Hawa crossing to the United Nations and its specialized agencies, while putting forward conditions for its cooperation that the United Nations has called unacceptable, as they are incompatible with relevant provisions of international law. Granting access for humanitarian assistance is a legal obligation. It should not have taken nine years and an earthquake to give consent for the delivery of cross- border aid to the suffering population. The discussions in the Security Council and the information reflected in the reports of the Secretary-General and elsewhere have not produced any valid reason for withholding such consent at any point. 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 Syria. We also want to point out that the intentional starvation of civilians is a prosecutable crime under international criminal law. We support the ongoing efforts by the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) to find modalities for the delivery of humanitarian aid through Bab Al-Hawa that are fully consistent with international law and humanitarian principles, in line with resolution 46/182, which our Russian colleagues just cited this morning. The United Nations and its implementing partners must be able to engage with relevant State and non-State parties, as operationally necessary, to carry out safe and unimpeded humanitarian operations specifically. As we meet today, it appears that Security Council action to ensure predictable and reliable cross-border aid to Syria is blocked, evidently for the foreseeable future. We note again in that context that humanitarian access in the situation under discussion is governed by international humanitarian law. Given its central role in creating the humanitarian architecture, reflected in particular in resolution 46/182, the Assembly has a natural role in considering its delivery in particular situations. As we await the outcome of the ongoing discussions between OCHA and the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic, the Assembly, in line with its powers and functions under the Charter, should reflect on possible action with the aim of ensuring and supporting the flow of aid, on the basis of regular reporting from the Secretary-General.

We are gathered here today to discuss the Security Council’s failure to adopt a draft resolution on cross- border humanitarian aid into Syria, with 13 nations voting in favour, one abstaining and one casting a conscious and decisive veto (see S/PV.9371). It was a conscious and decisive step to accept preventable additional suffering and loss of life on the Council’s watch. It was a conscious and decisive step to deny humanitarian actors on the ground the authorization necessary to design and implement projects that provide life-saving supplies and dignified solutions to a people battered by war. This conflict, which has been ongoing and unchecked since 2011, was exacerbated by the widespread damage caused by an earthquake earlier this year, creating one of the greatest humanitarian crises that we have seen in more than a decade. This is a time in which we should be doing everything we can to aid people in north-west Syria, in line with international humanitarian law. Tuesday, 11 July was an opportunity for us to do exactly that. And yet because of one conscious and decisive veto, the people of north-western Syria were given nothing. The constant political weaponization of United Nations cross-border aid will once again bring real, painful realities to innocent people on the ground. The failure of the Security Council will now exacerbate the situation for the people of Syria, a people who have already suffered so much. On a route that the United Nations has deemed indispensable, cross-border aid is not being delivered. Allowing aid is not a privilege but a duty of States. It is not something that should be welcomed, it is an obligation that is expected to be fulfilled. Consent to aid should not be arbitrarily withheld, and the independence of the United Nations in applying humanitarian principles should be respected. It must be based on needs alone, not on political requests by parties to the conflict. We must remember that arbitrary denial of aid, the use of starvation as a method of warfare and the targeting of aid workers are internationally unlawful and constitute a serious breach of international law. Imminent international legal experts and international organizations have made it clear that under international humanitarian law, in particular article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, offers of aid may be made to all the parties to a conflict. Likewise, the International Court of Justice states in its jurisprudence that there can be no question that the provision of strictly humanitarian aid to persons or forces in another country, whatever their political affiliations or objectives, cannot be regarded as unlawful intervention or contrary to international law in any way. Furthermore, article 3 lays out the minimum standards applicable to non-international armed conflicts, such as in Syria, and stresses that all parties must comply with the binding duties established. United Nations humanitarian aid should not be abused, diverted, obstructed or used to fund or fuel the conflict. With one conscious and decisive veto, a member of the Security Council has failed to uphold that pledge. A conscious and decisive step has jeopardized the welfare of a people in need. It is a step that we, as an international community, must consciously and decisively reject. Costa Rica supports United Nations agencies in taking all possible steps to continue the Organization’s cross-border aid delivery and coordination to the people of north-west Syria in the most efficient and effective way, in accordance with international law. In that regard, and considering the outcome of the ongoing discussions between the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic, the Assembly should exercise its powers and functions under the Charter of the United Nations to take appropriate action. Our primary objective is and must be to ensure the uninterrupted flow of aid, with consistent and reliable reporting from the Secretary-General as a basis for decision-making. Costa Rica stands ready to explore relevant measures to achieve that aim.

Austria aligns itself with the statement delivered previously on behalf of the European Union (EU). We are gathered here today because a permanent member of the Security Council has once again blocked Council action with a veto (see S/PV.9371). That action was designed to ensure humanitarian relief to millions of Syrians. We welcome today’s debate, which holds Security Council members accountable to the wider membership of the United Nations. It is another good example of the important impact of the so-called veto initiative of resolution 76/262. The Charter of the United Nations establishes that the Security Council acts on behalf of all of us while carrying out its duties for the maintenance of international peace and security. According to Article 24, the Council acts in order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations. Last week the Council could not act on our behalf to help Syrians, due to a veto by Russia. Let us be clear here. The permanent members were not accorded the power of veto to prevent the Security Council from fulfilling its mandate. It should not be used to hinder the Council in discharging its duties and ensuring prompt and effective action. Effective multilateralism at the United Nations sometimes requires amending national positions to enable results supported by a majority. Effective multilateralism requires a willingness to compromise. That holds particularly true for humanitarian resolutions, where the lives of civilians are at stake. The legitimacy of using the veto to prevent humanitarian action supported by a large majority cannot be justified — neither morally, legally, by reference to the Charter or by attempts to create parallel realities. Millions of Syrians depend on humanitarian aid delivered via the Bab Al-Hawa crossing point. We welcome the opening of two additional border crossings between Türkiye and Syria — Bab Al-Salam and Bab Al-Rai — in the aftermath of the devastating earthquake in February. But alone they are not enough to deliver humanitarian assistance to all Syrians in need. As Emergency Relief Coordinator Martin Griffiths put it last week, Bab Al-Hawa functions as the centre of gravity for the United Nations cross-border response in Syria. We therefore fail to understand why Russia blocked the draft proposal (S/2023/506) on 11 July to extend the cross-border mechanism for humanitarian assistance for nine months, which was already a compromise. And we fail to be convinced by the arguments presented this morning. We thank the penholders, Brazil and Switzerland, for their tireless efforts in trying to find common ground, and we commend the perseverance of the 10 elected members of the Council, who have shown leadership on the file for many years. We note that the Syrian authorities agreed to open the Bab Al-Hawa crossing for six months. That is a positive step, and given the humanitarian needs of the Syrian population, it could also be a step in the right direction. But questions remain, especially regarding the time frame and conditions that Syria has imposed. We remain convinced by the arguments of the Secretary-General and the countless humanitarian organizations appealing to the Council to renew the mandate of the cross-border mechanism for at least 12 months so that they can plan their work, prepare, sign necessary contracts and effectively ensure the delivery of humanitarian assistance. We deeply regret that those arguments were not accepted. As a result, aid organizations will now again have to deal with uncertainty in their planning. The conditions posed by Syria are particularly worrisome. According to the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, they would not allow for the provision of humanitarian assistance in line with humanitarian principles. We therefore call on Syria to remove them. So let us be clear. If the Syrian authorities do not extend the time frame or withdraw their conditions, Security Council action may again become necessary to ensure that help reaches those who need it. And we will then be back at square one — back to where we seriously contemplate whether the General Assembly might not have to step up with confidence and resolve in order to help out and make decisions when the Security Council is not capable of acting in accordance with its mandate, in the interests of suffering civilians and of the United Nations. I want to make one last point in order to address the arguments that are sometimes made suggesting that the EU and its member States have a narrow focus where their international assistance and help are concerned. Since 2011, the EU and its member States have provided more than €30 billion in humanitarian assistance to the Syrian people in the country and the region. That is not Europeans helping only Europeans but Europeans helping those in need in the Middle East. At the seventh Brussels Conference on supporting the future of Syria and the region, held in June, Austria announced an additional pledge of €19 million, bringing our total support to Syria and the region to €27 million in 2023 alone. Austria also supports projects in the areas of demining and early recovery in Syria. That is all part of European help to people in need, wherever they are. Finally, let me stress that the only way to resolve the Syrian crisis is through a political settlement, in accordance with Security Council resolution 2254 (2015). And of course that will also require much trust, compromise and willingness to find a solution.

Ireland aligns itself with the statement made on behalf of the European Union (EU). We deplore Russia’s decision to veto the draft Security Council resolution (S/2023/506) that would have reauthorized the Syria cross-border humanitarian access mechanism. The draft resolution was put forward by Brazil and Switzerland, and Ireland fully supports their important and tireless work as co-penholders on the file. I would like to thank you, Mr. President, for convening this veto initiative meeting, which is an important forum for members of the General Assembly to respond to the solitary veto cast in the Security Council last week (see S/PV.9371). I therefore want to highlight the sobering reality at the heart of today’s discussion. In 2023, the number of people in dire need in Syria has climbed to 15.3 million. Of those in need, 4.1 million are in the north-west. That is 4.1 million people, mostly women and children, for whom this crossing is an essential lifeline. Their welfare and survival hang in the balance because of the reckless and irresponsible actions of the Russian Federation, a permanent member of the Security Council. We took note of the 13 July proposal by the Syrian Arab Republic to allow the United Nations and its agencies to deliver aid through the Bab Al-Hawa crossing. Our assessment, however, is that the conditions imposed by the Syrian Government are simply unacceptable. They jeopardize the impartial and independent nature of humanitarian assistance. This is a grave matter, and the United Nations needs to engage with all the relevant parties to ensure unimpeded access to those in need. Short-term bilateral agreements do not provide sufficient certainty or predictability for humanitarian organizations to plan and deliver assistance and essential services in a timely and efficient manner. Ireland calls on all Member States and relevant actors to redouble their efforts to find a solution that prioritizes the welfare of the Syrian people. Such an outcome must allow humanitarian actors to deliver assistance and services to those in need without interference. We stand ready to support any initiative aimed at ensuring the uninterrupted flow of humanitarian assistance to people in desperate need. The uncertainty we are now seeing has one root cause — the Russian veto. The instrumentalization of this privilege is shameful. Indeed, what we have before us today is a distressing spectacle of political theatre, while desperate civilians pay the price. The veto is an instrument designed to respond to the geopolitics of a different time. Every time it is abused to prevent humanitarian action, we are reminded that it belongs on the scrapheap of history. It is plain for all the world to see that it is an anachronism that undermines the Council’s ability to deliver on its responsibilities. Rarely has the case for abolishing the veto been as compelling as it is today. Its continued use by some permanent members undermines the credibility and legitimacy of the Council from within, and by extension that of the United Nations. While we in the Assembly endlessly debate Security Council reform, those outside the United Nations are increasingly coming to the conclusion that the Council is not fit for purpose and is not fulfilling its vital mandate. The abuse of the veto we are seeing today, and indeed its very existence, contributes to that view. The longer reform is postponed, the more we risk further undermining the credibility of the Security Council as the guarantor of international peace and security.

The General Assembly meets today to discuss the veto used on 11 July (see S/PV.9371) by the Russian Federation against draft resolution S/2023/506, submitted by Brazil and Switzerland, which sought to renew the Bab Al-Hawa border crossing for the delivery of humanitarian assistance to Syria. Given the importance of humanitarian assistance and the critical situation on the ground, another veto on that same issue is unacceptable. We took note of the Syrian Government’s offer to keep the Bab Al-Hawa crossing open for six months, but we have also taken note of the concern expressed by United Nations humanitarian actors with respect to the conditions imposed. A cross-border humanitarian assistance mechanism that adheres to the principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence in Syria is crucial to the lives of millions of people caught up in the conflict. We regret that once again an issue that should be strictly humanitarian is being politicized. In that context, Mexico once again highlights the following four points that we consider essential. First, a predictable and seamless humanitarian border crossing into north-western Syria is necessary. Secondly, humanitarian assistance cannot, and should not, be held hostage to political considerations. That is a strict obligation under international humanitarian law, so that all parties to the conflict must adhere to the principles of impartiality and neutrality. Thirdly, we urge all members of the Council, current and future, to seek a sustainable solution that allows humanitarian organizations to operate in Syria, while prioritizing the needs of the Syrian population. Fourthly and lastly, the so-called right of the veto has a visibly harmful and paralysing effect. In the case at hand, it jeopardizes access to equipment, personnel and resources that represent the minimum standards of humanitarian aid in a conflict that has lasted for more than 12 years. In conclusion, we call on all delegations that have not yet done so to join the Franco-Mexican initiative for the voluntary restraint of the veto in cases of mass atrocities, which already has 106 signatory States.

We thank the President of the General Assembly for organizing today’s debate, which reinforces the transparency and accountability of the Security Council to the General Assembly. We welcome the transmission of the Council’s special report on the exercise of the veto in that regard. Having been elected by the Assembly to sit on the Security Council for the first time in its history, Switzerland has long been committed to improving the Council’s working methods in favour of accountability, transparency and coherence. We regret that, for the second time since the adoption last year of resolution 76/262, a debate is being held on the issue of cross-border humanitarian aid in Syria. At a time when humanitarian needs are greater than ever, millions of people in north-west Syria have been plunged into uncertainty by the current impasse. The international community must find a solution to meet their needs. As co-penholders on the Syrian humanitarian file since the beginning of the year, Brazil and Switzerland have been in constant contact with all the members of the Council, the countries of the region, the members of the General Assembly and humanitarian actors. We engaged inclusively, constructively and in good faith and spared no efforts to accommodate their different concerns and reach consensus on the draft resolution (S/2023/506) that is the subject of today’s debate. We were guided by a single objective: to ensure that people in need continue to receive the humanitarian aid they depend on every day in the most difficult circumstances. We were also guided by the operational needs of humanitarian actors to maintain rapid and unhindered access. We thank all the members of the Council that supported that approach, which rejects any politicization of humanitarian aid. In particular, the 10 elected members showed great unity and spared no effort in their search for a compromise. The draft resolution resulting from those efforts was a compromise that was acceptable to the vast majority of Security Council members. All humanitarian actors, including the Secretary-General, stressed that a 12-month mandate would provide the predictability needed to plan operations. Although we heard and supported that call, we made another compromise for a nine-month extension in order to find common ground. That timeline would have made it possible to weather the harsh winter months. However, that compromise text was not adopted because of a veto by a permanent member. That veto therefore enabled a single member of the Security Council to call into question the extension of the cross-border aid mechanism, the objective of which is purely humanitarian. As a matter of principle, Switzerland is not in favour of using the veto. Even for those who do not share that position, it is difficult to reconcile that use of the veto with the responsibility we all share by having subscribed to the principles and values of the Charter of the United Nations. Since 2014, the Security Council has authorized humanitarian access to people in need in north-west Syria. We have a collective responsibility to them. We have taken note of the note verbale from the Permanent Mission of the Syrian Arab Republic dated 13 July, which announced the decision to open the Bab Al-Hawa border crossing to the United Nations. We have also taken note of the fact that that decision could provide the basis for the United Nations to lawfully conduct cross-border humanitarian operations through Bab Al-Hawa. The United Nations and its partners must be able to continue to provide assistance to people in need, in accordance with international humanitarian law and the principles of humanity, impartiality, neutrality and independence. We recall that authorizing and facilitating the rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian aid for civilians in need is an obligation under international humanitarian law. Switzerland and its partner, co-penholder Brazil, therefore remain committed to working with all stakeholders to find a solution that will allow the continuation of United Nations cross-border aid that provides assistance to the most vulnerable, including protection services. Millions of people in north-west Syria currently depend on it. Following the expiry of the Security Council’s authorization, the uncertainty in which those people live is great. It is therefore crucial that we continue to do all we can to ensure that aid continues to reach those in need, without discrimination and for as long as necessary. We welcome the fact that today’s debate provides members States of the General Assembly with an opportunity to strengthen the call for consensus and solutions to meet the humanitarian imperative.

Japan expresses its deep regret that Russia chose to cast a veto on 11 July (see S/PV.9371), blocking the reauthorization of the cross- border humanitarian aid mechanism in Syria. Russia’s veto is a clear reflection of its indifference to the suffering of the Syrian people. I dare say that it goes against the solemn duty of a permanent member of the Security Council. I listened attentively to the explanation of Russia. I am not convinced why the veto was responsible behaviour. I am not convinced why it can be justified to put the lives of more than 4 million people, including 3 million women and children, in an extremely precarious situation, especially in the aftermath of the severe earthquakes. The abuse of the veto damages the United Nations and multilateralism. The report of the Secretary-General is clear. The cross-border mechanism under the relevant Security Council resolutions is the only way to effectively deliver life-saving humanitarian assistance to the people of north-western Syria, and most Security Council members supported draft resolution S/2023/506. It is unfortunate that Russia once again chose to create hardships for the local people. We are aware of the Syrian Government’s recent decision to allow humanitarian aid operation under certain conditions. However, that cannot be as reliable and as transparent as the established mechanism. We need a Security Council resolution for the people of Syria. Japan, as a responsible member of the Security Council, will continue to work constructively with other partners to that end. The needs of the Syrian people should be our top priority.

We regret that we meet today because a permanent member of the Security Council cast a veto on draft resolution S/2023/506, on humanitarian assistance for the Syrian people (see S/PV.9371). We are concerned that the veto was used to block a draft resolution on humanitarian assistance, after a similar veto was used just last year on the same topic (see S/PV.9087). We call on all Member States, especially the members of the Security Council, not to politicize humanitarian assistance for people in need. I take this opportunity to thank Brazil and Switzerland, co-penholders on the Syrian humanitarian file, for working tirelessly to find a solution to the issue. We also acknowledge with appreciation the efforts of the 10 elected members of the Security Council in actively exploring compromises that could help to break the impasse at the Council. The provision of humanitarian assistance is one of the key responsibilities of the United Nations. We hope that the Council will be united on matters concerning humanitarian assistance and will facilitate the work of humanitarian actors. Singapore continues to support a more transparent and effective Security Council that is accountable and able to respond efficiently to global challenges.

Almost three months ago, we met (see A/77/PV.68) on the occasion of the first anniversary of the resolution on a standing mandate for a General Assembly debate when a veto is cast in the Security Council (resolution 76/262). My delegation takes this opportunity to reiterate its view that that decision was the right one, as it contributes positively to mechanisms that improve the working methods and, above all, the accountability of the Security Council. There is no doubt that the resolution strengthens our Organization, because it ensures greater legitimacy and transparency. However, we regret that on this third occasion we meet on exactly the same matter that was discussed at the previous meeting. In that regard, we appreciate the explanation of the reasons for the veto, as it helps us to better understand the circumstances at the international level. My delegation followed closely the Security Council meeting (see S/PV.9371) at which the Russian Federation vetoed draft resolution S/2023/506, submitted by the co-penholders on the humanitarian file on Syria, which sought to renew for a period of nine months the Bab Al-Hawa border crossing for the delivery of humanitarian assistance. In that regard, we wish to highlight that the reports of the Secretary- General called for the renewal of the cross-border aid mechanism to be for 12 months. We appreciate the efforts made by Brazil and Switzerland to reach consensus. In that context, Chile reaffirms its ongoing commitment to international humanitarian law and the international protection of human rights. We agree, like many other members, that ensuring the protection of life and dignity of people affected by armed conflicts and disasters in the world must be a priority. We recognize that in the face of any humanitarian crisis — no matter what kind  — it is essential to provide humanitarian assistance and to protect civilians, essential critical infrastructure and humanitarian workers. We must remember that the inhabitants of northern Syria were affected by a strong earthquake on 6 February, which makes humanitarian aid there much more necessary than before. For that reason, we ask the Security Council to make cohesive and united efforts to achieve results in the negotiations concerning the border crossing in north-west Syria, which allows 85 per cent of United Nations aid to be delivered. We also call for the causes of the conflict in Syria to be fully addressed with a view to putting an end to that humanitarian crisis. Finally, we cannot fail to mention the importance of the Franco-Mexican initiative to restrict the use of the veto in the event of mass atrocities and serious violations of human rights and international law. That proposal is complementary to the Accountability, Coherence, and Transparency group’s code of conduct on Security Council action against genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. It is clear that the issue of the use of the veto should be addressed as part of a comprehensive reform of the United Nations system in order to guarantee greater accessibility, democracy, representativeness, equality of its Members and effectiveness, as well as to better reflect today’s reality in all our institutions.

Guatemala thanks the President of the General Assembly for convening today’s meeting under the agenda item “Use of the veto”. We also thank the President for his wise opening words, which align with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and are in accordance with the principles of independence, impartiality and neutrality, which should govern humanitarian assistance. We also support the submission to the Security Council by the President of the verbatim record of the meeting. Unfortunately, the reality of different conflicts and the use — or misuse — of the veto as a result of political or ideological positions makes clear to us the need to make structural changes in our Organization, particularly with respect to Security Council reform. From our perspective, resolution 377 A (V), entitled “Uniting for peace”, has been a useful mechanism to date for involving the international community in decision-making on the maintenance of international peace and security. We reiterate that the full implementation of the resolution does not change the underlying problem, although it does help to demonstrate the need to democratize and increase representativeness in that regard so that the maintenance of international order does not depend solely on the unilateral and non-representative decision of a few States. It is unfortunate that today States are once again obliged to participate in a General Assembly meeting to discuss an issue that is strictly a Security Council concern, especially since it is a matter of great relevance  — a humanitarian issue. On this occasion, the matter at hand is the non-renewal of the cross- border mechanism for the delivery of humanitarian aid in the Syrian Arab Republic. From our point of view, the international community must support the cross- border aid mechanism, an essential humanitarian tool in Syria, for a period of no less than nine months. Guatemala disagrees with what the representative of the Russian Federation expressed in terms of cross-border deliveries being extraordinary measures that undermine Syria’s sovereignty. For that reason, Guatemala supports the call made by various United Nations humanitarian entities, such as the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the International Organization for Migration, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, UNICEF, the World Food Programme, the World Health Organization and the United Nations Population Fund, to renew Syria’s cross-border aid mechanism for at least 12 months, considering that a six-month extension of the mechanism will only increase its operating costs. Any and all avenues for delivering humanitarian assistance must be kept open and indeed expanded. Cross-border assistance remains an essential part of the operations of the United Nations and its partners that are reaching 4.1 million people, 80 per cent of whom are women and children. In that regard, Guatemala rejects the use of the veto by the Russian Federation to block the nine-month extension of the cross-border mechanism for the delivery of humanitarian aid in the Syrian Arab Republic, which puts aside the needs of the Syrian people. That demonstrates once again the importance of continuing and finalizing the discussions on Security Council reform with a view to achieving an Organization that can comply with the purposes and principles that were established since its foundation and are framed in the Charter of the United Nations. However, the Syrian people cannot wait  — they are the responsibility of all of us, as is the protection of humanitarian personnel.

Portugal aligns itself with the statement delivered by the observer of the European Union and would like to add the following remarks in our national capacity. We once again make use of a mechanism that is meant to strengthen the United Nations system and ensure accountability between the Security Council and the General Assembly. As co-sponsors of the veto initiative, we believe that today’s debate is a very relevant one. The uncertainty arising from the repeated threat and the use of the veto in the Council is on this occasion at the cost of the Syrian people and the effectiveness of United Nations humanitarian assistance. We deeply regret the veto used by the Russian Federation against draft resolution S/2023/506, submitted by the co-penholders, Switzerland and Brazil, which called for a nine-month renewal of the cross-border mechanism. The co-penholders worked very hard to find a compromise that, if approved, would have ensured further predictability for humanitarian actors on the ground in order to better plan and provide critical assistance for the Syrian people. Providing cross-border assistance remains a critical and effective way of bringing help and hope to the millions of Syrian people in need, particularly after the terrible earthquake. We take note of Syria’s decision to allow the United Nations and its agencies to deliver aid in north- west Syria through the Bab Al-Hawa crossing for six months. Nonetheless, that short-term arrangement does not provide sufficient predictability for humanitarian organizations to plan and deliver assistance in a timely and efficient manner. We therefore insist on allowing the provision of assistance through all modalities, across the border as well as cross-line from Damascus, in line with the humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence. We call for the United Nations-coordinated cross-border delivery of humanitarian assistance to be urgently allowed through a compromise that will allow the renewal of Security Council resolution 2672 (2023), and we appeal to Syria not to politicize the delivery of humanitarian aid. Portugal will continue to support a peaceful solution in Syria, based on Security Council resolution 2254 (2015). We will continue to deliver support and humanitarian aid and to pay special attention to the provision of education in the humanitarian context. Education is critical for children and young persons in conflict settings; it is the very foundation of tolerance and peace and the cornerstone of sustainable development. Finally, we would again encourage the Security Council members to include the special report in the next annual report, together with a summary of today’s debate.

I thank the President of the General Assembly for convening today’s meeting in implementation of resolution 76/262, the mechanism of which was activated when a veto was used during the Security Council’s consideration of draft resolution S/2023/506, on Syria, under the agenda item “The situation in the Middle East” (see S/PV.9371). This is the second time that the veto initiative mechanism has been activated to address the same issue — the renewal of cross-border humanitarian assistance in Syria. I will speak on two subjects: first, the mechanism as such and secondly, the issue on which the veto was used. Today’s meeting contributes to the transparency and the accountability that strengthen the role and authority of the General Assembly, as well as its relationship with the Security Council. The mechanism helps to strengthen the United Nations system. When resolution 76/262 was adopted (see A/76/PV.69), Ecuador highlighted that, while the five permanent members of the Council had the so-called veto right, the other members of the Assembly had the right of participation. For that reason, we also call on all the members of the Assembly to contribute to the debate, which has the role of amplifying the efforts and positions of the Member States. We express our appreciation to the presidency of the Security Council for having transmitted the special report within the established deadlines and in accordance with the procedure initiated in 2022. In any case, we recognize that there is room to continue improving the process with a view to expanding impact where it truly matters — namely, in the areas of peace, security and humanitarian assistance on the ground. That brings me to my second point. Ecuador regrets that the veto was used despite the unanimous position of the 10 elected members of the Council, which reflects concretely the unity of the majority of United Nations Members from all regions. In applying Article 27, paragraph 3, of the Charter, we cannot at the same time ignore Article 24, paragraph 1, by which the Security Council acts on behalf of the Members of the United Nations. Ecuador defends the need to systematically guarantee the predictability, certainty and planning of humanitarian efforts through effective mandates of sufficient duration, in particular when it comes to border crossings, and even more so given that the obligation of all States to guarantee humanitarian access comes from international humanitarian law itself, as already pointed out by several delegations today. The lives of millions of people and the response to their humanitarian needs cannot be buried under a struggle among Council members. Ecuador recognizes the central role of Brazil and Switzerland as co-penholders on draft resolution S/2023/506, which was vetoed in spite of the extensive efforts of both countries to achieve a text that made it possible to bring the positions closer together while simultaneously having an effective impact on the protection of people in Syria. We trust that these efforts will continue, and Ecuador will continue to support them as an elected member of the Security Council, and as a permanent member of the General Assembly.

What unfortunately transpired last week in the Security Council (see S/PV.9371) has deeply concerned the Australian Government. Russia’s veto of the Security Council’s draft resolution authorizing the delivery of critical aid to Syrians in need (S/2023/506) is indefensible. For this to happen at a time when humanitarian needs in Syria are at their highest defies humanity. Every single month, support delivered through the Bab Al-Hawa crossing provides 2.7 million people with the food, essential medicine and humanitarian supplies that they desperately need. Once again, the cross-border mechanism is under threat. But the pressure and humanitarian need remain immense. Over 12 years of violent conflict, economic collapse and devastating earthquakes earlier this year have led to the dire situation in Syria. A staggering 15.3 million Syrians require humanitarian assistance  — around 4.1 million in north-west Syria alone. Alleviating the ongoing suffering in north-west Syria requires unhindered and uninterrupted access for humanitarian actors. This is a principle we need to defend. That is why a 12-month extension of this vital cross-border lifeline is necessary to ensure aid reliably reaches the most vulnerable. While the Syrian regime has signalled the Bab Al-Hawa crossing is open for United Nations agencies, the conditions are impractical and inconsistent with principled humanitarian action. We cannot in good conscience allow vulnerable Syrians to be held captive to the political whims and ambitions of the Syrian regime and its Russian enablers. Vital humanitarian assistance and access must not be weaponized. Australia strongly supports the cross-border mechanism and calls on the Security Council to find a pathway forward to restore this lifeline. We reiterate that a lasting end to the crisis in Syria can only be achieved through a peaceful resolution to the ongoing violence, in accordance with Security Council resolution 2254 (2015). As today’s debate demonstrates, many members of the Assembly are deeply concerned by the ability of one State to block Council action on this critical humanitarian issue. In our view, the General Assembly can play a role in such situations, consistent with its powers under the Charter. Australia remains committed to working with international partners to end the suffering and to foster a better future for the people of Syria.

We welcome the convening of this meeting and highlight its importance in the process of building a more inclusive and transparent United Nations. The cross-border humanitarian assistance mechanism in the Syrian Arab Republic has been, for the last few years, and even more recently, a guarantee of subsistence for millions of Syrian men and women who live trapped in a long, complex conflict with deep ramifications. Broadly speaking, what does the current situation look like? According to United Nations data, in the Syrian Arab Republic today there are 15.3 million people with humanitarian needs, of which 6.5 million are children and 4.9 million have extreme and catastrophic needs. Through this logistical arrangement and its monitoring system, which were first authorized by the Security Council in 2014 (resolution 2139 (2014)), in just the month of June, 896 trucks with humanitarian assistance in the areas of water, sanitation and hygiene, education, nutrition, shelter and health, among others, were able to meet the needs of almost 2 million people in the north-west of the country. For this reason, the Dominican Republic is dismayed and regrets that, due to a veto, the Security Council has not been able to reach a decision that would keep this safeguard alive, as was the spirit of the proposal presented by Switzerland and Brazil as co-penholders. Given this situation, we would like to share the following points. First of all, we wish to acknowledge the humanitarian actors on the ground for their work in circumstances that are very challenging and, unfortunately, more uncertain today than ever. For the Dominican Republic, it is imperative, then, that the Security Council continue to hold deliberations focused on the needs of the people affected, and we make our most vehement appeals to all its members in this regard. It is also everyone’s responsibility to guarantee the prevalence of the humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence in all humanitarian action coordinated by the United Nations. In order to translate these principles into concrete benefits for the most vulnerable population, the United Nations and its partners on the ground must be provided with humanitarian spaces, as well as the necessary predictability of said assistance. Once again, our aspiration is to see a Security Council that, in matters of humanitarian action, remains empowered to make decisions based solely on the humanitarian needs of the civilian population and that, to reach such decisions, exhausts the negotiation process constructively and in good faith. We harbour the hope that in the coming days and weeks it will be possible to arrive at a solution that is acceptable to the parties and that responds to the calls of the women and children who today suffer the calamities of a protracted conflict that has robbed them of much of their lives. It is now time to assume the historic responsibility presented by the current situation. We must put aside any consideration that does not include the alleviation of the suffering and needs of a worn-out population that deserves our unwavering solidarity.

Our meeting today is triggered by Russia’s seventeenth veto on Syria (see S/PV.9371). Again and again, Russia has used its veto to deny humanitarian access to the people of north-west Syria and to obstruct accountability for violence against civilians. This time, that veto has been particularly cruel. The United Nations was crystal clear about what it needs to get humanitarian access to the 4.6 million people in north-west Syria: sustained, predictable access, in line with international humanitarian law, for a minimum of 12 months. Fourteen members of the Council were ready to agree a resolution mandating that access. Fourteen members entered into negotiations in good faith and made compromise after compromise to try to find common ground. We are grateful to Brazil and Switzerland for their tireless work as co-penholders. One member alone objected, for purely political reasons, squabbling about the length time for which the United Nations would have humanitarian access and ultimately using its veto rather than putting in the hard work of negotiating. It went down from 12 months, to six months, to nothing. Having avoided negotiations, Russia counterproposed a take-it-or-leave-it draft resolution (S/2023/507) that was supported by just one other Council member. The United Nations has been clear that the conditions since set out by Syria to deliver aid are unworkable and unacceptable and in contravention of international humanitarian law. Let us not forget that this is a live conflict. The regime continues to launch aerial assaults against people in north-west Syria. And now it wants to control the aid that reaches them as well. The idea that Syria is acting responsibly here is a cruel joke. The United Nations is now only able to operate across Bab Al-Rai and Bab Al-Salam. Those crossings, according to Syria’s terms, are only open for another three and a half weeks. That is a far cry from the 12 months for which the Secretary-General has called. And to say that the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) cannot or should not engage with all parties on the ground to secure safe access is in violation of international humanitarian law and of OCHA’s mandate. It puts the safety and security of humanitarian teams at risk. Around the world, humanitarians need to speak to all parties so they can get aid to people who desperately need it. Syria is no different. As we have heard today, time and again, donors are concerned about what this means for the millions of dollars provided every year in humanitarian assistance to the Syrian people. They are concerned about the safety of civilian humanitarian teams on the ground and about the transparency and governance arrangements that help them know their aid is getting to the people that need it — not being siphoned off. Let us therefore be clear: humanitarian assistance needs to be delivered in line with international humanitarian law, not held hostage to politics.

Let me begin by thanking the President of the General Assembly for convening today’s debate on a veto that was cast by a permanent member during the meeting of the Security Council on 11 July under the agenda item “The situation in the Middle East” (see S/PV.9371). The Republic of Korea deeply deplores the failure of the Security Council to adopt the draft resolution on (S/2023/506) extending the authorization of United Nations cross-border relief operations at the Bab Al-Hawa border crossing due to Russia’s veto — despite 13 votes in favour. As the recent report of the Secretary- General stated (S/2023/464), humanitarian needs in Syria have reached the highest levels since the beginning of the conflict, with 15.3 million people — nearly 70 per cent of the total population — requiring humanitarian aid. The earthquakes in February further devastated Syrian communities already ravaged by the 12 years of conflict. The United Nations cross-border relief operations have been a lifeline for more than 4 million Syrian people in need, 80 per cent of whom are women and children. The Secretary-General, the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) and the humanitarian partners of the United Nations all called for an additional of 12-month authorization of cross- border delivery to ensure the predictability necessary for operational planning, as well as to bridge the harsh winter months. The vetoed draft resolution proposing a nine-month reauthorization of cross-border operations was the outcome of extensive consultations among the Council members, Syria and humanitarian actors on the ground. I take this opportunity to commend the two co-penholders, Brazil and Switzerland, for all their efforts to find common ground among the Council members. I also commend the 10 elected members of the Council for the unity they have shown on this matter. Considering the grave situation of the Syrian people, we believe it is imperative to continue cross- border assistance, which enables humanitarian support on a much larger scale. Therefore, my delegation strongly urges the Council members to redouble their efforts to find a solution to guarantee the continued delivery of cross-border assistance, putting the needs of the Syrian people first. For its part, the Republic of Korea is strongly committed to joining the international efforts to alleviate the suffering of the Syrian people. At the seventh Brussels Conference on Supporting the Future of Syria and the Region, last month, we pledged to provide additional contributions this year in humanitarian assistance to Syria and neighbouring countries that host Syrian refugees. As the Secretary- General has repeatedly stressed, the only way to end the humanitarian crisis in Syria is through a truly nationwide ceasefire and a political solution that enables the Syrian people to determine their own future. As an elected member of the Security Council for the term 2024–2025, the Republic of Korea is committed to contributing to an inclusive political solution in Syria, in line with Security Council resolution 2254 (2015). I would also like to remind all delegations that this is the fourth time that the veto has been cast since the adoption of the landmark resolution 76/262 on the use of the veto. Each of these cases undermined the Security Council’s legitimacy and credibility by highlighting the Council’s dysfunction in the face of humanitarian crises, unlawful annexation attempts and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s nuclear proliferation. The Council’s failure to respond to intrinsically humanitarian issues in Syria will only reinforce already growing calls to limit veto power and strengthen the accountability of permanent members. My delegation would like to reiterate its support for initiatives aimed at limiting the use of the veto and will constructively contribute to the relevant discussions.

Aotearoa New Zealand welcomes the convening of the General Assembly for this veto initiative meeting. New Zealand has opposed the veto from its inception. We remain strong in our conviction that there is no place for this undemocratic and anachronistic device at the United Nations. Russia’s actions have only confirmed us in these views. Just as we were last year (see A/76/PV.95 and A/76/PV.96), we are in this Hall today because a callous use of the veto has once again prevented the Council from fulfilling its responsibilities. In vetoing this draft resolution, Russia has acted to undermine the Council’s credibility (see S/PV.9371). Let us be clear about the context in which this action was taken. The draft resolution proposed by Switzerland and Brazil (S/2023/506) enjoyed the support of 13 members of the Council, an overwhelming majority representing countries from across the United Nations membership. Moreover, this draft resolution concerned a mechanism that is exclusively humanitarian in nature. It contained elements necessary to save lives and to ease the suffering of millions of Syrians. It was fully consistent with international humanitarian law and the humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence. It provided operational certainty for humanitarian organizations on the ground. It was, in short, an important high-quality humanitarian resolution. New Zealand commends the work of Switzerland and Brazil as well as the tireless work of the United Nations, led by the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. We applaud the humanitarian partners delivering assistance where it is most needed, often in extremely dangerous conditions. The Russian Federation’s decision to block this draft resolution has caused unnecessary suffering and uncertainty in providing crucial humanitarian assistance. We have listened to Russia’s explanations today of why it took this course of action, and I am afraid to say that these are simply not credible. We hope that they are listening to us and to all of those who have expressed their dismay at their actions this morning. We take note of the announcement of a six- month extension of humanitarian access through Bab Al-Hawa. But this extension is only meaningful if it genuinely enables continued access. In this regard, we share the deep concerns of others that the unnecessary conditions placed on the modalities of the extension will hinder humanitarian access and place the lives and well-being of millions of Syrians in jeopardy. New Zealand will be watching implementation of the extension very closely, and we will continue to advocate continued unobstructed humanitarian access. This is not an abstract or academic debate. Indeed, the stakes for the people of Syria could hardly be higher. We all know how dire the humanitarian situation is in Syria and how critical the cross-border mechanism remains for reaching those most in need. For this reason, we are particularly troubled that Russia cast its veto before the announcement of the extension of the Bab Al-Hawa crossing, which makes clear that Russia has abused its veto power, blocking the draft resolution with irresponsible and callous disregard for the lives of millions before any alternative modality was in place or on offer. New Zealand is a strong proponent of the veto initiative, and we hope that these meetings will encourage Council members to compromise for the collective good. At the same time, we reiterate that when the Security Council is unable to act, the General Assembly can play a constructive role in finding potential ways forward. We further emphasize that the General Assembly can take its own decisions on the question in front of it if it so chooses. Resolution 76/262 is not prescriptive in this regard. We note that the General Assembly plays an important role in humanitarian affairs and can legitimately do so in this instant.

Slovakia aligns itself with the statement delivered on behalf of the European Union. The following remarks will be made in my national capacity. We appreciate the convening of today’s debate, which is held pursuant to resolution 76/262, providing an opportunity to the broader United Nations membership to speak about the important topic of humanitarian access in Syria. Slovakia deplores the veto by the Russian Federation in the Security Council on 11 July (see S/PV.9371) on the renewal of Security Council resolution 2672 (2023) regarding cross-border delivery of humanitarian assistance to people in north- west Syria, which will further worsen the already dire humanitarian situation there. We take note of the decision of the Government of Syria on 13 July to allow the United Nations and its agencies to cross through Bab Al-Hawa for six months in order to deliver aid. However, this short- term bilateral agreement does not provide sufficient predictability for humanitarian organizations to plan and deliver humanitarian assistance in a timely and efficient manner. The extension of the mechanism’s mandate was a humanitarian imperative in terms of preserving the functioning of a critical humanitarian lifeline for millions of Syrian men, women and children, including millions of internally displaced persons in north-west Syria depending on the vital humanitarian assistance delivered through this mechanism for their survival. We support the humanitarian co-penholders, Switzerland and Brazil. Their draft resolution (S/2023/506), which proposed to renew the border crossing at Bab Al-Hawa for nine months, was a genuine, constructive effort to balance the wishes of all Council members. The compromise proposal calling for a nine-month renewal had garnered wide support from Security Council members, with 13 votes in favour. Ignoring these calls, the Russian Federation has once again politicized the discussion, taken the Security Council hostage and cynically blocked paths towards predictable, long-term, cross-border humanitarian access in Syria. Slovakia continues to advocate that all parties depoliticize this issue and allow unimpeded and continued delivery of humanitarian aid to all those in need. As well documented by the humanitarian community, there is no adequate alternative to cross- border assistance in meeting significant needs that only continue to increase. Slovakia calls on all parties to the conflict to join forces to reaffirm and consolidate strong support for a political solution, in accordance with Security Council resolution 2254 (2015), and commends the tireless efforts of Special Envoy of the Secretary-General for Syria Pedersen aimed at advancing a political solution in Syria.

The Islamic Republic of Iran 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. Iran supports the provision of humanitarian assistance without politicization or conditions and in line with the principles of humanity, neutrality and impartiality. The delivery of aid to those in need should not be obstructed by political considerations. The ever-increasing humanitarian crisis in Syria, further compounded by the devastating earthquakes on 6 February, highlights the urgent necessity for humanitarian aid. Ensuring the delivery of impartial and non-politicized assistance to all regions of Syria is paramount for saving lives and reaching the most vulnerable individuals, while avoiding any hindrance from external factors. However, it is crucial to uphold Syria’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and national unity throughout this process. We applaud United Nations agencies and humanitarian partners for their relentless efforts to help the Syrian people and work towards alleviating their suffering. It is important to plan humanitarian aid so that it contributes to restoring infrastructure, rebuilding efforts and strengthening of the Syrian economy. Supporting sustainable, long-term development in the Syria is crucial. The continued imposition of unilateral sanctions poses a significant obstacle to improving Syria’s humanitarian and economic situation. These illegal measures have negatively affected the economy and living standards of the people while limiting the Government’s capacity to deliver basic services. Given the recent earthquakes in Syria, it is even more critical to lift these unjust measures. We regret that the Security Council failed to reach an agreement on the draft resolution for a cross-border mechanism (S/2023/506). However, we acknowledge the sovereign decision of the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic, which, on 13 July, announced that it would grant permission to the United Nations and its relevant specialized agencies for a six-month period to utilize the Bab Al-Hawa crossing point to deliver humanitarian assistance to the Syrian civilian population in need in the north-west region of the country. We warmly welcome this decision and sincerely hope that in providing humanitarian aid, the United Nations and its relevant agencies will address Syria’s legitimate concerns. These concerns include the diversion of aid to terrorist organizations in the north-west region and the need for transparent and non-discriminatory distribution of aid. The Syrian Arab Republic has consistently emphasized that the cross-border mechanism undermines its sovereignty and territorial integrity, providing an opportunity for terrorist groups to exploit humanitarian aid for their own interests. The situation raises legitimate concerns about Western intentions  — that they may seek to divide Syria and establish a self-governing region led by terrorists in the north-west. The continued support for this border crossing through humanitarian aid further exacerbates these worries. It is crucial for Western countries to reconsider their approach and adopt one that fully respects Syrian sovereignty and territorial integrity and avoids legitimizing terrorist groups in Idlib through humanitarian assistance. Instead of perpetuating an environment that enables terrorist groups that have taken millions of people hostage in pursuit of their illegal activities, Western countries should foster an environment that encourages dialogue between the Syrian Government and the concerned parties. In this way, the terrorists can be persuaded to lay down their weapons and put an end to the foreign interference that violates Syria’s territorial integrity. In conclusion, Iran reaffirms its commitment to continuing to support the people and the Government of Syria in overcoming the threats of terrorism and foreign occupation. We stand ready to assist in efforts to rebuild this country, ensuring its unity and preserving its territorial integrity.

I would like to begin my statement today by reiterating that Canada firmly condemns the use of the veto by the Russian Federation on 11 July (see S/PV.9371) on a draft humanitarian resolution in the Security Council (S/2023/506). This is the eighteenth veto that it has used against draft resolutions relating to Syria since 2011. Draft resolution S/2023/506 would have allowed humanitarian assistance to continue to reach persons in need in north-west Syria via the United Nations cross- border mechanism at Bab Al-Hawa for an additional nine months. The Secretary-General has consistently asked the Council to prolong the mechanism for 12 months. Canada and other significant humanitarian donors have done the same, alongside civil society and humanitarian partners. It is important to note that the text proposed by Switzerland and Brazil last week is supported by the majority of the Council, including all 10 elected members. It was a compromise text. It was already less than what the United Nations, the international community and humanitarian partners on the ground told us was necessary to provide humanitarian assistance in an effective, predictable and sustainable way. This text did not deliver in terms of what we knew would have helped to save lives. (spoke in English) In addition to condemning Russia’s veto, I think it is also important that we discuss the comments made by Russia’s Permanent Representative last week when Russia refused to negotiate constructively with their counterparts in the Security Council. He said: “I am warning everyone right here and now that if our draft text [(S/2023/507)] is not supported, the cross-border mechanism can be closed. In the circumstances, we will not accept a technical rollover for any time period” (S/PV.9371, p. 7). That means that Russia told the members of the Council to adopt their competing draft resolution or they would get nothing at all. We can only call this obstructionist behaviour what it is: bullying. I would like to quote the statement of my colleague from Albania to the Security Council last week, who called Russia’s veto “a stab in the back to solidarity”, and he was right. Taking the Security Council hostage, refusing to negotiate in good faith on a draft humanitarian resolution when lives are at stake is the very height of cynicism. This behaviour from a permanent, unelected member of the Security Council — as well as the abuse of the veto power  — runs counter to the purposes and principles of the United Nations as laid out in its Charter. It deserves to be condemned by us all. Following Russia’s veto last week, we also saw the 13 July note verbale from the Syrian regime, “authorizing the United Nations use of the Bab Al-Hawa crossing for six months” and subsequently laying out a laundry list of conditions on the delivery of humanitarian assistance. There should be no conditions on the delivery of humanitarian assistance. We are a major humanitarian donor to Syria, having committed over $775 million in humanitarian assistance since 2016. The principles have been laid out before, and they are humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence. It is completely unacceptable for the Syrian regime itself to attempt to place conditions on the delivery of assistance that run counter to these principles that guide the work of humanitarian actors around the globe. We are also concerned that the conditions laid out by the regime would place local organizations and humanitarians on the ground at greater risk, at a time when humanitarian needs in Syria have reached unprecedented levels, following more than 12 years of conflict and the devastating earthquakes earlier this year. In addition, without a Security Council resolution renewing the provisions of the monitoring mechanism, Canada is concerned that the delivery of cross-border assistance to north-west Syria becomes less transparent and more politicized. The conditions that were laid out in the note verbale for the Syrian Government are political. We do not want to politicize the delivery of humanitarian assistance. Indeed, we want to maintain it in its state of integrity. We therefore are deeply concerned that the latest decision is not one that is motivated by humanitarian needs but by a political agenda, both by Russia and by Syria. And I would add that it is a move that comes almost a decade too late. It is our strong belief that the United Nations must be able to continue to deliver humanitarian assistance to the millions of men, women and children in Syria from across borders and across conflict lines for as long as it is required by the humanitarian conditions that we find still prevailing in Syria. We call on all parties to the conflict to meet their obligations under international humanitarian law and facilitate rapid, safe and unimpeded access to all those in need. If the Security Council fails to act due to the continued obstruction, it is our belief that it falls to us, as members of the General Assembly, to stand firmly alongside Syrian civil society, our humanitarian partners and our fellow humanitarian donors in support of this goal. This debate will continue.

As resolution 76/262 promotes transparency and accountability in the use of the veto in the Security Council, the United States of America continues to support its full implementation. This resolution was co-sponsored by more than 80 delegations, including my own. And now we find ourselves again in the General Assembly Hall. One year ago, Russia vetoed its sixteenth Security Council draft resolution on Syria (see S/PV.9087). Last week made it 17 (see S/PV.9317). The stakes could not be higher for the Syrian people. Before the devastating February earthquake, the United Nations-assessed needs inside Syria were at an all-time high, and the suffering and the needs on the ground have only grown since. The decision before the Security Council that brings us to this Hall today was a straightforward one. The Secretary-General said the United Nations needed a 12-month mandate to sustain the vital lifeline to millions of Syrians that the cross-border aid mechanism provided. The Under-Secretary- General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, Mr. Martin Griffiths, said his humanitarian agencies needed 12 months. Ministers of the Gulf Cooperation Council called for 12 months, as did Türkiye. The vast majority of Security Council members were also unified in supporting 12 months. Only Russia stood in the way, and now aid is no longer flowing through Bab Al-Hawa. One of the most complicated and far-reaching operations of the United Nations is frozen in place. We express our solidarity with the co-penholders of this draft resolution, Brazil and Switzerland, which worked tirelessly and in good faith to find compromise. The United States preferred a more robust draft resolution, but we also appreciated that the only responsible decision was to extend the mandate. We urge the co-penholders  — not former co-penholders or so-called penholders, but the co-penholders  — to continue their work and propose a viable next step to resolve this matter in the Council. Of course, Russia’s veto has life or death consequences. Syrians who have suffered unimaginable horrors have been dealt yet another blow. This reality is unacceptable. The United States and its partners have contributed billions of dollars in humanitarian assistance and pushed all parties on the ground to facilitate aid to all Syrians in need, no matter where they live. But aid cannot be delivered without this cross-border mechanism. As we have heard time and again, there is no replacement for the cross-border mechanism. The United Nations and humanitarian partners on the ground all agree: the proposed way forward announced by the Syrian regime on 13 July is not a workable substitute. Let me repeat that: it is not a workable substitute. Any acceptance of the regime’s attempt to impose unprecedented constraints on United Nations humanitarian operations could have grave consequences for humanitarian relief efforts in other locations and must be rejected. The United States will continue to work with our United Nations partners and all likeminded countries to prevent the regime from hindering the delivery of essential humanitarian assistance to the most vulnerable around the country. Humanitarian aid must never be used as a bargaining chip. It cannot be conditions-based. We must stand up and denounce these tactics, especially when they are implemented under the cover of a veto by a permanent member of the Security Council  — a permanent member that has time and time again weaponized food. The international community must come together and speak out against Russia’s cynical politicization of this purely humanitarian issue. We must act with urgency to reopen the lifeline of Bab Al-Hawa. The Syrian people are counting on us to deliver.

Malta aligns itself with the statement delivered by the European Union and would like to add some additional remarks in its national capacity. Today the lives of millions in Syria remain in jeopardy as the renewal of the humanitarian cross- border mechanism was blocked by Russia’s veto last week (see S/PV.9371). In a year that has seen record high humanitarian needs across the country and against the backdrop of the devastating February earthquakes, such action is a cruel politicization of humanitarian aid. It blatantly places political objectives ahead of the acute and documented needs of millions of Syrians. From a humanitarian point of view, this is simply unacceptable. Just as we did last year (see A/76/PV.95 and A/76/ PV.96), the General Assembly must once again discuss Russia’s use of the veto on this humanitarian lifeline and listen to a narrative that distorts the objective of its need to be maintained and expanded. Let us recall the early days of the Syrian conflict. Humanitarian assistance bound for areas outside the control of Damascus was routinely denied, with aid looted, redirected and tampered with by the Syrian regime. In 2013, this developed into the wholesale denial of aid and besieging of areas of the country in which millions of Syrians lived. Today the populations in need in these areas have swelled to over 4 million, 80 per cent of whom are women and children. It was at this point of major aid obstruction in 2014 that Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, Emergency Relief Coordinator Valerie Amos, leaders of the world’s largest humanitarian organizations and academics came together to demand that the Security Council act in a manner that would enable rather than hinder the principled delivery of humanitarian assistance to those cut off from it by Damascus. They called on the Council to make sure that State sovereignty in a civil conflict could not be used as a pretext to deny or interfere in the delivery of aid to populations that are not normally under the control of the State. They called for Council action to invoke the concept of humanitarian sovereignty to safeguard the most vulnerable in Syria against the instrumentalization of resolution 46/186. From 2014 until now, the Council has held firm on finding a pathway to ensure its continuation as the conflict and protracted humanitarian crisis persisted. This year, the humanitarian co-penholders, Switzerland and Brazil, presented a text of compromise that would have extended and expanded humanitarian action, early-recovery projects, mine action and crossline operations for a period of nine months (S/2023/506). It would have supported the establishment of conditions in Syria for the safe, legal and voluntary return of refugees and the displaced. Yet this humanitarian draft resolution was blocked by a permanent member. Now, as was the case in 2013, the ability to deliver needs-based principled humanitarian assistance to millions in the north-west is firmly in the hands of Damascus. Seeking to replace a cross-border mechanism with a short-term offer of access is just not enough to guarantee needs-based humanitarian action and to safeguard the humanitarian principles of independence, impartiality, neutrality and humanity. Any effort to subvert the operations and independence of the United Nations in Syria are unacceptable, and we commend the United Nations for remaining steadfast in the face of such attempts. In conclusion, Malta remains convinced that the Council must spare no effort to adopt a resolution that would restore this vital mechanism. We call on all of its membership to engage in good faith to achieve consensus on the path forward. As a member of the Security Council, we stand ready to immediately resume discussions and find a realistic and workable solution. There is not a moment to waste.

It has been said that we know that the Security Council can continue to work amid internal fractures, and that the permanent members want it to continue working in many cases. And even if formal reforms are perhaps unlikely, we know the Security Council can change because it has been accommodating in the past. We know that the Security Council’s one formal reform allowed more Member States to sit on the Council, and these States, in turn, have used the Chamber in creative, innovative and new ways, opening up new possibilities for multilateral action via small shifts: meaningfully coordinating with groups outside the Security Council, meaningfully coordinating with each other, transforming the practice of penholding and drawing on the rotating Security Council presidency to advance new agendas and procedures. It is conceded that the aforementioned changes appear small and clearly insufficient to fix the Security Council’s fundamental problems, but they make today’s Security Council markedly different in practice from even a few decades ago. The General Assembly will appreciate that these changes may not formally shift power away from the permanent five, but they empower other members to take up new tasks and, in doing so, change how the Chamber works and which tools are available to diplomats trying to navigate the permanent five’s conflicts, and form part of a canvas of ideas to advance multilateral action on grave conflicts in the face of what we are confronted with today. Now, to understand these changes in practice, we have to start with why the permanent five care about the Security Council at all. Even as their own divergent agendas prevent action on important cases, the permanent five, in my respectful view, have more in common than not on many issues of international peace and security. We have seen that when their own primary interests and political processes are not at stake, they can agree on even complex issues of international peace and security and take action to address pressing issues. That is another idea that we need to think about. Some scholars have argued the Security Council is a place where powerful States can work together to check other States’ military ambitions, each member investing the Chamber and its decisions with importance so every other powerful State will also invest the Chamber with importance. Scholars have also argued that the Council is a place where powerful States can offer their own populations and the international community information about their plans and intentions, making the body a vital part of diplomatic and foreign policy projects, even when it cannot stop the permanent members from breaking, violating or working repugnantly against the Charter of the United Nations. Although a deadlock in the Security Council undoubtedly draws criticism and external attention, the majority of the Council’s work is on wars and crises where no permanent member has a primary national interest in the outcome of the conflict. That is something that we need to perhaps appreciate. Accordingly, the permanent five have an incentive to keep the focus of international decision-making within the Security Council Chamber. The status and rank that a permanent seat on the Security Council provides can incentivize the permanent five to continue to work with one another on some issues, even when their foreign policy goals and interests are rather divergent. This willingness is a space for diplomatic action by other concerned States. The debates on the power of the permanent five on the exercise of the veto has been of great academic value and has for decades contributed to the legal literature of the United Nations in a substantial manner. It is believed that the veto power exclusively held by the permanent five is a feature that has attracted much debate of the Member States, as it is said to be at cross-purposes with a key element of what the United Nations embodies, namely, democracy. It is said that the unequal distribution of power in the Organization is epitomized by the idea of the permanent members making up a third of the most influential organ of the United Nations, which is not altogether democratic. We have in this process considered the Razali plan, the Small Five Group plan, the Group of Four plan, the L.69 Group of Developing Countries plan, the Group of African States proposals, the Uniting for Consensus proposal, the Ezulwini Consensus and the recent adoption of resolution 76/262 and the call for text- based negotiations. So, while recognizing the diverse perspectives and complexities surrounding regional conflicts, we must advocate a more inclusive, transparent and accountable decision-making process. This entails exploring alternative mechanisms that promote consensus- building, dialogue and cooperation, ensuring that the voices of all Member States, particularly those most affected by humanitarian crises, are heard and considered, while assuring the permanent members primacy of place in the decision-making process. Today we have come together to engage in constructive dialogue, fostering a meaningful exchange of ideas and experiences shedding light on whether the veto has the potential to contribute towards plurality by providing a platform for diverse perspectives. It is believed that reforming the Security Council and ensuring greater inclusivity can further enhance plurality within the United Nations system. However, exploring innovative approaches that empower regional organizations, strengthen multilateral cooperation and prioritize the well-being of those most in need can shape a future where the veto power, if it continues to exist, is utilized responsibly and in service of our shared humanitarian goals. In order for the veto power to contribute towards plurality, therefore, it requires the Member States exercising it to do so responsibly and judiciously. Transparency, accountability and a genuine commitment to the principles of the United Nations are essential for ensuring that the veto is used for the common good of the international community and that the overarching requirement of preserving the hallowed objectives of the United Nations Charter is met. Finally, in order to preserve social justice principles within the framework of the United Nations, it is paramount that comprehensive efforts beyond the veto power, including international cooperation, diplomacy, advocacy and sustainable development initiatives, are met through constructive dialogue among Member States that fosters the evolution of an environment of social justice that leads to a more equitable and just world order.

At the outset, my delegation associates itself with the statement made 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 observations. My delegation has already joined the consensus on resolution 76/262, but time after time it feels, along with other delegations, that some exploit this resolution in a politicized way that does not serve the goals envisioned thereby. What we witnessed during today’s discussion suggests that there is an effort by some to use this meeting as a platform to make false accusations against the Russian Federation and launch an attack on it for political reasons that have nothing to do with the topic of the discussion. This meeting was not designed for that purpose but rather for the purpose of transparency between organs of the United Nations. On 11 July, the delegation of the Russian Federation took a balanced and wise decision to vote against a draft resolution contained in document S/2023/506 to extend the provisions of resolution 2672 (2023) (see S/PV.9371), as it did not respond to the serious concerns and just demands of Syria with regard to achieving a better response to the real needs of the Syrian people, based on an objective assessment of the implementation of the provisions of resolution 2672 (2023), which showed weaknesses and imbalances in the real response to the humanitarian needs of the Syrians. Syria expresses its complete agreement with the position of the Russian Federation, as well as its appreciation for the rejection of the draft resolution, which was a sincere expression of its eagerness to alleviate the suffering of the Syrian people and is consistent with its full commitment to the principle of respect for the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of Syria, which has been affirmed in all Security Council resolutions related to the Syrian issue. That principle is also the foundation on which the Charter of the United Nations was based. It is therefore reprehensible to listen to some delegations today disregarding that principle and giving themselves the right to bargain thereon. When the Security Council established a cross- border aid-delivery mechanism under resolution 2165 (2014), it was intended as a temporary measure imposed by exceptional circumstances that no longer exist. Over the past years, Syria, the country concerned, has expressed its position regarding the grave defects of that mechanism. In particular, it violates Syrian sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity and fails to ensure that aid does not fall into the hands of terrorist organizations that control north-west Syria owing to the ineffectiveness of the monitoring mechanism, its lack of transparency and the huge waste of resources caused by its high operational expenses. All those shortcomings have prevented an improvement in the humanitarian situation in that region. The recent reports of the Secretary-General have shown an increase in the humanitarian needs of the Syrians, more limited access to basic services, including declining levels of health care, a severe water crisis followed by an outbreak of cholera, an acute shortage of electricity, as well as a huge funding shortage as the funds for the humanitarian response plan for this year have not yet reached 12 per cent of the amount required. That will compel the World Food Programme to reduce its assistance to the Syrians by 40 per cent. That is in addition to the negative impact of the unilateral sanctions on humanitarian work. On the other hand, and in a sincere attempt to enable the Council to fulfil the responsibility entrusted to it in a real and effective manner, the delegation of the Russian Federation submitted a draft resolution, contained in document S/2023/507, aimed at making real improvements to resolution 2672 (2023), ensuring the implementation of fundamental pillars therein and contributing to the improvement of the humanitarian situation for the Syrians. However, the Russian draft resolution was not adopted owing to the vote against it by the three Western permanent members of the Council, who deliberately ignored the serious concerns and real needs of the Syrians. The Government of the Syrian Arab Republic, based on its keenness to ensure that humanitarian aid reaches those in need in all regions of the country and in the light of the intransigence shown by some member States of the Security Council, has taken a sovereign decision to grant the United Nations and its specialized agencies permission to use the Bab Al-Hawa crossing for the delivery of humanitarian aid for a period of six months, starting 13 July. My Government had also taken a decision to open two additional crossings for a period of three months in the aftermath of the catastrophe of the devastating earthquake that struck Syria on 6 February in order to facilitate the arrival of necessary humanitarian aid to that region. We extended that authorization to work for another three months, until 13 August. The Syrian Arab Republic has affirmed its full openness, without any conditions, to engage bilaterally with the United Nations, in particular the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, regarding the work to be done under the authorization granted by the Syrian Government and the aspects of cooperation and coordination between them, in line with the United Nations guiding principles of humanitarian emergency assistance emphasized by resolution 46/182. Our partnership must be strengthened to ensure the success of the humanitarian response, and demonstrating respect for the sovereignty of the country concerned by obtaining its consent is paramount. My delegation looks forward to a clear message being sent by the General Assembly today on adherence to its aforementioned resolution. It is shameful that some Western countries ignore the positive steps taken by the Syrian Government and insist on continuing the policy of collective punishment of the Syrians and on using financial extortion to exert pressure at the expense of Syrians’ lives. The continued politicization of humanitarian work in Syria by Western countries, their exploitation of the suffering of the Syrians, their obstruction of any sincere effort to alleviate that suffering, their determination in imposing inhumane sanctions against them and their use of the cross-border mechanism as a tool to bring pressure to bear and engage in political blackmail against my country, as well as the threat to cut off funding are what brought the Security Council to the state of division that we have witnessed. In conclusion, I would like to point out that the record of the United States of unjustly using the veto over the past decades against the peoples of our region, especially regarding resolutions pertaining to the Palestinian question, and its obstruction of the peaceful resolution of many international crises does not qualify it to lecture in the Security Council on the reasons and motives for using the veto in the Council. The United States, instead of issuing false accusations against others, should stop launching humanitarian slogans and shedding crocodile tears over the Syrians. The United States should end its violations of Syrian sovereignty, its theft of Syria’s national wealth and resources and lift its illegal sanctions imposed on the Syrian people, all of which constitute a clear and blatant violation of the Charter of the United Nations.

As co-penholder of the Syrian humanitarian file in the Security Council, alongside Switzerland, Brazil has been guided solely by the humanitarian imperative, which is one of the beacons of its independent and far-reaching foreign policy, as well as one of the pillars of its democratic State. That has meant and continues to mean addressing the basic needs of the Syrian people, which have increased dramatically since the earthquakes in February, as we all know. That has meant and continues to mean addressing that issue as co-penholder also with a sense of national pride and responsibility. With that in mind and conscious of profound divisions among Council members, we have worked tirelessly and in good faith with all of them and in consultation with Syria and other interested parties. Time has been provided for such efforts to the limit and beyond. All along the way, the co-penholders have thoroughly discussed and agreed on every step in discharging the responsibility entrusted to them by the Security Council. We continue to do that. The aim has always been to reach a compromise that would put the needs of the Syrian people at the forefront. To that noble end, we listened carefully to the plea of humanitarian actors, both governmental and non-governmental, for a year-long renewal of the authorization. We also actively sought to address legitimate concerns of the Syrian Government, with which we consulted constantly. Despite such pleas, in order to avoid the lapse of the authorization to use of Bab Al-Hawa border crossing, our strenuously negotiated draft resolution (S/2023/506) proposed a nine-month renewal of that authorization. It also included provisions on cross-line delivery, calls for the extension of humanitarian operations, more funding, enhanced early recovery activities, as well as humanitarian mine action. It also addressed the demand for the creation of conditions for safe, voluntary, informed and dignified returns of Syrian internally displaced persons. I can assure the Assembly that it broke new ground in several respects. It was balanced and meaningful. It was responsible and committed. Although we garnered support from the vast majority of the Council for the draft resolution, it failed to be adopted. We are particularly grateful for the collaboration of the other elected members in seeking a successful outcome in that process and for their unwavering support. Since the meeting in which the Council took action on our draft resolution (see S/PV.9371), there have been some new developments on the ground, including the announcement by the Syrian Government of its decision to voluntarily open the Bab Al-Hawa border crossing. Together with Switzerland as co-penholder, Brazil remains committed to working with Council members, the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Syria and other interested stakeholders, as well as the humanitarian actors. We have been doing so since the beginning. We have continued to do so since Tuesday, 11 July, and we will continue to do so to ensure that the ultimate goal of assisting the Syrian population is fully met and our role as co-penholders is fulfilled at its best.

Bulgaria aligns itself with the statement delivered on behalf of the European Union. I will add a few points in my national capacity. This debate feels like déjà vu. Almost a year to the day (see A/76/PV.95 and A/76/PV.96), we find ourselves here again to discuss yet another veto cast by the Russian Federation (see S/PV.9371) against a Security Council draft resolution (S/2023/506) intended to ensure the delivery of life-saving humanitarian assistance to the conflict-torn and earthquake-hit Syria. The draft proposed by the co-penholders, Switzerland and Brazil, represented an honest effort and a balanced compromise aimed at ensuring that millions of Syrians, many of whom are women and children, would have access to essential services, food and health care during the next nine months. The proposed time frame was below the Secretary-General’s expectations for a solid 12-month renewal of the cross-border mechanism but would have been sufficient for the United Nations agencies and other humanitarian actors to plan their activities during the winter months when the humanitarian needs in Syria are particularly great. The draft resolution enjoyed the support of 13 members of the Security Council and yet, it was vetoed by one permanent member, in total disregard of the principles of international humanitarian law. By terminating the humanitarian cross-border mechanism, the Russian Federation put an end to the only tool that for years has literally made the difference between life and death for millions of Syrian people, particularly those in the north-west. Let us be clear  — that is a blatant misuse of the veto, and the Russian Federation must be held to account. Just two days ago, the Russian Federation terminated another crucial humanitarian-related instrument, namely the Black Sea Grain Initiative, which played a significant role in halting the global food crisis and in supporting the World Food Programme’s fight against food insecurity in vulnerable countries and regions, including Syria. We acknowledge Syria’s decision to allow United Nations humanitarian crossings through Bab Al-Hawa for the next six months, as well as its previous decisions to open two additional crossing points, namely, Bab Al-Salam and Bab Al-Rai, in order to facilitate the global emergency response after the devastating earthquakes in February. However, we are concerned that those temporary commitments would force the United Nations and its humanitarian agencies to rely only on contingency planning for their activities in Syria and would trigger deeper vulnerabilities among the Syrian population affected by the conflict and by the earthquakes. Neither the cross-line assistance, nor the bilateral agreements can replace, qualitatively or quantitatively, the Security Council-mandated cross-border mechanism. Therefore, we call upon the Security Council to make every effort to ensure the continuation of predictable, reliable, people-oriented and depoliticized cross-border humanitarian assistance in Syria, in line with the humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence. Humanitarian assistance should not and cannot be used as a tool for the achievement of selfish political goals. The Syrian people deserve unhindered, sustained and indiscriminate access to adequate humanitarian aid, guaranteed by international humanitarian law and by the international community.

We have heard the last speaker in the debate for this meeting. We shall hear the remaining speakers this afternoon at 3 p.m. in this conference room.