S/PV.8623 Security Council

In accordance with rule 37 of the Council’s provisional rules of procedure, I invite the representative of the Syrian Arab Republic to participate in this meeting. The Security Council will now begin its consideration of the item on its agenda. Members of the Council have before them documents S/2019/756 and S/2019/757, which contain the texts of two draft resolutions. The Council is ready to proceed to the vote on the draft resolutions. I shall first give the floor to those members of the Council who wish to make statements.

I speak on behalf of the co-penholders on the humanitarian situation in Syria — Belgium, Germany and Kuwait. For the past few months, we have endeavoured to draw the attention of the Security Council to the plight of the civilians in Idlib. We have taken an incremental approach to this matter, first, convening closed consultations, followed by formal meetings, and then attempts to issue press elements and a press statement. However, it has proven impossible to reach agreement in this Chamber on any public statement of the Security Council. All the while, the violence in Idlib has continued over the past month and has led to the displacement of more than half a million civilians and the deaths of more than 1,000 people. It has caused extensive damage to medical and educational facilities, as well as other civilian infrastructure. We remain convinced that the Council cannot stay silent and must act. That is why we have submitted this humanitarian draft resolution (S/2019/756) calling for a cessation of hostilities. We negotiated the draft resolution in a transparent manner and with a thorough process, and engaged extensively and in good faith with all Council members on the text. The outcome of those negotiations is now before the Council. We believe that the draft resolution is balanced, has a purely humanitarian focus and also acknowledges that counter-terrorism measures must be taken in accordance with international humanitarian law, including the principles of distinction, proportionality and precaution. The Council has a clear responsibility to fulfil today. Many lives are at stake. We need to do all we can to live up to our obligations. We are well aware that there is another initiative on the table, which was neither shared nor discussed with the majority of Council members in advance. No round of negotiations took place. That contravenes what is agreed in paragraphs 80 and 81 of note 507 (S/2017/507), which clearly states that the drafting of resolutions should be carried out in an inclusive manner, enabling the participation of all Council members, ensuring that penholders can engage in timely consultations with Council members, and allowing for the convening of at least one round of informal consultations. Furthermore, the focus of this other project is different and provides an insufficient reflection of the complexity of the situation we are faced with in Idlib today. On behalf of the co-penholders, we urge all Council members to vote in favour of our draft humanitarian resolution.

I shall now make a statement in my capacity as the representative of the Russian Federation. Today, we will vote on the draft resolution submitted by the humanitarian troika of Kuwait, Germany and Belgium (S/2019/756). First, we should define what goals have been set and which are actually being pursued by its authors. Since the beginning of the discussion, they have said that they have been guided exclusively by humanitarian considerations, are not pursuing hidden objectives of any kind and do not wish to undermine the unity of the Security Council. If that were true, we would support the draft text without hesitation. However, regrettably, the content of the draft resolution and the course of its preparation are clear indications of the real objectives of our colleagues — to save the international terrorists who are entrenched in Idlib from their final defeat and present Russia and Syria as being guilty of creating the situation in Idlib. I would like to emphasize from the start and in particular the fact that the authors of the draft text have ignored the need to combat terrorists is the very factor that does not allow us to support the draft resolution before us. In that way, the humanitarian penholders have not taken into account the decisions that have been coordinated in the Security Council. While calling on us to comply with the Sochi memorandum of understanding on Idlib of 17 September 2018, the sponsors stubbornly refused to include in the draft resolution the key provision that the ceasefire does not cover terrorist groups. We experienced déjà vu throughout the work on the draft resolution. Time and again, the humanitarian work of our colleagues coincides with another area falling into the hands of and under the control of terrorists, as occurred in eastern Ghouta and Aleppo and is now occurring in Idlib. It is strange — although not strange to us — that they did not demonstrate their humanitarian ideals when Raqqa was being razed to the ground, which we have addressed dozens of times in the Council. Each time, they sing the same song. As the Syrian Government forces move closer to the strongholds of the terrorists, those terrorists suddenly become the representatives of the Syrian opposition fighting against the regime of Mr. Al-Assad. The representative of the United Kingdom convinced us recently that there were more infants than terrorists in Idlib. Improbable and unsubstantiated statistics about mass movements of people have emerged. Where are those people going? Where will they live afterwards? Various sources, including United Nations sources, cite population statistics in Idlib that vary by hundreds of thousands. Furthermore, we increasingly hear that Hayat Tahrir Al-Sham has allegedly become an emancipated responsible structure, a kind of civilian administration that is striving to allow people to live peacefully in those areas. We also heard that said about Al-Nusra, its predecessor. We should underscore that both groups are listed by the Security Council as terrorist organizations. Lastly, another important point to note is the fact that the humanitarian troika hastily introduced the draft resolution and did everything to accelerate its negotiation because of the reported mass murder of civilians in Idlib. However, the situation is very different. First, no large-scale operations have been or are being conducted in Idlib. The province is observing a ceasefire that is periodically undermined by terrorists. It is the terrorists alone who violate the ceasefire. Secondly, the reliability of the data fed to the mass media and later used by our colleagues in the Security Council is dubious. On Monday, 16 September, we gave a detailed press conference at which we provided irrefutable data to demonstrate that the allegedly flagrant cases of air strikes by Russia and Syria on civilian infrastructure in Idlib were falsifications. The de-confliction mechanism is being used for misinformation. Today, the representative of the United States began her statement by saying that, once again, we are hearing about air strikes on hospitals. We, however, did not hear Ms. Mueller make that claim. She noted that the situation had changed since 31 August. With regard to hospitals, I will provide two examples of that issue, which we also mentioned at the press conference. The Kafr Zeta hospital had allegedly been bombed but, instead, we saw that the coordinates provided were for a dugout shelter with a makeshift medical warehouse four kilometres from the hospital itself. With regard to the Maarat Al-Numan central hospital, which had also allegedly been bombed, it was a police post 10 kilometres from the hospital itself, which was being used as a weapons depot. The two hospitals had not been damaged. The underground cell and the police post had not been bombed either. That information had been conveyed to us by the United Nations through the de-confliction mechanism. The coordinates had been provided to the Organization by reliable sources in Idlib because, as is very well known, the United Nations is not present on the ground in Idlib. It was only in July that we received 12 sets of such false coordinates. We showed photographs of before and after the alleged bombings. The buildings and facilities, including medical facilities, were untouched. I understand that this situation is unpleasant and uncomfortable for some members of the Council. It is no coincidence that no Western media houses from those present at my press conference had the courage to provide any information on this matter. We agree that there can be no military solution to the Syrian conflict, but only a political one, as is the case with any conflict, regardless of its location. However, to ease the process, it might be a good idea to remove from Syria all foreign armed groups whose presence in the country is illegal if we wish to advance the political process. We believe that we cannot be guided by lies and misinformation when taking decisions in the Security Council, even if such lies and misinformation are beneficial to someone. It is unacceptable and immoral to speculate about the suffering of civilians who are hostages of the terrorists patronized by some of our Western colleagues. Furthermore, we all understand that a position taken by our Western colleagues that was not constructive from the outset and did not change during the course of work on the draft text demonstrates that their genuine objective is to force Russia to use its veto on the Syrian issue. From the start, we warned the sponsors that in its current form their draft resolution was doomed to failure. They knew it and they know it. Despite that warning, they will put the draft resolution to the vote in order to deliberately undermine the unity of the Council. I would like to ask the authors of the draft resolution a few questions. What do they want to achieve and what will they achieve by doing that? What signal will they send to the international community? Do they wish to see us veto a draft resolution during our presidency of the Security Council, just before the beginning of the high-level week? Is that their contribution to the establishment of the constitutional committee? I call on delegations that genuinely wish to see a solution to the situation in Syria and to depoliticize humanitarian issues to vote together with us against the draft resolution submitted by the humanitarian troika. I shall now resume my functions as President of the Security Council. The Council is ready to proceed to the vote on the draft resolutions before it. I shall first put to the vote the draft resolution contained in document S/2019/756, submitted by Belgium, Germany and Kuwait.

The draft resolution received 12 votes in favour, two against and one abstention. The draft resolution has not been adopted, owing to the negative vote of a permanent member of the Council. I shall now give the floor to those members of the Council who wish to make statements.

I take the floor again on behalf of the humanitarian co-penholders on Syria — Kuwait, Belgium and Germany. As caretakers of the humanitarian situation in Idlib, we are deeply disappointed with the result of the voting. Once again, the Security Council will not be able to fulfil its duty to protect the lives of 3 million people, mainly women and children, in Idlib governorate. How can we explain to them and the world that, even on a purely humanitarian draft resolution, no consensus could be reached? We the co-penholders tried to achieve consensus among the members of the Council. As an honest broker, we tried to reach out and engage in a transparent and constructive manner. We were aiming for a focused text, built around clear humanitarian objectives, namely, the cessation of hostilities, the protection of civilians and the alleviation of human suffering. We received plenty of support for our initiative and thank everyone who has supported our efforts, especially those Council members that voted in favour of draft resolution S/2019/756. Other members did not support us, and we regret that. Divisions are visible and ongoing. We tried hard in recent days to bridge gaps, which revolved around the issue of counter-terrorism. While we all stand firm in our resolve to combat terrorism, we once again reiterate our position that counter-terrorism operations do not absolve parties of their obligations under international humanitarian law. That is what we tried to reflect in the draft resolution we put forward. Unfortunately, that was not acceptable to some. On the other hand, we saw another initiative put forward only yesterday without any transparent process. It was neither shared nor negotiated beforehand. We have seen such tactics in the past and regret their use. They can never lead to the unity in the Council that is so desperately needed. In terms of content, the other initiative does not focus on the protection of civilians or on human suffering and it does not prevent a humanitarian catastrophe — core issues the Council has to address. Assistant Secretary-General Ursula Mueller, in her briefing this morning (see S/PV.8622), clearly described what all this is about. She gave us numbers and examples in a bid to measure a humanitarian disaster. We promise today that we will not stop here. The draft resolution was not adopted, but our work and our responsibility do not end here. We will continue to use the instruments of the Council to address the most urgent humanitarian issues in Idlib and other places in Syria. Let us join our efforts as we look ahead to the renewal of the cross-border mechanism at the end of the year. The mechanism is crucial for the survival of millions of Syrians. Being united on this upcoming issue is the least that we can do for the Syrian people, who have suffered greatly for the past eight years. Finally, there is no military solution to the crisis in Syria. The only solution is a political one based on resolution 2254 (2015) and the 2012 Geneva communiqué (S/2012/522, annex). We reiterate our strong support for the efforts of Special Envoy Geir Pedersen.

Today’s vote on draft resolution S/2019/756, on a humanitarian ceasefire in Idlib, underscores the commitment of the international community to bringing peace and stability to north-west Syria. The Security Council must act to end the violence, in particular against civilians in Syria, and to enable humanitarian actors to provide assistance to the most vulnerable populations. After nearly nine years of conflict, the Syrian people deserve nothing less. The United States is proud to have voted in favour of the draft resolution, authored by Belgium, Germany and Kuwait, in order to uphold our shared responsibility to protect civilians whose lives are at stake. It is deeply regrettable that the Council was not able to agree to a ceasefire draft resolution that would have saved lives in Idlib, especially as the Al-Assad regime and its allies prepare to launch another offensive on the people of Idlib. It is also regrettable that the Council cannot agree on a draft resolution that includes language that would have held the Al-Assad regime and Russia responsible for their vicious attacks against the Syrian people. Let there be no mistake: for five months the Al-Assad regime and its allies have engaged in attacks that have devastated civilians, as well as civilian infrastructure, such as schools, hospitals and water facilities. The Al-Assad regime and Russia were responsible for 1,031 civilian deaths in Idlib province between 29 April and 29 August, according to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. While they can continue to try to hide behind lies and disinformation in the Council today, there is no doubt that the regime and Russian forces responsible for those attacks must be held accountable for their actions. The world knows that, despite their denials, Russian and Syrian planes dominate the skies in north-west Syria, and so far, the Russian Federation has failed to comply with the United Nations de-confliction arrangements intended to keep civilians and hospitals safe. The Al-Assad regime and its allies tell the international community that they are merely conducting counter- terrorism operations. But we have seen this before. What we are witnessing is not counter-terrorism but an excuse to continue a violent military campaign against those who refuse to accept the Al-Assad regime’s authority. Russia’s veto of today’s draft resolution  — Russia’s thirteenth veto on Syria  — represents yet another attempt to absolve itself and the Al-Assad regime of their culpability in the deaths of thousands of Syrian men, women and children. Russia has unequivocally proven, through its actions in the Council and on the battlefield, that it has no interest in protecting Syrian civilians in Idlib, Aleppo, eastern Ghouta or Dara’a. Nor does it have an interest in a lasting humanitarian ceasefire. We are disappointed that China decided to be complicit in those activities, joining Russia in its decision to veto the draft resolution. What Russia cares about is protecting Bashar Al-Assad, at the expense of the lives and peaceful aspirations of the Syrian people. We once again call on Russia to join the international community in a process that will result in the definitive stabilization of the country.

The Dominican Republic voted in favour of draft resolution S/2019/756, presented by Germany, Belgium and Kuwait, the humanitarian co-penholders on the Syrian Arab Republic. We acknowledge the herculean efforts of the co-penholders to achieve unity in the Security Council on a draft resolution that is crucial for the lives of 3 million civilians in Idlib. That is an aspiration shared by the Dominican Republic, and for which we have worked actively. Throughout the negotiation process, the Dominican Republic remained convinced that the overriding need to put an end to hostilities and protect the civilian population in north-west Syria would prevail over all other interests. Unfortunately, that is not what happened. Today the Council was not up to the task of meeting the expectations not only of the United Nations but also those of a population beaten down by years of conflict. It is impossible not to feel a sense of failure and disappointment in the light of what we have just witnessed. However, it also compels us to think about how we are tackling one of the most significant challenges the Security Council has faced in recent times and its impact in resolving this conflict — its polarization. The political process that is finally moving in a direction that seems acceptable to all parties deserves an unequivocal response from the Security Council in the form of a resolution that, first, establishes an unconditional ceasefire and, secondly, recognizes the need to ensure its impact on the ground through a monitoring and accountability mechanism and to maintain as safe a space as possible for humanitarian assistance to reach populations in acute need. We believe that this draft text managed to address the concerns of all Council members in a balanced way that respected the humanitarian spirit underpinning it. We stress in particular the emphasis in the text we all negotiated on the need for counter-terrorism measures to be fully aligned with international humanitarian and international law and for all parties to uphold their obligations to protect civilian populations and infrastructure. The text we have been unable to adopt would have established a ceasefire starting on 21 September. That very day sees the beginning of a new school year in the Syrian Arab Republic. Are the conditions in place for the children Idlib can got to class without fear? Are schools protected? Are teachers protected? Are children protected?

There were two draft resolutions on the table today. The humanitarian penholders’ draft resolution (S/2019/756) would have protected civilians. The Russian and Chinese draft resolution (S/2019/757) imperils them. We thank the humanitarian penholders, Belgium, Germany and Kuwait, for their considerable efforts to incorporate the views of all Council members in drafting the text on which we have just voted. This was a balanced text that reflected the dire situation in Idlib and rightly called for a lasting ceasefire, the protection of civilians and civilian infrastructure and humanitarian access. The draft resolution was vitally needed. Since the Council’s first emergency humanitarian session to discuss Idlib on 10 May, we have focused repeatedly on the indiscriminate violence against civilians there. Civilian deaths and displacement continue to increase. There is little time left to prevent a catastrophic worsening of the humanitarian situation. As well as establishing an unequivocal ceasefire, the text that Russia and China today vetoed set out clearly the importance of adhering to international legal obligations. A vetoed draft resolution does not alter the fact that there can be no excuse for targeting civilians. Indeed, the deliberate targeting of civilians is a war crime. By contrast, the Russian and Chinese text on which we will vote next pretends that the humanitarian situation in Idlib is caused solely by terrorists rather than by the indiscriminate aerial bombardment that is being carried out with scant regard for the principles of distinction and proportionality. The exemption for counter-terrorism activity, which Russia proposes, seems designed to allow indiscriminate attacks to continue. We have heard Russia’s explanation that it is striking at terrorists, but, even if that were true, it still has legal obligations, including to ensure the proportionality of its actions. I am afraid that over the years in Syria, we have seen the reality of the Al-Assad regime’s military action and that of its Russian ally, in particular its use of air strikes. We all saw what happened after the Security Council adopted resolution 2401 (2018) and the deaths of civilians that followed. Russia’s and China’s text would be of no service to those on the ground who so desperately need the protection of the international community. The fight against terrorism cannot be an excuse for indiscriminate attacks or, worse, targeted attacks on civilians. We cannot in good conscience support a text that would allow this. We appeal to all Council members to join us in voting against the Russian and Chinese text.

Peru shares the United Nations assessment of and concern regarding the grave humanitarian impact on the civilian population of the escalation of violence in north-west Syria and therefore supports all initiatives that are aimed to protect that population. We therefore thank the delegations of Germany, Belgium and Kuwait, in their capacity as co-penholders for humanitarian issues in Syria, for their considerable efforts to achieve a compromise acceptable to all members of the Council on the content of the draft resolution (S/2019/756) put to the vote this morning. We further appreciate the fact that the final text managed to satisfy many of the concerns expressed by our delegation in the course of negotiations, in which we participated constructively with a view to achieving a truly effective cessation of hostilities and provide genuine relief to the civilian population suffering in Syria. We underscore, moreover, the emphasis the draft placed on respect for international humanitarian and human rights law in all situations and circumstances, which includes, of course, in the fight against terrorism. Given all of the foregoing, we were able to vote in favour of the draft. Peru therefore notes with grave regret that the draft resolution submitted by the co-penholders, which we viewed as balanced and timely, could not be adopted. In conclusion, we reiterate the need to ensure that the Council devote grater effort to seeking unity on such delicate matters so as to discharge the lofty responsibilities that have been entrusted to us.

As mentioned in our statement to the Council earlier (see S/PV.8622), my delegation continues to be very concerned about the devastating human tragedy unfolding in Syria, in particular the situation in and around Idlib. The highest priority of the Council should be to stop the killing and end the suffering of innocent civilians. There has to be an immediate end to the violence and talks must begin to reach a Syrian-led political transition reflecting the will of the Syrian people. South Africa condemns all human rights abuses, in particular violations of the rights of vulnerable groups such as women, children and ethnic minorities. South Africa also condemns the lack of respect for international humanitarian law. We welcome the initiative taken to develop a resolution to create an environment necessary to provide those in need with much-needed humanitarian support. However, my delegation is concerned at the politicization of the humanitarian situation. We instead believe that the Council should strictly focus on helping those caught in the middle of this devastating conflict. It is for this reason that South Africa voted in favour of the co-penholders’ draft resolution (S/2019/756), as we believe that the dire humanitarian situation on the ground outweighs our concerns regarding some elements of the text.

Côte d’Ivoire decided to support the draft resolution introduced by the co-penholders on humanitarian issues in Syria (S/2019/756). We did so because, while we firmly support the fight against terrorism, we are nonetheless convinced that efforts in that regard must take into full account norms established regarding respect for international humanitarian, human rights and refugee law. In our consistent calls for dialogue to resolve the Syrian conflict, Côte d’Ivoire also underscores that military operations, wherever and under whatsoever circumstances conducted, must respect international law and human rights. International norms make it incumbent on the parties to a conflict to apply the principles of distinction and proportionality and oblige them to take necessary measures to protect civilians in conflict. While my country commends the importance that the two draft resolutions (S/2019/756 and S/2019/757) give to the humanitarian situation in the country, which has suffered a number of years of deadly conflict, it nevertheless condemns the deeply differing approaches that they support. Unfortunately, the Council is once again deeply divided. Côte d’Ivoire regrets that neither draft resolution found unity among the Council because the parties did not exhaust the opportunities for dialogue needed in such circumstances. We therefore reiterate our call for further dialogue among Member States, which is the only way to achieve a consensus draft text that takes into account the concerns of all the parties concerned.

France regrets that we did not reach an agreement today in response to the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Idlib. We welcome the efforts of Germany, Belgium and Kuwait to try to reach a balanced draft text that would have merited our unanimous support. While the situation in Idlib has continued to deteriorate in recent months, I call on all of us to demonstrate our responsibility and to work together to find a compromise in the coming days. Those who are directly involved have the responsibility to ensure respect for international humanitarian law. The situation in Idlib and, more generally, in Syria requires that we have a constructive dialogue within this body. It is in that spirit that France, for its part, remains ready to work.

At the outset, we reiterate our support for the statements made by the representative of Germany on behalf of the penholders at the first meeting this morning (see S/PV.8622), as well as at this meeting. We regret and express our disappointment that the Council has failed to shoulder its responsibility. History will undoubtedly remember this meeting and the positions of all Security Council members on the balanced humanitarian draft resolution S/2019/756, put forward by the State of Kuwait, Germany and Belgium, which sought to protect civilians in Idlib by calling for a cessation of hostilities there so as to prevent further suffering of its population. The people, including the elderly, children and women of Idlib, will remember the result of the voting on this draft resolution and will be harsh in their judgment of the Security Council. The failure of the Council to adopt a draft resolution on a merely humanitarian issue is added to a series of Council failures on the Syrian issue. For many years, there has been no real and tangible progress in the Council towards ending the suffering of the Syrian people. The use of the veto today means that the lives of millions of Syrians in north-west Syria will continue to be jeopardized, as the United Nations has repeatedly warned against the emergence of the worst humanitarian situation of the twenty-first century if military operations continue there. The United Nations figures reflecting the scale of the humanitarian suffering in Idlib were the main reason for our action and the submission of the draft resolution, as penholders, which was negotiated transparently and inclusively with all members of the Council for three weeks. A counter draft resolution was submitted. It was not negotiated. It was put in blue yesterday. That clearly demonstrates the sharp division in the Council on the Syrian issue even though our objective is purely humanitarian. The military escalation in north-western Syria since late April has led to the displacement of more than half a million people and the killing of almost 1,000 civilians, half of whom are women and children. Health care, educational and civilian facilities have been heavily damaged. Such developments and violations of international humanitarian law in Idlib did not prompt the Council to take a unified and correct position. We reiterate our condemnation of the targeting of civilians by any party, as well as attacks on hospitals and health-care facilities. Those responsible for violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law should be held accountable. Terrorism is a serious scourge that threatens international peace and security. We all agree on and are decisive in combating terrorism wherever it occurs, including in Idlib governorate. However, we reiterate what has already been said by many Council members and by the Secretary-General himself, namely, that counter-terrorism operations do not exempt parties from meeting their commitments under international humanitarian law, including the commitment to protecting civilians and civilian facilities, as well as the principles of distinction, proportionality and caution. In conclusion, I thank all Member States that supported the efforts of the penholders and voted in favour of the draft resolution. We reiterate that the failure of the Council to adopt the draft resolution will not deter or discourage us. We will pursue our efforts to protect civilians and to improve the humanitarian situation in Syria. We once again stress that there is no military solution to the crisis in Syria. The only solution is through a political settlement that takes into consideration the legitimate aspirations of the brotherly Syrian people and upholds the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Syria, in accordance with resolution 2254 (2015) and the Geneva communiqué (S/2012/522, annex).

We fully subscribe to the statement made by the representative of Germany on behalf of the three penholders. Let me to make a few remarks in my national capacity. First, we deeply regret the fact that certain members of the Council were not able to support draft resolution S/2019/ 756, on the humanitarian situation in north-western Syria, which we proposed. From the beginning, the three co-penholders worked in a transparent and constructive manner. We did our utmost to bring together the different positions up to the last day of negotiations. For us, the protection of human lives should be at the heart of any resolution on Idlib. By not achieving consensus on the draft text, whose purpose is purely humanitarian, the Council has unfortunately failed the people of Idlib. Belgium remains resolutely determined to combat terrorism. That is the collective will of the Council but, for us, one thing is clear: counter-terrorism operations do not absolve the parties to a conflict of their obligations under international humanitarian law. The parties must respect the norms applicable to armed conflict and the principles of distinction, proportionality and precaution. Bombing civilians, schools and hospitals has nothing to do with fighting terrorism. To the contrary, all it does is to create fertile ground for more terrorism.

China voted against draft resolution S/2019/756, on the humanitarian situation in Syria, which has been put to the vote just now. The Security Council closely follows the humanitarian situation in Syria and has convened meetings to that end many times. With regard to the issue of Idlib, since 31 August the Russian and Syrian Governments have been implementing the ceasefire in Idlib, which in general has been upheld. The diplomatic efforts of the relevant international stakeholders are ongoing and the situation in Idlib is developing in a positive direction. In that context, to steamroll a draft resolution that has major controversies towards a vote is clearly not constructive. Such a move will not achieve the desired outcome. Terrorist organizations continue to expand their sphere of influence in the north-west region of Syria. That is the source of the humanitarian issue in Idlib and poses a grave risk to safety and security in the region. The Council should be united in tackling jointly this grave challenge. China has constructively participated in a negotiation of the text and has proposed reasonable revisions. However, unfortunately the draft resolution that was just put to the vote did not touch upon the essence of the issue or address China’s core concerns. For that reason, China voted against the draft resolution. The humanitarian situation in Syria is a very complicated and sensitive issue. All categories of humanitarian issues in Syria should be considered in a comprehensive manner and addressed in a balanced way, instead of only selectively focusing on certain issues, much less politicizing a humanitarian issue. The international community must fully respect the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of Syria; fully listen to the views of the Syrian Government; and seek a comprehensive solution to the Syrian issue by political means. At the same time, we should pay close attention to the post-war reconstruction of Syria and its economic and social development and help the Syrian people live peaceful, stable and happy lives. China also attaches great importance and pays close attention to the humanitarian situation in Syria. For that reason, Russia and China are proposing an alternative draft resolution (S/2019/757) that takes into consideration humanitarian and counter-terrorism issues in Syria in a comprehensive manner. The draft includes a call for the observance of international law in counter-terrorism efforts and to ensure humanitarian access, and it reflects the humanitarian needs of the Syrian people. We hope that all Council members will support this draft. I must point out here that China firmly rejects the groundless accusations made by the representatives of the United Kingdom and the United States against China. China has the right to make an independent decision on how it votes, according to the rights and wrongs of a situation and proceeding from the interests of a certain people. No country has the right to make wilful accusations such as this. I would also like to point out that the current situation and suffering of the Syrian people are precisely the result of the wrongful conduct of some countries, and it is those countries that should reflect on their behaviour.

I shall now make a statement in my capacity as the representative of the Russian Federation. We are submitting a draft resolution on Idlib (S/2019/757) as part of the effort to rectify the humanitarian situation in Syria. Unlike the other draft resolution (S/2019/756) — I have already spoken about our reason for vetoing it — our text is characterized by an exclusively humanitarian approach and does not contain any politicized or controversial passages. It is aimed at maintaining the ceasefire that was entered into on 31 August in order to continue the fight against terrorism and to guarantee humanitarian access to Idlib. The representative of the United States, when speaking in explanation of vote on this draft, said that the Council could not reach an agreement on the ceasefire. But we do not need to, because the ceasefire has been in effect in Idlib since 31 August. It is ironic that the first party to violate the ceasefire was the United States Air Force, on the very day the ceasefire entered into force, on 31 August. We have also been urged to stop the brutal attacks in Syria. I think the United States should direct such appeals to itself. We remember well how the United States Air Force fought terrorists in Iraq, Mosul and other areas. We remember how it abided by international humanitarian law there. Our Russian Aerospace Forces do not raze whole cities to the ground; they only make strikes against targets where terrorists are located if there is reliable and verified intelligence, while avoiding any attacks that might put the civilians at risk. I certainly do not believe that any member of the Security Council can speak against any of the points in our draft resolution. Today we have an opportunity to reach an agreement on the humanitarian situation in Syria. But if there are such objections, then we and the entire international community would be very interested in hearing them. We encourage colleagues to take the following into account in voting on the Russian draft. The armed-combat phase in the Syrian conflict has essentially come to an end. Those who are genuinely interested in a political settlement have joined in the process. A lot of work has already been done, and we must support this concerted effort, including by the United Nations, instead of using humanitarian issues to achieve political aims. The only ones who are prolonging the war, with a view to destroying the Syrian State and causing suffering to civilians, are the terrorists. Attempts to shield them or present them as deradicalized opposition are unacceptable. In addition, as our draft stipulates, the international community should take all of the measures necessary to improve the humanitarian situation in Idlib. We hope that a constructive approach will be taken by the members of the Security Council in supporting our draft. I now resume my functions as President of the Security Council. I now put to the vote the draft resolution contained in document S/2019/757, submitted by China and the Russian Federation.

The draft resolution received two votes in favour, nine against and four abstentions. The draft resolution has not been adopted, having failed to obtain the required number of votes. I shall now give the floor to those members of the Council who wish to make statements.

Poland voted against the draft resolution contained in document S/2019/757. Let me reiterate that it is both our moral and legal obligation to provide immediate, full, safe and unhindered access to humanitarian aid and to prevent the human catastrophe unfolding in Idlib province. It is equally important that all activities undertaken by States aimed at countering terrorism be fully in line with their obligations under international humanitarian and human rights law. Countering terrorism must not serve as a pretext for violations of human rights, nor can there be any justification for the indiscriminate targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure. Poland continues to strongly condemn any acts of terror and remains deeply committed to the fight against terrorism. The draft resolution proposed by the Russian Federation and China is missing this important point. Therefore, we were not in a position to support it.

My delegation is taking the floor following the voting on the two draft resolutions (S/2019/756 and S/2019/757). Indonesia has always called for unity within the Security Council for the very urgent task of saving people’s lives. That has always been our priority. We share the message the Secretary-General delivered yesterday during the press conference at the outset of the seventy-fourth session of the General Assembly: “Put people first. Their needs. Their aspirations. Their rights.” That applies to the 3 million people in Idlib; they need to be protected. Their aspirations are to stay safe, and their right is to live in peace. In that regard, it is indeed regrettable that the Council could not reach consensus. Indonesia voted in favour of the draft resolution submitted by the co-penholders, since the draft text contains critical elements that are necessary to immediately enhance our efforts in alleviating the suffering of the people in Idlib governorate and prevent any further deterioration of the humanitarian situation in the area. The process of negotiating the text was lengthy and complex, with many divergences among the Council members. We therefore thank the co-penholders for their hard work. While we appreciate the efforts of Russia and China in formulating the other draft resolution, we consider that the potential of the text to address the real situation on the ground has not been fully explored. The text was introduced only yesterday, and the Council was not able to comprehensively discuss it. We also believe that, at this critical juncture, the humanitarian situation in Idlib needs a resolution that fully captures the urgent need to immediately alleviate the people’s pain, frustration and suffering. Indonesia sincerely believes that we need a breakthrough to save those people’s lives. As I mentioned this morning, the Council needs to ensure that it is not too late to respond to the humanitarian situation in Idlib (see S/PV.8622). It is imperative for the Council to agree to avoid the politicization of any humanitarian situation. Only through such a collective agreement will the Council be able to effectively fulfil its mandate. My delegation is very hopeful that the Council will continue exploring ways to address that very important issue in unison.

We abstained in the voting on the two draft resolutions S/2019/756 and S/2019/757 to demonstrate our dissension over the lack of understanding and unity within the Security Council on an issue that is so vital and important as the Syrian conflict, in which many human lives — including those of civilians, women, children, pregnant women and people with special needs — are being sacrificed. That division and lack of understanding are all the worse given our efforts to address a grave humanitarian situation, such as that currently prevailing in Idlib. We had hoped that the negotiations would broaden and deepen on the draft resolutions presented by the penholders in a spirit of flexibility and good will, taking into account, above all, the critical situation of the civilian population in Syria, especially in Idlib, and setting aside the geostrategic interests of countries with major influence on the parties to the conflict. We had hoped to repeat our experience of a few days ago with the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, when we were ready to give up the relevant draft resolution for lost until, happily, we reached an understanding and voted unanimously. Why can we not do the same with the humanitarian situation in Syria and the chemical weapons in that country? That is why we decided to abstain in the voting on both draft resolutions.

I now give the floor to the representative of the Syrian Arab Republic.

The representative of Kuwait has asked for the floor to make an additional statement.

At the outset, I would like to apologize to the Security Council for asking for the floor at this late hour. I did not really want to deviate from the topic under discussion. However, the representative of the Syrian delegation referred to Kuwait more than once, and presented some documents that are merely newspaper articles. The objective is clear — to attack Kuwait in an attempt to characterize the crisis in Syria as a terrorist crisis. The representative maintains that the main reason for the crisis in Syria is terrorism. However, it was not at all a terrorist crisis at the beginning. The little clips that he presented, such as those published in Kuwaiti newspapers or the article in the New York Times, were all published in 2012 or 2013. He likes to refer to clippings of such articles in every meeting. I wonder why my colleague the Syrian representative enjoys repeating what has been published in newspapers. I would have preferred him to talk about Kuwait’s formal position so that we could respond, instead of referring to announcements made by individuals seven years ago and attempting, in one way or another, to link the Kuwaiti Government with terrorism. He claimed at last meeting (see S/PV.8609) that he is attached to the Government of Kuwait more than I am, but it is clear that the main objective is to defame Kuwait. I have already responded to the information on terrorists and individuals he brought up from 2012 and 2013. I said that if Ambassador Ja’afari has any proof or evidence, he should bring it forward. Why has the Government of Syria not provided those documents, if they were reliable, to the Committee established pursuant to resolution 1267 (1999)? If such individuals are terrorists and have committed gross violations, such as genocide or crimes against humanity, he can present the evidence to the International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism to Assist in the Investigation and Prosecution of Persons Responsible for the Most Serious Crimes under International Law Committed in the Syrian Arab Republic since March 2011, established by the General Assembly. Such documents can always be presented to that well-known Mechanism so that everyone who has committed a crime in Syria can be held accountable. We are among those countries that adopted General Assembly resolution 71/248, establishing the International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism so as to ensure that people are held accountable for crimes they commit in Syria. However, Syria rejected that Mechanism that is now functional. It is therefore up to Ambassador Ja’afari to present any evidence he wants. As I said last time, I wish that he would refer to United Nations documents and not just press cuttings that are not wholly accurate. At times, the New York Times publishes articles in favour of Syria, but in many instances it publishes articles that are critical of the Government of Syria. I do not want to address these articles. We always rely on statements issued by the United Nations and its various organs, in particular concerning the gross violations committed in the various governorates of Syria. Crimes have been documented that have been confirmed by satellite images. There are documents and witnesses; they cannot be challenged. Therefore, we would like Ambassador Ja’afari to rely on such documents. If there is an individual or group of people who he thinks have committed crimes against the people of Syria, he should present evidence to the sanctions committee or to the Mechanism, which his country voted against it. Ambassador Ja’afari criticized the penholders at length from the beginning of his statement. He claimed that Israeli aggression was not under the spotlight. We constantly condemn Israeli aggression against Syria and underscore the security, sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Syria. When the United States endorsed the sovereignty of Israel over the Golan, we were among the countries that called for discussions here at the Security Council and for the adoption of a draft resolution pertaining to this issue. However, Syria opposed this request and did not want us to come to the Security Council. Members did not want us to come to the Security Council in order to present a draft resolution that would have condemned the sovereignty of Israel over the Golan.

The representative of the Syrian Arab Republic has requested the floor to make a further statement.

The representative of Kuwait has requested the floor to make a further statement.

I apologize once again for taking the floor. I shall begin where the Syrian representative ended, asking the Security Council to implement its own resolutions on counter-terrorism. I, in turn, call on the Syrian authorities to implement the resolutions of the Council on chemical weapons and political affairs, foremost among which is resolution 2254 (2015). That is the official position of Kuwait in public meetings of the Council. He knows Kuwait’s official position very well. We want a political solution in Syria — one that is based on Security Council resolutions, in particular resolution 2254 (2015) and the 2012 Geneva communiqué (S/2012/522, annex). I do not think that this position should bother our brothers in Syria. Another position concerns the fight against terrorism, which does not exempt any party from its responsibility to respect international humanitarian law and international human rights law. That is our position and we always reiterate it. We are consistent in our position with those of the League of Arab States and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, as well as international law, the Charter of the United Nations and relevant Security Council resolutions. Concerning what the Syrian representative said about the existence of Kuwaiti terrorists, he always refers to documents with the names of Kuwaiti citizens who are fighting in Syria. We are aware that there are foreign fighters in Syria. That is why Kuwait and a group of States have sponsored a General Assembly resolution on human rights in Syria, the text of which demands the exit of foreign fighters, condemns them and prohibits their presence in Syria to fight for any party. We know also that certain militias are fighting alongside the Syrian Government. Some of the militias in the region are considered by many countries around the world to be terrorist militias. There are nationals of the same country fighting on both sides. That is why we have presented a draft resolution demanding the exit of all foreign forces. The reason I am taking the floor is that the representative of Syria cites numbers and gets his information from the press, claiming that a sergeant, as stated by the New York Times, raised $400 million. That is in addition to an earlier claim that an individual managed to raise billions of dollars and sent weapons. That is beyond reasoning. When there is evidence, we take action against them. We reject the very idea that individuals have links to terrorist groups. At the beginning of the crisis in Syria, no one had heard anything about Daesh or the Al-Nusra Front. At the time, the international community and League of Arab States adopted resolutions in the interest and support of the Syrian people. Then resolutions were adopted to suspend the membership of Syria in the League of Arab States and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. Its membership is still suspended to date.

While I respect the right of delegations to make additional statements, and I will give the floor to the representative of the Syrian Arab Republic, I feel that our discussion has become somewhat stuck and that it is time to end it. I ask members to abide by this decision and be brief.