UN says Damascus conditions for cross-border aid 'unacceptable'
The United Nations is concerned about "unacceptable conditions" set by Damascus for allowing aid to flow through its Bab al-Hawa crossing to rebel-held areas in northwest Syria, according to a document reviewed by AFP.
The delivery of humanitarian aid through the crossing has been stalled since Monday, when a 2014 U.N. deal expired.
A letter this week from Syrian authorities allowing use of the border crossing between Turkey and Syria "contains two unacceptable conditions," according to a document sent to the U.N. Security Council from the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).
OCHA said it was concerned that the Syrian government had "stressed that the United Nations should not communicate with entities designated as 'terrorist.'"
The second condition it bridled at was that the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the Syrian Arab Red Crescent (SARC) should "supervise and facilitate the distribution of humanitarian aid" in northwest Syria.
The U.N. says more than four million people in northwest Syria are in need of food, water, medicine and other essentials.
Through an arrangement that began in 2014, the UN largely delivers relief to northwest Syria via neighboring Turkey through the Bab al-Hawa crossing.
Syria announced on Thursday that it would authorize the UN to use Bab al-Hawa to deliver vital humanitarian aid to millions of people in rebel-held areas for six months.
Syria's ambassador to the UN Bassam Sabbagh told reporters on Thursday that his country had taken a "sovereign decision" on allowing the aid to continue.
- 'Comprehensive and unrestricted' -
That announcement followed the expiration on Monday of a mechanism that has allowed U.N. convoys to use the crossing to rebel areas without authorization from Damascus.
U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres's spokesman Stephane Dujarric said on Friday that "there's been no crossings in Bab al-Hawa with United Nations humanitarian aid," adding that authorities were reviewing Syria's authorization.
"We're taking a look at... what exactly was expressed in the letter," he said.
"These things need to be studied carefully," he added, reiterating the U.N.'s "commitment to delivering humanitarian assistance guided by humanitarian principles of non-interference, of impartiality."
The OCHA document seen by AFP also called for the need to "review" and "clarify" parts of Damascus' letter, saying the deliveries "must not infringe on the impartiality... neutrality, and independence of the United Nations' humanitarian operations."
Damascus regularly denounces the UN aid deliveries as a violation of its sovereignty, and major ally Moscow has been chipping away at the deal for years.
Russia on Tuesday vetoed a nine-month extension of the agreement, and then failed to muster enough votes to adopt a six-month extension.
The 15 U.N. Security Council members had been trying for days to find a compromise to extend the cross-border aid deal.
Syria's conflict has killed more than 500,000 people, displaced millions and battered the country's infrastructure and industry.
"The scale of needs in Syria requires a comprehensive and unrestricted approach to humanitarian aid," the ICRC delegation in New York told AFP.
"We stand ready to support in ways that fall within our capabilities and with the consent of all parties involved."
The UN is violating its foundational principle of respect for national borders.
If Syria says "UN humanitarian aid, stay out," the UN humanitarian aid should stay out. If Syria says "UN humanitarian aid, wipe your feet," the UN humanitarian aid should wipe its feet.
More importantly, the UN should be using its military power to remove US forces from Syria. If the US vetoes that, at least the UN will have done its job.
So is this "humanitarian aid" the US getting others to pay for its imperial pretensions in Syria?
Who exactly are the rebels in these "rebel areas"?
What is the connection to racism in Lebanon (anti-Shia) and Israel (anti-non-Jewish)?
They're in some sense Kurdish, apparently, which must delight Turkey. Does the US still maintain a "Kurdish republic" in northern Iraq?
Kurds remain biggest winners from US-led invasion of Iraq
By Abby Sewell
Published 3:06 AM EDT, March 22, 2023
IRBIL, Iraq (AP) — Complexes of McMansions, fast food restaurants, real estate offices and half-constructed high-rises line wide highways in Irbil, the seat of the semi-autonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq.
Many members of the political and business elite live in a suburban gated community dubbed the American Village, where homes sell for as much as $5 million, with lush gardens consuming more than a million liters of water a day in the summer.
The visible opulence is a far cry from 20 years ago. Back then, Irbil was a backwater provincial capital without even an airport. . . .
Iraqi President Abdul Latif Rashid, from the rival Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, also gave a glowing assessment of the post-2003 developments. The Kurds, he said, had aimed for “a democratic Iraq, and at the same time some sort of … self-determination for the Kurdish people.”
With the U.S. overthrow of Saddam, he said, “We achieved that ... We became a strong group in Baghdad.”
The post-invasion constitution codified the Kurdish region’s semi-independent status, while an informal power-sharing arrangement now stipulates that Iraq’s president is always a Kurd, the prime minister a Shiite and the parliament speaker a Sunni.