General Assembly Demands All in Syria End Violence

[Kajoyan Gevork]

3 August 2012
General Assembly
GA/11266
------------------------------

Department of Public Information - News and Media Division - New York

Sixty-sixth General Assembly

Plenary

124th & 125th Meetings (AM & PM)

General Assembly, in Resolution, Demands All in Syria `Immediately and Visibly'
Commit to Ending Violence that Secretary-General Says Is Ripping Country
Apart

General Assembly `Again Proves Its Power and Authority', Says Its President

>From Qatar; Syria's Speaker Denounces Resolution as `Misleading and Hysterical'

Gravely concerned by the escalating violence in Syria, the General Assembly
today strongly condemned Damascus' indiscriminate use of heavy weapons in
civilian areas and its widespread violations of human rights, demanding
that all parties `immediately and visibly' commit to ending a conflict that
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called `a test of everything
this Organization stands for'.

By a recorded vote of 133 in favour to 12 against, with 31 abstentions, the
Assembly overwhelmingly adopted a resolution expressing its concern about a
raft of gross human rights violations being carried out by Syrian
Government forces, systematic attacks against civilians, and the increasing
use of `heavy weapons, armour and the air force against populated areas'.
It was also concerned by the humanitarian impact of the violence, including
repression of fundamental rights, and the influx Syrian refugees into
neighbouring countries. (See Annex.)

Deploring the Security Council's failure to agree on measures to ensure the
Syrian authority's compliance with its decisions - most recently when, on
20 July, China and the Russian Federation vetoed a Council resolution that
threatened sanctions if demands to end the spiralling violence were not met
- the Assembly expressed its determination to seek ways and means to
provide protection for the Syrian civilian population.

Its four-part resolution drafted by the Arab Group and sponsored by scores
of other countries covered accountability, the humanitarian situation,
political transition and follow-up. In it, the Assembly stressed that
rapid progress on a political transition represented the `best opportunity'
to resolve the 18-month-long crisis peacefully. It demanded in that regard
that all the parties to the conflict work with the Office of the Joint
Special Envoy of the United Nations and the League of Arab States to
implement rapidly the transition plan for Syria set forth in the final
communiqué issued by the Action Group on 30 June.

While the Assembly's action came less than 24 hours after the Special
Envoy, Kofi Annan, announced in frustration that he would not renew his
mandate when it expired at the end of August, the resolution nevertheless
fully backed his demand that the first step in ending the violence must be
made by the Syrian authorities, and therefore called on the Government to
fulfil immediately its commitment to cease the use of heavy weapons and
complete the withdrawal of Government troops.

Following threats by the Syrian authorities to use chemical or biological
weapons in the conflict, the resolution also demanded that the Government
refrain from using or transferring such weapons to non-State actors, and
that it respect international obligations regarding those weapons. The
text went on to condemn all violence, `regardless of where it comes from,
including terrorist acts', and demanded that all parties immediately
implement Security Council resolutions 2042 (2012) and 2043 (2012), both
adopted in April, in order to achieve a cessation of all armed violence,
`thereby creating an atmosphere conducive to [=85] a Syrian-led political
transition that meets the aspirations of the Syrian people'.

Before the vote, Secretary-General Ban drew chilling comparisons between
the current deadly fighting in Aleppo - `the epicentre of a vicious battle
between the Syrian Government and those who wish to replace it' - and
Srebrenica, which he said represented one of the darkest chapters in United
Nations history, `when the international community failed to protect
civilians from slaughter'.

`Today, we are all witnesses to the horrors of Syria being ripped apart by
violence,' he said, noting that the acts of brutality being reported might
constitute crimes against humanity or war crimes, which must be
investigated and the perpetrators held to account. Despite repeated verbal
acceptances of the six-point plan endorsed by the Security Council, both
the Government and the opposition continued to rely on weapons, not
diplomacy, in the belief that they would win through violence. `But there
are no winners in Aleppo today, or anywhere else in the country. The
losers in this escalating battle are the people of Syria,' he said,
reiterating his regret that sharp divisions had paralyzed action in the
Security Council.

Continuing, the Secretary-General noted that last week in Geneva, Foreign
Ministers of the Action Group, including the five permanent Council
members, had agreed on an action plan. `Now, with the situation having
worsened, they must again find common ground. The immediate interests of
the Syrian people must be paramount over any larger rivalries of
influence,' he declared. The conflict in Syria was a test of everything
the Organization stood for, he said, adding: `I do not want today's United
Nations to fail that test. I want us all to show the people of Syria and
the world that we have learned the lessons of Srebrenica.'

Opening the meeting with a strong call for action, Assembly President
Nassir Abdulaziz Al-Nasser also spotlighted the situation in Aleppo, where,
he said, intensified military operations by the Syrian Government forces
had led to daily `gross human rights violations'. The League of Arab
States and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights had
repeatedly indicated that such acts might amount to crimes against humanity
and other international crimes, he added.

`I am deeply concerned about this horrifying escalation,' he said,
condemning the continued widespread atrocities and violations of
international humanitarian law by the Syrian authorities, as well as
`horrifying' reports about mass killings, extrajudicial executions, and
deliberate targeting of civilians. All parties to the conflict had
responsibilities under international law to adhere to. Those responsible
must be held accountable. `It is time to act. Words are not enough. The
international community is responsible to act without further delay.'

He said that the deadlock in the Security Council `sends the wrong signals
to all parties in the Syrian conflict'. Yet, in such times of deadlock,
the General Assembly, under the United Nations Charter, had a role to play
in the maintenance of international peace and security. `Today, once
again, the Assembly proves its power and authority,' he declared, adding:
`We have to provide the necessary assistance to the people of Syria to
find an all-inclusive and peaceful solution to the crisis.'

Taking the floor ahead of action, Syria's representative, who requested
that the resolution be put to a vote, denounced the text as `misleading and
hysterical' and a violation of the principles of international law, which
was not intended to protect Syrians. In fact, the resolution would send
the wrong message to terrorists inside and outside of Syria, and would
escalate violence in the region. He also noted the `strange paradox' that
the States sponsoring the text were the same ones that were providing
weapons to the terrorist groups in Syria.

Those States were also providing political media coverage to the armed
groups and were enforcing unilateral sanctions, which not only conflicted
with the six-point plan, but also violated international law. He said that
if those States were truly concerned, they would channel all of the
billions of dollars they were spending to arm terrorist groups to
humanitarian aid instead. No one in Syria had seen any such humanitarian
assistance thus far, despite agreements reached with the United Nations on
a response plan some months ago. `I am proud to stand here to defend
against all conspirators against my nation,' he said, adding that a General
Assembly President should be neutral in his role, but the current
President, from Qatar, had violated that principle for probably the tenth
time.

Among the more than 30 delegations speaking before and after the vote, most
echoed serious concern for the civilians in Aleppo and other areas gripped
by violence. Many speakers hailed the Assembly's decision to act,
especially in the face of the ongoing stalemate in the Security Council.
Yet, while some decried Syria's brutal repression of what had begun as
peaceful protests, and expressed concern that the crisis was sliding into
civil war, several speakers stressed that the Assembly resolution should
have included specific and equally strong calls on the opposition to end
the violence. Calling the text `one sided' and `politically motivated',
others lamented its omission of references to the growing influence on the
conflict of outside actors, including those with ties to Al-Qaida.

As he introduced the text on behalf of the Arab Group, the representative
of Saudi Arabia, said that in response to Mr. Annan's six-point plan, the
international community had received in return six massacres carried out by
the Syrian `Government killing machine' in Baba Amr, Al-Rastan, Houla,
Traimsh, Foquir and today in Aleppo. Moreover, a political process was
`nowhere to be found'. The Assembly's action aimed to show that the time
was now to begin a peaceful transfer of power in order to achieve the
aspirations of the Syrian people `and preserve the blood of their
children'. It also aimed to guarantee security, safety and equality of
rights and duties for all Syrian people of different ethnic, religious and
sectarian affiliations.

Yet, the representative of the Russian Federation regretted the adoption of
the text, which, he said, would only exacerbate confrontation and hamper
the search for a peaceful solution. `Behind the façade of international
rhetoric, it hides support for the Syrian opposition,' he declared, and
added that it was no coincidence that the countries backing the Syrian
opposition were the most vocal supporters of the resolution. He also said
that members of the Security Council should work hand-in-hand and not go
outside that body to find solutions.

Speaking in explanation of position before action were the representatives
of Venezuela, Cuba, South Africa, Bolivia, Democratic People's Republic of
Korea, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Ecuador, Iran and Bahamas.

Taking the floor after the vote were the representatives of Chile, Brazil,
Costa Rica, Viet Nam, Israel, United Republic of Tanzania, China, Uruguay,
Argentina, Nigeria, Serbia, Dominican Republic, India, Guyana, New Zealand,
Canada, Germany, Libya, Qatar and Saudi Arabia (on behalf of the Arab
Group).

A representative of the delegation of the European Union also addressed the
meeting.

Speaking in exercise of the right of reply were the representatives of
Iran, Bahrain and Syria.

The General Assembly met this morning to consider the item on prevention of
armed conflict, for which it had before it draft resolution on the
situation in Syria (document
A/66/L.57
).

Opening Remarks

NASSIR ABDULAZIZ AL-NASSER, President of the General Assembly, said the
world body was meeting at a time of unprecedented violence in Syria.
Recently, Syrian Government forces had intensified their military
operations against areas presumed to be strongholds of armed opposition
groups, particularly in and around Damascus and Aleppo. `Gross human
rights violations are occurring daily in the context of increasingly
militarized fighting,' he said, adding that the League of Arab States, the
Human Rights Council and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human
Rights had repeatedly indicated that such acts might amount to crimes
against humanity and other international crimes.

`I am deeply concerned about this horrifying escalation,' he said,
condemning continued widespread atrocities and violations of international
humanitarian law by the Syrian authorities. He said that there were
`horrifying reports about mass killings, rape, extrajudicial executions,
torture and deliberate targeting of civilians'. All parties to the
conflict had responsibilities under international law to adhere to. Those
responsible must be held accountable. `It is time to act. Words are not
enough. The international community is responsible to act without further
delay.'

Deeply regretting that the Security Council had again been unable to unite
and take collective action to put an end to the appalling crisis in Syria,
he said that the deadlock in the Council `sends the wrong signals to all
parties in the Syrian conflict'. Yet, in such times of deadlock, the
General Assembly, under the United Nations Charter, had a role to play in
the maintenance of international peace and security. `Today, once again,
the Assembly proves its power and authority,' he declared, adding: `We had
to provide the necessary assistance to the people of Syria to find an
all-inclusive and peaceful solution to the crisis.'

He recalled that the Assembly's 16 February resolution had paved the way
for the appointment of Kofi Annan as the Joint Special Envoy of the United
Nations and the League of Arab States, and for the subsequent adoption
later of that official's six-point plan. None of that had been easy, and
he had immediately expressed regrets when he had learned yesterday of Mr.
Annan's decision not to renew his mandate when it expired at the end of the
month. `This announcement, I understand, obliges us more than ever before
to move forward with persistence and to take additional measures to protect
the Syrian people from the continued atrocities they are subjected to,' he
said.

The six-point plan was not being implemented and the violence was
increasing, and, as such, Member States had gathered today to face their
responsibilities, he said. Indeed, they had no choice but to take the
necessary credible action. `The credibility of the United Nations is at
stake; regional stability in the Middle East is at stake. The lives of
thousands of innocent people depend on our response,' he said, urging all
Member States to support the current draft resolution to fulfil that
important task.

BAN KI-MOON, United Nations Secretary-General, said eight days ago he had
visited Srebrenica, in Bosnia and Herzegovina. He recounted how the
international community had failed to protect civilians from slaughter
there, and how, later, world leaders, partly in reaction to genocide in
Srebrenica and in Rwanda, had come together under the United Nations to
support the concept of responsibility to protect and had agreed to work
collectively when faced with Governments unable or unwilling to protect
their citizens. Today, the world was witnessing the horrors of Syria being
ripped apart by violence. Aleppo, one of the most ancient and storied
cities in the world, a United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage site, was the epicentre of a vicious
battle between the Syrian Government and those seeking to replace it.

He said reported acts of brutality could constitute crimes against humanity
or war crimes; they must be investigated and the perpetrators held to
account. Many of the thousands of displaced Syrians needed humanitarian
assistance. Both the Government and the opposition continued to rely on
weapons, not diplomacy. The losers in that escalating battle were the
Syrian people. Especially tragic was that the catastrophe was avoidable.
All the dire predictions of the last 18 months had come to pass. The grim
possibility of long-term civil war destroying Syria's rich tapestry of
interwoven communities was now evident.

`This would have tragic implications for Syria's people and could affect
stability across the region. We must not let this prediction come true,'
he said, stressing the need to use all peaceful means in the United Nations
Charter to unite around a Syrian-led transition process based on dialogue
and compromise, not bullets and arrests. He regretted the divisions that
had paralyzed action in the Security Council. On 30 June in Geneva,
Foreign Ministers of the Action Group, including the five permanent Council
members, agreed on an action plan, he said. Now, as the situation had
worsened, they must again find common ground, he said, stressing that the
`the immediate interests of the Syrian people must be paramount over any
larger rivalries of influence'.

Despite the difficulties, the United Nations was active on the ground, he
said, delivering humanitarian aid to those it could through the Office for
the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and the country team. The United
Nations Supervision Mission in the Syrian Arab Republic (UNSMIS), despite
the deteriorating security environment, played an essential role in
monitoring developments. United Nations human rights officials continued
to work towards documentation that could help with essential
accountability. And the Joint Special Envoy, Kofi Annan, had sought to
engage with Syrians across the political spectrum and with those who had
influence inside the country in a bid to use diplomacy to end the bloodshed
and move toward a Syrian-led political transition.

He said yesterday he announced with deep regret the resignation of Mr.
Annan, who deserved `our deepest admiration for his efforts over the past
several months', for bringing tremendous skill and determination to the
task. Yet both the Syrian Government and the opposition forces spurned the
hand offered to them, and continued to demonstrate their determination to
rely on violence. Moreover, the sharp differences in the Security Council
themselves made the Envoy's work more difficult. He said he was consulting
with League of Arab States Secretary-General Nabil El Araby to appoint a
successor.

`But let me be clear: Mediation can only succeed where there is a
commitment to solving conflict through dialogue and real leverage to back
it up,' he said. He praised the commitment and courage of everyone in the
United Nations working in Syria. The situation would be even worse if the
United Nations were absent. He urged Member States to continue to provide
support and the mandate for the Organization's work. `The conflict in
Syria is a test of everything this organization stands for,' he said.
`I
do not want today's United Nations to fail that test. I want us all to
show the people of Syria and the world that we have learned the lessons of
Srebrenica. United international pressure can make a difference.'

`The Syrian people need action,' he said, adding, `their aspirations
have been denied. Their suffering is profound, and the increasing
militarization promises only worse.' The refusal of those on the ground to
stop the violence did not absolve the rest of the international community
to act. `I urge all members of this Assembly to face up to the collective
responsibilities we shoulder,' he said.

*Action on Draft*

ABDALLAH Y. AL-MOUALLIMI (Saudi Arabia), in his capacity as Chair of the
Arab Group, then introduced the draft text on *the situation in the Syrian
Arab Republic* (document A/66/L.57), recalling that, a few months ago, the
Assembly had adopted a similar resolution based on the decisions of the
Arab League. That text had led to the appointment of Kofi Annan as Joint
Special Envoy, who had since sought a peaceful and comprehensive political
solution to the Syrian crisis through his six-point plan. The deployment
of United Nations observers and the adoption of the so-called Geneva
declaration had followed that appointment, all playing a role in the effort
to stop `the Government's killing machine that had been slaughtering the
courageous Syrian people'.

But what had Mr. Annan, the international community and the Syrian people
received in return for such efforts, he asked? For the six-point plan they
had received six massacres, in Baba Amr, Al-Rastan, Houla, Traimsh, Foquir
and today in Aleppo. Moreover, instead of protecting the international
observers and facilitating their mission, the Syrian authorities had left
them endangered and threatened and forced them to take refuge in their
residences. `And as for the political solution? It is nowhere to be
found,' he said. To that end, Mr. Annan had appealed to the Security
Council to demand that the Syrian Government fulfil its obligations or face
the consequences, but that body's efforts had been stymied by a double
veto, giving the impression that the Council was turning a blind eye to the
painful reality in Syria. That reality had become a great threat to peace
and security, at the regional and international levels, in addition to
adding to the suffering of the Syrian people.

Accordingly, following appropriate amendments, the sponsors presented to
the Assembly today its draft, fully confident that the conscience of the
world would not ignore the distress and pride of the Syrian people who
faced artillery and tanks. He urged its adoption, which reaffirmed that
the international community `does not tolerate what is happening in Syria;
does not accept the ongoing killings, persecution and massacres'. The
violent attacks by the Syrian troops made the Assembly's action more
important than ever before, and it aimed to show that the time was now to
begin a peaceful transfer of power in order to achieve the aspirations of
the Syrian people `and preserve the blood of their children'. It also
aimed to guarantee security, safety and equality of rights and duties for
all Syrian people of different ethnic, religious and sectarian affiliations.

The representative of *Syria* said it was a strange paradox that the States
sponsoring the text were the same ones that were providing weapons to the
terrorist groups in Syria. Western media outlets had confirmed that fact.
They had also confirmed that missiles had arrived via Turkey to those armed
groups. Those media outlets were leading a hysterical media campaign
against Syria. Those States were also providing political media coverage
to the armed groups and were enforcing unilateral sanctions, which not only
conflicted with the six-point plan, but also violated international law.
If those States were truly concerned, they would channel all of the
billions of dollars they were spending to arm terrorist groups to
humanitarian aid instead. No one in Syria had seen any such humanitarian
assistance thus far, despite agreements reached with the United Nations on
a humanitarian response plan some months ago. Saudi Arabia, Qatar and
Bahrain, which had sponsored today's draft resolution, could not in any way
be considered oases of democracy. The situation of human rights and basic
freedoms in those countries was considered among the worst in the world by
human rights organizations.

He said that other States sponsoring the draft did not have any credibility
as they had manipulated many United Nations resolutions in the past. It
was dangerous for them to sponsor such a text, which granted legitimacy to
an agenda that had shaken the trust of the international community,
especially after the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. During the current
crisis, Syria had witnessed a series of suicide terrorist explosions and a
number of Arab and non-Arab terrorists associating intellectually with
Al-Qaida in order to implement `creative chaos' in Syria. Some States
had
sent terrorists to Syria. But the draft's sponsors had failed to mention
those terrorists in the text. Many Western countries were awakening
terrorist sleeping cells in Syria. Some countries were carrying out an
organized campaign of incitement. States, groups and individuals that
incited violence should be criminalized.

He asked if the draft truly intended to implement international laws to
protect Syrians. On the contrary, it was a `misleading and hysterical'
text that violated the principles of international law. It would send the
wrong message to terrorists inside and outside of Syria, and it would
escalate violence in the region. Therefore, he requested that it be put to
vote and he called upon all States to oppose it.

He said he had expected Saudi Arabia to submit a draft on Israel's
occupation instead of on Syria. The incitement of murder had reached a
level in which Saudi and Qatari media were no longer satisfied with
targeting Syria, but were now also targeting the Permanent Representative
personally and his family. `I am proud to stand here to defend against all
conspirators against my nation,' he said, adding that he had received
several death threats from websites in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United
States. A General Assembly President should be neutral in his role, but
the current President, from Qatar, had violated that principle for probably
the tenth time during his term.

JORGE VALERO BRICEÑO (*Venezuela*) said that the draft resolution was an
intervention in the internal affairs of a sovereign and independent State.
It proposed the establishment of protection mechanism against a sovereign
country. The draft lacked objectivity. It described a long list of
trivial human rights violations attributed to the Syrian Government, but
minimized or concealed the human rights crimes committed by terrorist
groups and the armed opposition. It ignored the political and
constitutional reforms promoted by the Syrian Government, aimed at reaching
an inclusive, democratic and peaceful national agreement. Every sovereign
State had the right to defend its national sovereignty and to protect
public and private property. That right must not be denied or infringed
upon.

He said the Syrian Government did not face a democratic opposition that
used peaceful and constitutional means for achieving its purposes.
Instead, it was an opposition that practiced or supported terrorism and
which survived, owing to foreign support. That armed opposition refused to
participate in a democratic and pluralistic dialogue. The only viable
option to end the armed violence in Syria was through a sincere and
inclusive political dialogue. Venezuela supported the position taken by
the Russian Federation, China and other countries that defended the
principles of sovereignty, self-determination and territorial integrity,
which were enshrined in the United Nations Charter. It was commendable
that they opposed foreign intervention and that they advocated a Syrian-led
solution.

Speaking next, the representative of *Cuba* said his delegation would vote
against the draft because it would only lead to increased instability and
violence. The text was biased and could even pave the way for foreign
intervention, `something for which we have baleful memories in the recent
past'. The text was an example of the prevailing view of Washington and
other NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) capitals. That view was
being promulgated by the media in those capitals, whose reckless and
one-sided reporting was only adding to the problem. The true aim of the
draft was not to assist the Syrian people towards a political solution; it
was politically motivated and must be recognized as such.

The representative of *South Africa* said that his delegation deplored the
violence and loss of life in Syria, `which is fast spiralling out of
control'. The actions by both sides, especially the use of heavy weapons,
were shocking and should be deplored by all. South Africa appreciated the
support of regional actors, the United Nations and the International
Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) to address the
humanitarian situation. He reminded the Assembly that IFRC had recently
classified the situation as a `civil war'. All sides had obligations under
international law. There could be no military solution, and, ultimately,
the parties in Syria would have to negotiate a settlement. The only
question was whether they did so now or after a protracted and bloody civil
war.

That was why, he said, his country had been disappointed that the Security
Council had been unable to apply pressure on both sides to seek a peaceful
political solution. He supported the Assembly's decision to adopt a text,
but the current one should have been more balanced. Indeed, an unbalanced
text could be viewed as the Assembly's expressed support for one side over
the other. The resolution should call strongly on the opposition to pursue
a political solution and cease all violence. Despite its misgivings on
some aspects of the text, South Africa believed it was necessary for the
United Nations to take action.

*Bolivia*'s representative said that his delegation would vote against the
resolution. The people of Syria were `trapped between two sides', and
the
United Nations was duty-bound to help deal with the painful humanitarian
crisis. It was no longer a regional matter. Yet, while the United Nations
must act, such action had limits under its Charter. Indeed, Charter
principles proscribed intervention in the territorial integrity of States.
The resolution, if adopted, would not contribute to a solution; on the
contrary, it would make matters worse.

Indeed, the aim of the text was not to assist the Syrian population, but to
`defeat Damascus'. `Anybody who doesn't believe that needs only read it,'
he said, explaining that, on at least on 14 occasions, it condemned the
Syrian authorities of the worst international crimes, while making only a
passing mention of the opposition's action. Neither did the draft mention
the activities of outside terrorists and other armed groups working to
destabilize Syria. And while it set out a very detailed description of
what type of democratic Government the people of Syria should strive to
achieve, it did not recall what had happened in Iraq after the fall of
Saddam Hussein. He regretted that the draft had been rushed `hurriedly' to
the Assembly after the Security Council had failed to act and after only
the briefest of consultations among the Organization's wider membership.

The representative of the *Democratic People's Republic of Korea* stressed
the very negative impact the situation in Syria was having in the Middle
East region and he expressed his deepest concern over it. The Syria issue
must be addressed evenly and peacefully, and sovereignty must be fully
respected, in line with the Charter. Syria was a full-fledged United
Nations Member State. The Syrian Government and been democratically
elected, and the principle of non-interference should be respected. The
impact of interference in State affairs in many instances had been
disastrous. If one shifted the focus from Syria to neighbouring countries,
one could see that military interference had led to violence and the
killing of innocent civilians. That was evident in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The United States talked a lot about protection of civilians, but one must
look at what that country was doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. The United
States only wanted regime change in Syria.

He said the conflict could only be resolved through political dialogue and
peaceful means. Only the Syrian people knew what was in their best
interests. Outside interference could not resolve the problem. It was
hypocritical for the United States to talk about protection of civilians.

CAMILLO GONSALVES (*Saint Vincent and the Grenadines*) said that the small
but vibrant Syrian and Lebanese community within his country was also
directly and often personally affected by the spiralling violence and
atrocities in Syria, particularly as the war had moved to the major cities
of Damascus and Aleppo. Today's resolution had many positive elements,
which his country enthusiastically supported. Saint Vincent and the
Grenadines shared the resolution's concern for the civilian victims of the
war, particularly the innocent women and children who had been killed or
victimized by the warring parties. However, other aspects of the
resolution gave his country pause and made it question whether a laudable
desire to speak and act on that matter had caused the international
community to overlook many of the indisputable facts on the ground, as well
as many of the principles that undergird the Organization.

He said Saint Vincent and the Grenadines was primarily concerned about the
obvious omissions from the text, which were not only unbalanced, but, in a
far more troubling implication than silence, suggested consent or
endorsement of certain actions and actors. It was a documented fact, for
example, that elements of the opposition forces had assassinated members of
the Syrian Government, either individually or through the use of crude
bombs, which also murdered innocent civilians. Surely, the international
community could not catalogue the violations of the Syrian authorities
while turning a blind eye to the type of despicable terrorism, which it
condemned in every other context and nation. The international community
was also aware of the indisputable presence and activity of Al-Qaida and
other extremists in Syria and their role in some anti-Government activity.

The representative of *Ecuador* said that on several occasions his nation
had condemned Syria's actions. He reiterated his firm condemnation of
human rights violations and expressed solidarity with the victims and their
families. He regretted Mr. Annan's resignation, but hoped the six-point
plan would continue to guide efforts. He also regretted that the
resolution would alter the mandate of the Special Envoy and that it tended
to polarize the conflict without contributing to resolving it. Human
rights matters should be dealt with by the Human Rights Council in Geneva.
To bring such matters to the Assembly in New York only politicized the
issue; it did not deal with the true victims in Syria. For that reason,
Ecuador would abstain from the vote.

The representative of *Iran* said the text ran contrary to all global
efforts to peacefully resolve the conflict and it violated the Charter
principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of States. It was a
malicious desire of certain countries to topple the Syrian regime. Only
the Syrian people should decide their fate. Military intervention by
outside forces and weapons and communications equipment sent to the rebels
exacerbated the situation and deepened the insecurity and political crisis,
with negative consequences for the entire region. In recent months, the
attacks had become more deadly, and in the past few days, armed attacks in
Aleppo had led to many deaths. Yet, the draft failed to hold to account
armed groups led by Al-Qaida, and it failed to condemn acts of terrorism.
It was clear who was behind arming the rebels. Regrettably, some of those
were sponsors of the draft, which imposed sanctions on Syria while people
were in dire need of basic aid. That was `collective punishment'.

He said he regretted Mr. Annan's resignation. After the recent meeting of
the Security Council, some of its permanent members had rushed to announce
that the Special Envoy's mission was dead and that they would pursue their
own direct action to address the conflict. Such an approach was blatant
interference in Syria's internal affairs. He expressed hope that Mr.
Annan's replacement would act along the same lines as Mr. Annan. He was
meanwhile concerned about the regional consequences of the conflict. He
encouraged political parties to engage in political dialogue with the
Syrian Government, and he reiterated Iran's readiness to hold talks between
the Syrian Government and opposition parties. Syria had historically
played an essential role in the Middle East. Everyone must work together
in a practical way to end the conflict. The text was unbalanced, one-sided
and it did not reflect reality. Therefore, Iran would vote against it.

The representative of the *Bahamas* said her delegation would support the
draft because the welfare of the Syrian people should be the major concern
of the Assembly and the wider international community. The parties on the
ground should immediately cease all violence and seek a political solution,
and the Bahamas believed that the six-point plan of the Joint Special Envoy
remained the building blocks of a peaceful resolution. Indeed, she said,
the Bahamas believed that plan could have been the basis for `a mission
possible', and regretted that Mr. Annan had decided not to renew his
mandate. In any case, the aim of the United Nations must remain assisting
the Syrian people in achieving a peaceful resolution.

The Assembly then adopted the resolution be a recorded vote of 133 in
favour to 12 against, with 31 abstentions (Annex I).

Speaking after action, the representative of *Chile* said that his
delegation profoundly regretted Mr. Annan's resignation. The Envoy's
efforts had been hampered by the non-cooperation of the parties, most
specifically, the Syrian Government. Chile had voted in favour of the
resolution and supported the efforts of the Assembly to raise its voice
against massive and diffuse violations of human rights being perpetrated
against Syrian civilians. Over the past 18 months, the crisis in Syria had
transformed form `brutal repression of peaceful protests to real civil
war', he said, regretting widespread violence and use of heavy weapons.
Chile condemned such violence `wherever it comes from' and called for
its
immediate halt. He expressed his delegation's ongoing support for the
six-point plan, and encouraged the international community to support it,
with respect for Syria's territorial integrity and the efforts of the
Syrian parties to achieve a peaceful solution. Those responsible for the
violence against civilians must be brought to justice, and he reaffirmed
that the Security Council must carry out its duties as defined by the
Charter.

REGINA MARIA CORDEIRO DUNLOP (*Brazil*) said that her country had voted in
favour of the resolution because it fully supported the main message of the
urgent need for a ceasefire, the cessation of violence in all its forms and
the full implementation of Security Council Resolutions 2042 (2012) and
2043 (2012). Brazil's position should be seen as a message to all parties
to renounce the use of force since there was no military solution to the
conflict. The primary responsibility for ending the violence, upholding
the law, both domestic and international, and respecting human rights, lay
with the Government, which must fully and immediately meet that grave and
urgent responsibility. At the same time, Brazil insisted that all parties
must fulfil their obligations to halt violence and respect international
humanitarian law, as well as actively engage in finding a peaceful solution
to the conflict.

For its part, the international community had a key role to play in
ensuring that the Annan Plan and the road map envisaged by the Action Group
prevailed, she said, adding that international stakeholders must refrain
from any actions that might deepen or prolong the conflict. No legitimate
purpose would be truly served by further militarization of the conflict and
increased destabilization of Syria. A political transition should be
inclusive and led by Syrians themselves. Brazil deeply regretted Mr.
Annan's decision not to renew his mandate.

The representative of *Costa Rica* said he had voted in favour of the text
because in present circumstances it was a necessary response to the
extremely grave suffering in Syria. The Council's inaction caused by the
double veto and the enormous obstacles facing the United Nations-Arab
League mediation fully justified the Assembly's attempt to peacefully
resolve the humanitarian tragedy, insecurity and instability in Syria. The
main source of the tragedy was the intransigence of the Syrian Government,
its systematic use of violence against civilians, and its refusal to
undertake mediation in good faith. He regretted Mr. Annan's resignation,
but he understood that he had exhausted his capacity to influence the
situation.

He said that in addition to the intolerable human cost, the alarming
combination of factors threatened to engulf the whole region and it had had
led to a brutal civil war. He appealed to the Syrian authorities to
respect their commitment to international law. Necessary measures must be
taken to avoid further bloodshed and human rights violations by both the
Government and the armed opposition. The way in which a future Syrian
Government was formed was a decision that belonged exclusively to the
Syrian people.

The representative of *Viet Nam* stressed the need to end violence and
resolve the situation through dialogue and a peaceful political solution.
He demanded full compliance with international law. The Charter must be
upheld, based on respect for independence, unity and territorial
integrity. He did not support practices that ran contrary to that
principle. He supported the Syrian-led political process in Syria, and
called on the Assembly membership to support it.

The representative of the *Russian Federation* regretted the adoption of
the text, which only exacerbated confrontation and the search for a
peaceful way to resolve the crisis. Behind the façade of international
rhetoric, it hid support for the Syrian opposition. It was not a
coincidence that the countries supporting the opposition were the most
active sponsors of the resolution. The document included statements about
the inability of the Syrian Government to react to the crisis. That was
not true. Council members should work hand-in-hand and not go outside the
Council to find solutions. Today's resolution was harmful since it
undermined the chances for a Syrian-led process to settle the conflict.

He deeply regretted Mr. Annan's decision to resign and hoped for the
appointment of a successor. The important thing at present was to prevent
the slackening of international efforts. Members of the Action Group
should require strict implementation by all parties and send a clear signal
to end the violence. It was particularly crucial to maintain a United
Nations presence in the country, and UNSMIS was the only independent source
of objective information there.

The representative of *Israel* said that the civilians in Syria were the
deliberate targets of a brutal regime and its evil allies who would commit
any crime to keep Bashar al-Assad in power. On the ground, Iranians were
assisting Assad's henchmen. They had been deployed on Syrian soil to help
sustain the regime and take part in its killing spree against the Syrian
people. The outside forces that had been instrumental in the slaughter
spoke in a Persian accent. Unfortunately, many in the international
community did not yet acknowledge that fact, despite overwhelming evidence
that supported it. While the Security Council remained paralyzed in New
York, Assad's `council of terror' continued to operate ruthlessly in
Damascus. On Assad's advisory board sat Mr. Ahmadinejad and Mr. Nasrallah,
who offered him guidance on how to butcher the Syrian people more
effectively. Bashar al-Assad had no moral authority to govern. He had no
legitimacy to rule and he never did. It was time for all in the United
Nations to speak clearly, decisively and truthfully about the reality on
the ground in Syria.

The representative of the *United Republic of Tanzania* expressed sympathy
to Syria and to the Syrian people for the deaths of innocent people in the
conflict there. He said his country recognized the magnitude of the
situation and had abstained from the vote because it believed that the
matter had been misdiagnosed, according to the United Nations Charter. The
country's vote was not an acceptance of the impunity there, including the
violations perpetrated. However, his country adhered to the principle of
non-discrimination and was concerned that the principle of non-interference
had not been applied in the crisis. Additionally, the resolution had not
recognized the role of external forces in the crisis, and that omission was
a major obstacle to achieving a meaningful and peaceful solution. His
country would continue to abide by the African Union's constitutive act
with regard to unconstitutional changes of government.

The representative of *China* said that despite several amendments to the
draft resolution, it had remained largely unchanged. China urged all
parties to the conflict to cease violence. The imposition of sanctions on
one party had not helped to improve the situation. The only viable
approach to resolving the crisis was to seek a just and peaceful solution,
as military efforts would only lead to more bloodshed. China regretted
the resignation Kofi Annan. It had supported his mediation efforts and
appreciated the constructive role he had played. The international
community should continue to support the action group and the Annan plan.
The solution to the crisis should be determined by the Syrian people
themselves and should be accepted by all Syrians. China opposed any act
aimed at forcing a regime change. The Security Council had been
considering the Syrian crisis and its authority should be upheld. China
believed in the principles of sovereign equality and non-interference. Its
actions were not targeted at any particular issue or at any particular
time. China was ready for concerted effort to uphold the general direction
of seeking a peaceful settlement to the Syrian crisis. China's vote today
had been cast in accordance with the country's stance.

The representative of *Syria* said that while he regretted the Assembly's
adoption of the extremely unbalanced and biased resolution, he thanked all
countries that had voted against it. The text promoted chaos. Syria's
Government and people expected the United Nations to help Syria confront a
culture of extremism or terrorism, whether in Israel or sponsored by
Al-Qaida or fundamental groups. The only way to resolve the conflict was
through an inclusive national dialogue in line with the six-point plan.
The Syrian Government had committed to cease violence and it had withdrawn
heavy weapons since 12 April, in accordance with that plan. But armed
groups had not lived up to their commitments. On the contrary, they had
bolstered their supply of weapons, used their people as human shields,
bombed electric power stations, attacked police stations, and burned
hospitals and clinics. Successive meetings of the Council and Assembly
aimed to provide political cover for armed groups acting against Syria.

He said that some parties were trying to destroy the dignity of some parts
of the Syrian population and were encouraging them to go to refugee camps
with promises that were never kept. Some of those camps had been converted
into military centres, where civilians were trained to fight. The
establishment of a National Reconciliation Ministry was a testament to the
Syrian Government's genuine desire to find a peaceful resolution. It was
strange that the European Union had imposed sanctions on the Syrian
Minister of National Reconciliation only a few days after he had assumed
office. Foreign intervention in Syrian affairs had turned Syrian civilians
into armed rebels.

The Saudi Permanent Representative had put forward a totally erroneous
picture of what was happening in Syria, he said. Saudi Arabia and Qatar
were sponsoring terrorist armed groups in Syria. The Saudi army carried
out brutal armed practices against the Saudi people. Two Arab States had
not supported the resolution, falsifying the claim that the draft had been
submitted on behalf of the Arab Group. Syria had fully proved its
commitment to implement the six-point plan. Israel, which not had
committed to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT),
and had 300 nuclear weapons, should not be speaking about the threat of
chemical and other weapons of mass destruction. International law was on
Syria's side and not on that of the Israeli occupier. The text served the
interest only of the Israeli aggressor.

The representative of *Uruguay* said he voted in favour of the text because
it established important elements to cease violations of human rights and
help facilitate a peaceful solution in line with international law. The
text expressed the sentiment of most of the international community. He
reiterated support for the Secretary-General's efforts, and he regretted
the resignation of Mr. Annan. He supported the work of international
organizations in line in with Chapter VIII of the Charter. It was
fundamentally important to achieve a peaceful solution that preserved the
rights of the population, in accordance with international law.

The representative of *Argentina* expressed grave concern over the
situation and regretted that the veto of two countries in the Council had
led to its inability to act. He regretted the violence and violation of
human rights committed in Syria. The Assembly had the responsibility to
respect and enforce the principles and aims on which the Organization was
built. For most countries, the United Nations was a necessary
institution. Any stand taken by the Assembly must aim to promote a
peaceful, lasting solution to the conflict in Syria. For that reason,
Argentina had voted in favour of the text, which aimed to put an end to the
violence as soon as possible and promote respect for human rights. It
appealed to the international community to achieve those objectives,
including through implementation of the six-point plan. He hoped that all
States would refrain from action that spurred the violence in Syria. He
recognized the Arab League's efforts to find a solution, but he did not
endorse all of its decisions. Nothing in the resolution opened the door to
the use of armed force by members of the international community.

The representative of *Nigeria* expressed regret that the situation in
Syria had continued to deepen. The resignation of the Special Envoy
reflected the lack of support by the various parties for his plans to end
the crisis. The United Nations and larger international community had a
responsibility and a moral obligation to act appropriately to stem the
deterioration. The resolution provided much needed impetus towards finding
a peaceful solution, however, Nigeria, had misgivings about some issues in
it, such as the lack of balance and the fact that the text held only one
side accountable for human rights violations.

Thus, he said, his country's support for the resolution did not imply a
blanket endorsement of the Arab League's position, which implicitly called
for regime change in Syria. Those were matters beyond the remit of the
General Assembly. Nigeria also did not believe that the call to welcome
the meeting of the Syrian opposition was the role of the General Assembly.
That would undermine the Organization. The Nigerian delegation had voted in
support of the resolution because of its commitment to respect human rights
and protect civilians in conflict. It also believed in the importance of
regional initiatives in that regard. In voting, Nigeria had been moved by
concern at the escalating violence. It, therefore, called on the Security
Council to live up to its Charter obligations and address constructively
and transparently the grave situation.

The representative of *Serbia* said that his country had voted in favour of
the resolution with the understanding that all international involvement in
the crisis should be aimed at achieving an end to the violence.

The representative of the *Dominican Republic* said that his country had
supported the resolution even though it was clear during its introduction
at recent meetings that it was controversial. It was not a perfect
resolution, but it was capable of accumulating a critical mass. That was
why the Dominican Republic had voted in its favour; its adoption was the
difference between keeping one's arms crossed and trying to do something
to
show that the Organization was not indifferent to the sufferings of the
Syrian people. His country's support was also an acknowledgment of the
worsening situation on the ground, which could widen. It hoped that the
divergent views among Security Council members could soon be overcome to
enable implementation of the six-point plan. Delaying that action would
lead to the inevitable reality that violence would impose its own
unstoppable solution.

The representative of *India* said that since the last meeting of the
General Assembly on the situation, it had steadily deteriorated. The
conflict had become increasingly militarized and a number of terrorist acts
had been carried out. More than 2 million Syrians were said to be in need
of humanitarian assistance. India strongly condemned all violence and
human rights violations. It also condemned all terrorist acts and called
on all parties to disassociate themselves from terrorist groups and to make
no space available to them. It was time to close ranks and send a united
message to the parties on the need for a Syrian-led political process.
That was the only way to end the human rights violations.

He said his country had consistently called for international efforts to
assist the parties. Mr. Annan's effort had put in place a platform for
resolving the crisis. To assist the parties in changing their course, it
was important that all parties fully abide by their obligations under
Security Council resolutions. India believed that it was critical for the
United Nations to be firmly involved with the Syrian parties in the search
for the way forward. Unilateral actions of any kind would not help. In
that light, India had abstained from the vote.

The representative of *Guyana* said a tragedy was unfolding in Syria that
should have been avoided. He condemned all violations of human rights by
all. He was equally concerned by the humanitarian impact on the affected
population. All perpetrators must be held to account. The Syrian
Government must take responsibility to end the violence, protect civilians
and fully comply with its obligations under international law. At the same
time, the international community could not turn a blind eye to the harmful
acts of opposition groups, but must look at harmful acts committed by all.
The text fell short in that regard. In the interest of the Syrian people,
the United Nations must remain unceasing in its efforts to end the
bloodshed on all sides and assist in the search for a viable solution. The
six-point plan remained valid, and he supported the continued efforts of
the Secretary-General towards that end. Given the gravity of the
situation, it was imperative that the Council urgently fulfil its Charter
responsibilities. The international community must urgently unite to
address the needs of the Syrian people.

IOANNIS VRAILAS (*European Union*) said that the Union stood by the Syrian
people at this critical juncture in their courageous struggle for freedom,
dignity, democracy and human rights. It strongly condemned the ever
increasing use of force by the regime, including the use of heavy artillery
and shelling from tanks, aircraft and combat helicopters in populated areas
in blatant violation of its obligations under the Annan Plan and Security
Council resolutions 2042 (2012)and 2043 (2012). The Union remained deeply
concerned about the human rights situation and about breaches of
international humanitarian law in Syria. The systematic and widespread
human rights violations committed by the regime demonstrated its outright
contempt for human rights.

He also expressed the European Union's concern about recent reports of the
alleged use of cluster munitions against civilians. It affirmed its
support for the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria
and its investigations into alleged violations of international human
rights law, with a view to holding to account those responsible, including
for cases that might amount to crimes against humanity. Stating that the
main responsibility for the current crisis lay with the Syrian regime, the
Union warned against further militarisation of the conflict and against
sectarian violence, which could only bring further suffering to Syrians and
risk a tragic impact on the region.

The representative of *New Zealand* said the Syrian Government had failed
to fulfil the six-point plan. He expressed regret over Mr. Annan's
resignation. Syrian Government officials had repeatedly said they would
honour their commitments under the plan, and he was waiting for the Syrian
Government and all sides to do so. Instead, that Government had grown more
scornful and it had a military advantage over the rebels. The Council had
been blocked from acting with firm resolve, leaving other countries
wondering what else could be done. He expressed hope that the Assembly
would not have to reconvene in two months over the same concerns. `We must
not fail that test,' he said. He applauded regional efforts to resolve the
crisis, including the draft sponsored by some Arab States. In the absence
of action under Chapter VII of the Charter, the Assembly had a role to
play, and this resolution was the next best option, as it built on the loud
and now constant demands of the international community to end the violence
in Syria.

He said he was appalled by the Syrian Government's threat to use chemical
weapons. He reminded all parties of their obligations under international
humanitarian law to protect civilians in armed conflict. Those responsible
for crimes against humanity could not be part of Syria's future, and he was
committed to the fight against impunity for such violations. He called on
all to cooperate with the independent international commission of inquiry.
It was important to always be mindful of the suffering of internally
displaced persons and refugees and the enormous burden their plight imposed
on surrounding countries. A civil war in Syria would gravely endanger
neighbouring countries. One man and the clique that surrounded him had
lost all touch with reality.

The representative of *Canada* deplored the ongoing situation and was
disappointed by the Council's inability to act together. He fully
supported the Arab Group-sponsored resolution and he was pleased by its
prompt passage. He also supported calls for sanctions. He called on all
those that had sheltered the Assad regime to cease their efforts
immediately and to join the international efforts for Mr. Assad's departure
and for bringing the conflict to an end. He regretted Mr. Annan's
resignation and called on all parties to end violence and respect the basic
rights of all Syrians.

The representative of *Germany* also regretted Mr. Annan's resignation, as
it felt his decision came at a critical juncture. He shared the
frustration over the intransigence of the Syrian Government and had fully
endorsed today's resolution. It came at a time when the Council, with its
three double vetoes, had been unable to live up to its responsibility. The
text sent two clear messages: a message of support to the Syrian people;
and a message to the regime that the international community would not
accept the war Mr. Assad waged against his own population. He made an
earnest call on all relevant forces in Syria not to use chemical weapons or
to transfer them to others.

He also expressed concern over human rights abuses in Syria, especially
against women and children. All humanitarian actors must be given access
to affected people. He thanked the Governments of Iraq, Lebanon and others
in the region for opening their doors to Syrian refugees. For that reason,
Germany had increased its humanitarian aid for the Syrian population to
11.5 million euros. It was of utmost importance that the opposition follow
through with the decisions made at the Cairo meeting. One day there would
be a new Syria. Together with the Syrian people, it was necessary to work
for a democratic Syria with religious freedom and respect for the rights of
minorities.

The representative of *Libya* said the Assembly's resolution could repair
the damage to the United Nations caused by the Council's inability to act.
Despite the fact that the resolution did not rise to the level of measures
adopted by the Arab League, it did have widespread support and it sent a
clear message to the Syrian regime that it could not continue indefinitely
in defiance of the international community. This was the last opportunity
for the Syrian regime to recover its sanity. Ordinary people were
demanding their legitimate rights. The international community could not
coexist within a context of indiscriminate destruction. No one could
accept more flagrant violations of human rights.

History showed that tyrants also believed they were the most powerful and
they continued their aggression until they were ultimately crushed, he
said. That would be Mr. Assad's destiny; the Syrian people had no other
option. He saluted the Syrian people for their courage and sense of
resolve to achieve victory. Undoubtedly, they would attain their demands
as the Libyan people had attained theirs. The Assembly must follow up on
implementation of its resolution, imposing certain sanctions, referring
Syrian perpetrators to criminal courts and suspending the country's
membership in international organizations.

SHEIKH MESHAL HAMAD M.J. AL-THANI (*Qatar*) said that the crisis in Syria
had passed the 500-day mark. With each day, the Syrian people had
sacrificed their blood, lost some of their finest youth, endured degrading
treatment and the violation of their honour, suffered scarcity of food and
severe shortage of electricity and fuel for cooking, witnessed the
deterioration of their economy and the devaluation of their currency and
seen their country on the brink of war. The draft resolution submitted by
the Arab Group was a necessary step that could not be further delayed,
especially in the light of the escalating violence by the Syrian regime.
That regime had threatened to use weapons of mass destruction and to
ignite the region. The draft resolution could also not be delayed further
in the light of the worsening humanitarian situation and the refugee flows
to neighbouring countries.

He said the text reflected the positions of the international community, as
it called for a peaceful solution to the crisis based on a Syrian-led
political transition that met the aspirations of the Syrian people and
ensured accountability of those who killed them and violated their rights,
freedoms and dignity. It should lead to the establishment of a
pluralistic, democratic, civil State with equal rights and freedoms, in a
way that preserved Syria's national and territorial unity, sovereignty and
stability. The process should also be in line with United Nations
principles.

It was ironic that the Syrian representative continued to devote his
statements to haphazard accusations against other countries and to
unrealistic justifications of what was happening in Syria, he added. That
was but a desperate attempt to distract attention from the reality of what
was happening and to put the blame on others for the failure of his
Government to achieve the legitimate demands of its people and provide
protection to them. That was not surprising as it came from a
representative of the Syrian regime, he said.

The representative of *Saudi Arabia*, speaking on behalf of the Arab Group,
thanked all States that voted in favour of the resolution and said that it
sent a strong message to the people of Syria that their struggle was not
far from the eyes of the countries and that the international community was
with them. The second message was that the policy of using weapons would
not bear fruit and that using the people as a minefield would not
legitimize the regime. The third message was to the Security Council and
to the forces that undermined the Council's attempt to address the crisis
in Syria that the overwhelming majority of Member States was against the
positions those States had taken and would like the Council to be up to the
task and to deal with the issue in a serious way. Another message to a new
Joint Special Envoy was that a working framework must be specific.

*Rights of Reply*

The representative of *Iran*, speaking in exercise of the right of reply,
said that the representative of Israel had used the Assembly to level
baseless allegations against his country. That regime had been and
remained the only destabilizing entity in the Middle East and had embarked
on violence and barbaric acts for its narrow-minded political aims. In the
crisis in Syria, Israeli agents were actively engaged in providing weapons
and logistics to the terrorist groups attacking civilians. He accused
Israel of State terrorism and assassinations. The assassination of Iranian
scientists was just an example. A regime that engaged in destruction of
houses and killing of women and children was not in a position to talk
about others, let alone pass judgement.

The representative of *Bahrain* said that, in response to the statement by
the Syrian representative, the forces deployed in the Red Sea, were there
on the basis of an agreement concluded in 2009 to prevent all outside
threats.

The representative of *Syria* said that it was regrettable that there had
been a cascade of mischaracterizations and falsehood in many statements
made today. The European Union's statement stated, for example, that the
Union cared about the welfare of the Syrian people. He asked how the
sanctions imposed by the Union fit within that scope, or impeding access to
Syrian's basic needs as a result of the sanctions. Similarly, imposing
sanctions on the country's leaders, including newly appointed ones, did not
show care for the people's welfare.

Regarding the statement by the Libyan representative, he said that the
representative had no basis on which to speak against Syria. It was
regrettable that he had spoken irresponsibly. Syria did not call for
outside military intervention in Syria and the country could not be
followers of others. As for Qatar, the Syrian representative was surprised
at the language he had used, which gave the impression that one was
listening to the television channel broadcasting from that country. He
asked the delegate to explain why his country was financing terrorist
groups in Syria. Why was Qatar keen to discourage dialogue and to promote
violence in Syria, and why was that country impeding implementation of the
six-point plan? Syria was committed to the Geneva Protocol against the use
of asphyxiating poisonous or other gases and would accede to the Chemical
Weapons Convention if Israel acceded to it. It had acceded to the NPT and
had always called for a nuclear-weapon-free-zone in the Middle East. In
fact, in 2003, as a member of the Security Council, Syria had submitted a
resolution on such a zone. The countries making statements about weapons
in the Middle East should have emphasized the dangers of the Israeli
nuclear threat.

*ANNEX*

*Vote on Situation in Syria*

The draft resolution on *The Situation in Syria *(document A/66/L.57) was
adopted by a recorded vote of 133 in favour to 12 against, with 31
abstentions, as follows:

*In favour*: *Afghanistan*, Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Australia,
Austria, *Azerbaijan*, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium,
Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei
Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central
African Republic, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Côte
d'Ivoire, Croatia, *Cyprus*, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican
Republic, *Egypt*, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, *France*, Gabon, *Georgia*,
*Germany*, *Greece*, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti,
Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, *Iraq*, Ireland, *Israel*, Italy,
Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Latvia, Liberia, Libya,
Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Marshall
Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of),
Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Nauru, Netherlands, New
Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea,
Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of
Moldova, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, San Marino, Sao Tome and
Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Singapore, Slovakia,
Slovenia, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Sweden, *Switzerland*,
Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo,
Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, *Tunisia*, *Turkey*, Ukraine, United Arab
Emirates, *United Kingdom*, *United States*, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Zambia.

*Against*: Belarus, Bolivia, China, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of
Korea, *Iran*, Myanmar, Nicaragua, *Russian Federation*, *Syria*,
Venezuela, Zimbabwe.

*Abstain*: Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, *Armenia*, Burundi,
Ecuador, Eritrea, Fiji, Ghana, Guyana, India, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Lao
People's Democratic Republic, *Lebanon*, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mali,
Namibia, Nepal, Pakistan, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines,
Samoa, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Uganda, United
Republic of Tanzania, Viet Nam.

*Absent*: Cambodia, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica,
Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Kiribati, Malawi, Philippines, South
Sudan, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Yemen.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2012/ga11266.doc.htm