By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, July 14 -- When the UN Security Council adopted a resolution on humanitarian access to Syria on July 14, its Operative Paragraph 11 said the Council “affirms that it will take further measures in the event of non-compliance with this resolution or resolution 2139 (2014) by any Syrian party.”
Afterward, Australia's Permanent Representative to the UN Gary Quilan emphasized at the media stakeout that resolutions are binding, that the Council had affirmed that it will take measures if not complied with by the parties. Video here, from Minute 2:10
Inner City Press sought to ask a question about a statement inside the Security Council by Russia's Vitaly Churkin, and Quinlan agreed to take the question. Inner City Press asked Quinlan to respond to Churkin saying that the resolution “doesn't plan for automatism” in sanctions or the use of force, that any such steps would require the specific consideration of the Security Council and “convincing evidence.” Video of Churkin's statement here, from Minute 25.
Quinlan replied that what Churkin said was correct, then said that while there would have to be a further decision by the Security Council about what measures to take, the decision that some measures would be taken has already been made. Video here from Minute 18.
Readers can draw their own conclusion how meaningful it is to claim that a decision to definitely act has been made, if another vote including veto powers is required.
Footnote: Asking this question was not easy. The first question was given to Voice of America; the second taken by the whip of the UN Correspondents Association's president, sometimes writing for the Huffington Post. She then tried to keep the UN Television boom microphone operator for giving the microphone to Inner City Press -- even as Ambassador Quinlan said, “Matthew... what Ambassador Churkin said was correct.”
This UNCA, becoming the UN's Censorship Alliance,seems to believe it can block questions (as well as having tried to get Inner City Press thrown out after its reporting about Sri Lanka, here). The new Free UN Coalition for Access opposes this.
To come full circle, acknowledging deft diplomacy by Australia and its co-leads Jordan and Luxembourg on this resolution, it is sometimes hard not to note the contradiction of Australia returning asylum seekers from Sri Lanka after only “reviewing” their claims on a ship. Inner City Press has asked Ambassador Quinlan about this, and we hope to have a story on the topic soon. Watch this site.
