Syria: Adoption of Presidential Statement
Tomorrow morning (10 August), the Security Council is expected to adopt a presidential statement on the situation in Syria. The draft text, authored by Denmark, is a response to sectarian violence that started on 13 July in Suweida, a Druze-majority governorate in southern Syria.
Background
The clashes, which initially broke out between Bedouin tribal fighters and Druze militias, intensified between 14 and 16 July following the deployment of the Syrian interim authorities’ security forces to the area. Israel subsequently launched airstrikes targeting Syrian security forces and buildings, including in Damascus. The Syrian interim government said that its forces were trying to quell the fighting, while Israel stated that it was protecting Druze minorities and trying to ensure the demilitarisation of the area adjacent to Israel’s border with Syria. On 18 July, the US announced that Israel and Syria had reached a ceasefire, and the next day the Syrian interim president, Ahmed al-Sharaa, announced a renewed truce with the Druze militia in Suweida. Tensions persist, however, as sporadic clashes between government-affiliated forces and Druze militias have continued to take place.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), a UK-based human rights monitoring organisation, has said that around 1,622 people, including 166 civilians, have been killed since 13 July. In an 18 July statement, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) noted that it had received credible reports of summary executions, arbitrary killings, kidnapping, and looting in Suweida. Among the reported perpetrators were members of the security forces and individuals affiliated with the interim authorities as well as other “armed elements”, including from the Druze and Bedouin communities. Additionally, according to the UN, the hostilities have displaced nearly 191,000 people, affected the provision of essential services in the region, and constrained aid delivery.
On 28 July, following the Council’s monthly briefing on Syria, Council members held closed consultations at Denmark’s request. During that meeting, Denmark—the humanitarian penholder on Syria—informed Council members of its intention to present a draft presidential statement regarding the violence in Suweida, which would have a humanitarian focus. Some members were apparently supportive of the initiative and recognised the need for the Council to respond to the hostilities and call for the facilitation of humanitarian aid into the region.
Negotiations on the Draft Presidential Statement
Denmark shared a zero draft of the presidential statement on 29 July. After one round of comments, a revised draft, and another round of comments, the penholder put a second revision of the draft text under silence procedure on 4 August. Silence was subsequently broken by the “A3 Plus” members (Algeria, Sierra Leone, Somalia, and Guyana), Pakistan, and France. After holding bilateral discussions with several Council members, on 7 August, Denmark put a third revised text under silence procedure until the next day. The statement passed silence on Friday afternoon (8 August).
In the agreed presidential statement, the Council expresses deep concern at the escalation of violence in Suweida and “strongly condemns the violence perpetrated against civilians”. It calls on all parties to adhere to the “ceasefire arrangement” and to ensure the protection of the civilian population.
The statement also emphasises the importance of accountability and stresses that “there can be no meaningful recovery in Syria without genuine safety and protection for all Syrians”. Welcoming the interim authorities’ condemnation of the violence and its actions to hold to account those responsible, the statement calls on the authorities to pursue credible investigations and to bring all perpetrators, regardless of affiliation, to justice. It also takes note of the interim authorities’ establishment of a committee “to verify the affiliation and background” of perpetrators, and “underlines the importance and urgency of inclusive and transparent justice and reconciliation processes”.
The statement urges all parties to ensure unhindered humanitarian access for the UN and its implementing partners. It further urges parties to ensure the “humane treatment” of all persons, including those who have surrendered, were wounded, detained, or laid down their arms.
One of the key issues during the negotiations concerned language referring to international humanitarian law (IHL) and human rights. The first revision of the draft text apparently had a reference to parties’ obligations to respect both international human rights law (IHRL) and IHL. It seems, however, that the US requested the deletion of the direct reference to IHRL, while the UK sought to include the qualifier “as applicable”. As a result, the second revised draft text, which the penholder put under silence, reiterated “the obligation of all parties to respect relevant human rights and international humanitarian law, as applicable, in all circumstances”. France, supported by Slovenia, apparently broke silence over these amendments, expressing concern that the formulation weakened IHL language. In an apparent compromise, the agreed presidential statement refers to the obligation to respect “relevant human rights and international humanitarian law provisions”.
Another contentious issue in the negotiations was disagreement on whether Israeli military actions in Syria should be explicitly referenced in the text. The first revision of the text included two direct references to Israel: in a section describing the context of the escalations in Suweida and in another calling on states to respect the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of Syria. The A3 Plus members and Pakistan apparently requested additional language on the matter, which would have condemned and explicitly referenced Israel’s destabilising actions in Syria and its strikes in Damascus.
It seems, however, that any direct reference to Israel was not acceptable for the US. The second revision of the draft text therefore did not refer to the country’s actions in Syria. The A3 Plus members and Pakistan broke silence over this omission, and once more sought to include language on Israeli actions in Syria. Although the agreed statement does not name Israel explicitly, a compromise was achieved by including language that condemns any interference that undermines Syria’s transition and stability and urges all states to avoid actions that could further destabilise the country.
A related reference to the 1974 Disengagement of Forces Agreement—which was initially requested by France—was also included in the agreed presidential statement. This agreement, signed by Israel and Syria, ended the Yom Kippur War and delineated a demilitarised buffer zone in the Golan between the two countries, the “Area of Separation”, that is monitored by the UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF). Following the ouster of former Syrian president Bashar al-Assad in December 2024, Israel, citing security risks, deployed forces into the buffer zone, constructed several military outposts, and said that it would remain there “indefinitely”. The agreed presidential statement calls for respect of the agreement as well as for UNDOF’s mandate and role. It also stresses the obligation of parties to fully abide by the 1974 agreement’s terms and to “maintain calm and reduce tensions”.
The agreed presidential statement also contains language on the threat of terrorism in the country, which was apparently requested by China. It refers to the most recent report of the Analytical Support and Sanctions Monitoring Team of the 1267/1989/2253 Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL/Da’esh) and Al-Qaida Sanctions committee, published on 24 July, and “expresses grave concern over the acute threat posed by foreign terrorist fighters” (FTFs). While noting the Syrian authorities’ commitments and actions to counter ISIL and Al-Qaida, the draft text also urges them to “address the threat” posed by FTFs. In Council meetings on Syria, China has repeatedly expressed concern about the presence of FTFs in Syria—particularly fighters from the Security Council-listed group the Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement, which China also designates as a terrorist organisation—and their reported integration into the Syrian army.
The agreed presidential statement also refers to the political situation in the country. Echoing language from resolution 2254 of 18 December 2015, which focused on the political situation in Syria, it calls for “the implementation of an inclusive, Syrian-led and Syrian-owned political process”. It also “reaffirms the importance of the UN’s role in supporting Syria’s political transition”.
The agreed presidential statement will be the second such product to be adopted by the Security Council this year in response to mass violence targeting a minority population in Syria. On 14 March, the Council adopted a presidential statement condemning the mass killing of Alawites in Latakia and Tartus. (For more information, see our 14 March What’s In Blue story.)
Despite initially being proposed by the penholder as a product focused on humanitarian and accountability issues in the wake of the escalation of violence in Suweida, the agreed presidential statement also encompasses several security and political aspects of the broader situation in Syria, demonstrating that the Council perceives that such recurring escalations of violence cannot be addressed without advancing inclusive accountability measures and a credible political process in the country.
