Unofficial Translation

The Situation in Syria and the United Nations

Thursday 29 August 2013
Press Release No: 215/13

Argentina, currently holding the Presidency of the Security Council, makes public its position regarding the strong possibility of a foreign military intervention in Syria.
The possible use of chemical weapons in Syria, an action prohibited by the community of nations, adds an element of inexcusable concern that compels all States to seek a solution to the crisis.

With its actions, Argentina has demonstrated its firm commitment to non-proliferation and the elimination of weapons of mass destruction. Our county is Part to the Convention on Chemical Weapons and is an active advocate for the elimination of those weapons, and encourages avoiding their development in any form. The use of lethal chemical weapons in all its forms is a war crime and a crime against humanity. Both government and insurgent armed groups that had used such weapons should be prosecuted and punished by the law, specifically by the International Criminal Court.

For this reason, Argentina decidedly supports the investigation started by the Secretary General and hopes to have categorical, transparent, objective and unbiased results shortly.

Argentina, along with Latin America, has emphatically defended the principle of non-foreign military intervention. In 1902, facing the refusal of the United States to enforce the Monroe Doctrine in order to defend Venezuela against a naval blockade of some European countries, Argentina advanced a new doctrine against military interventionism. The Drago Doctrine, after its creator, Foreign Minister Luis María Drago, emerged as an answer against interventions for issues related to debts but evolved into a general principle, following the experience that indicates that military interventions unilaterally decided or enacted are one of the most disruptive elements of international security.

The creation of the United Nations as an organization established to maintain peace was a fundamental initiative that should be deepened. Along the lines of what President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner stated, the responsibility to protect  civilians in order to justify military interventions decided unilaterally or through circumstantial alliances, open the gates to the abuse of the values of peace and security, and to undermine precisely those values that are supposed to be defended. Let us not add new horrors to the horrors that we already suffer.

In this context, Argentina opposes a military intervention. A foreign military intervention as an automatic reply to the possible use of chemical weapons without even waiting for the United Nations to determine if they were actually used and by whom, implies a defeat of the multilateral system and a disparage of its legal system.

We reiterate the concept that the United Nations will not be effective while the powerful countries believe that only the weak ones should comply with its resolutions.

For the Argentine Republic, there are no conditions for a foreign military solution. In spite of the time elapsed and the hundreds of thousands of victims, the mechanisms provided by international law have not been set in practice. Our country considers that foreign military operations will not  but worsen the situation, increasing the number of victims and the risk of a humanitarian tragedy in other countries of the region.

Within this spirit, it is important also to acknowledge that the provision of weapons to the parts in conflict, far from putting an end to the conflict, has contributed to the multiplication of the bloodshed among hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

It is not possible to keep bringing weapons to the primary zone of conflict, and then to sit in this room and show regret for the fatal casualties. We cannot regret death and then to say that the solution to death is to increase the number of dead people.

At the same time, the Argentine Republic will not tolerate that the United Nations be considered as an observer of a civil massacre with chemical weapons. The gravity of the situation must open the possibility of a humanitarian intervention with no military means or ends, and with a mandate of the United Nations. The possible scenario in which a permanent member of the Security Council uses its veto power in order to thwart a non-military humanitarian intervention, would be like the one described by the Argentine President a few weeks ago at the Council, when she said: “when in conflict resolution the right to veto can be used, finding a solution becomes much more difficult and at times impossible. Therefore, we believe that it would be necessary to revise the operating rules of the organs of the United Nations in general and in particular those of the Security Council.”

If this is not possible through the Security Council, it is time for the General Assembly to take matters into its own hands.

Our country proposes to give the necessary mandate to the Secretary General in order to determine who is the party responsible for the massacre as a result of the use of chemical weapons and, on the basis of the full information available about what happened, to debate a possible humanitarian and diplomatic intervention approved by the General Assembly.

The Argentine Republic and other Latin American countries affirm that in the case that there is an opposition to guarantee the humanitarian access and aid in Syria from one or more members of the Security Council with veto power, the situation should be solved by convening the General Assembly.

Undoubtedly, this situation would reveal that the Security Council is contaminated by the interests of a small group of countries that, by exerting the “privilege” of their veto, turn this organ into one not only inefficient but also irrelevant for world peace.

There are instruments to do it.

In 1987, the General Assembly approved Resolution 42/37 about the prohibition of the utilization of chemical and bacteriological weapons, therefore demanding the Secretary General of the United Nations to carry out necessary investigations in response to the possible use of these kind of weapons, a use that could constitute a violation of the 1925 Geneva Protocol and other international norms, in order to corroborate the allegations and inform its results as soon as possible to the State members of the United Nations.

Finally, another option is that the 15 Foreign Ministers representing the member States of the Security Council convene themselves in Syria in order to demand putting an end to violence and beginning of dialogue between the parties in the conflict.

To sum up, the Argentine Republic proposes an arms embargo, a humanitarian intervention led by the Secretary General, an emergency meeting of the General Assembly, or the action on the ground of the Foreign Ministers of the member States of the Security Council. What Argentina will never propose or support is a foreign military intervention. The Government and the people of Argentina will not be accomplice of further deaths.

Press Release No: 215/13