Mofeed al-Yasser held up his sign proudly. There was a demand for the implementation of United Nations (UN) Resolution 2254—generally seen as a road map for a political transition to peace in Syria—.
“This is our only option,” al-Yasser, a displaced Syrian originally from Kafranbel, told DW. On Friday, he was taking part in an anti-government demonstration in the Idlib area of northwestern Syria, a part of the country still controlled by opponents of Syrian dictator Bashar Assad.
“The whole world has abandoned us,” al-Yasser continued. “And besides, now Russia wants to starve us by closing the passage of humanitarian aid.”
In saying that, he was referring to a completely different UN resolution, but one that is becoming equally difficult to work with.
There are just over 4 million people in northwest Syria, many of them like al-Yasser displaced by the country’s long civil war. Around 1.7 million live in displaced persons camps in this area.
Many depend on international aid provided by the UN. Most of it is classified as “cross-border aid”, meaning it reaches this part of Syria via the international border with Turkey. Much less is “transversal aid”. This means it crosses conflict lines, moving from areas controlled by the Syrian government to areas controlled by its opponents.
Violation of international humanitarian law
In mid-2014, the United Nations Security Council, or UNSC, became involved in decision-making on cross-border aid to Syria.
In Resolution 2165 In July 2014, the UNSC said it was “deeply disturbed” by the Syrian government’s refusal to consent to relief operations, calling it “a violation of international humanitarian law”. Council members decided that UN humanitarian agencies and their partners could use four different border crossings, two through Turkey and one each through Jordan and Iraq, to bring supplies into Syria, without seeking permission from the government of Assad
Since 2014, the situation has obviously changed radically, and above all because of Russia’s increased support for the Syrian dictator since 2015 and then the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, which has increased diplomatic tensions within the UNSC itself.
Russia has used its seat on the 15-member council to back its allies, insisting that humanitarian aid should go through Damascus because cross-border aid was only meant to be an interim arrangement.
Also at Russian insistence, there is now only one border crossing that can be used for aid along the Turkish border. Russia has also demanded that the resolution be renewed every six months, rather than every year. The latter was agreed upon through UNSC Resolution 2642in July 2022.
Warnings of a humanitarian catastrophe
The current resolution on cross-border aid expires on January 10 and this week, like clockwork, there has been another chorus of alarm from humanitarian organisations. A list of UN-appointed human rights experts warned of catastrophic consequences if the resolution is not renewed.
“The already desperate humanitarian situation in northwestern Syria will worsen further,” they said in a statement on Wednesday..
Also this week, the Reuters news agency reported that Russia has already informally agreed not to veto next week’s renewal. Analysts have suggested that Russia’s increasingly friendly relationship with Turkey could be the reason. Turkey supports cross-border aid and wants to avoid large numbers of Syrian refugees on its border, if conditions in Idlib worsen.
“The fact that Russia appears to have agreed to the latest renewal to be approved shows that the Security Council option is still viable for now,” said Richard Gowan, who oversees the think tank’s advocacy work. international Crisis Group at the UN in New York. “Though we shouldn’t be complacent about it.”
Gowan suspects Russia will push for more concessions when the renewal takes place again this July, but it is unlikely to be removed entirely. “Russia gains more influence by keeping the mandate alive than by killing it,” he said.
But this is also why Crisis Group and others believe there needs to be a “Plan B”.
Growing need for alternatives
In an August reportadvocacy organization Refugees International argued for options such as alternative funding groups independent of the UN, working more directly with local aid organizations in Syria, a long-term approach to projects that promote infrastructure and education and restrict the UN to work only on the Turkish side of the border.
Cross-border aid delivered through Damascus could not replace UN cross-border aid, they said. In all of 2022, there were only nine cross-country aid convoys, most of which consisted of about 10 delivery trucks, the UN said. In contrast, last year an estimated 600 trucks delivered cross-border aid each month.
If the UNSC mandate were to collapse entirely, Crisis Group estimates that humanitarian deliveries to Idlib would be cut in half.
“This threat gives Russia additional leverage [UNSC] negotiations,” Gowan noted. “If there was a better ‘Plan B,’ Russia would be in a weaker position.”
There is also another possibility, which revolves around an initiative driven by the American Coalition for Syrian Relief, or ARCS.a US-based umbrella for Syrian aid organizations, and British human rights lawyers, Guernica 37, also known as G37.
The initiative argues that the position that UNSC permission is required for cross-border aid is indeed open to interpretation. There is no international humanitarian law that says it is illegal for UN agencies to cross the Syrian border into a part of the country the government does not control, they say.
Moreover, the facts on the ground have clearly changed since 2014. UNSC involvement might have helped during the chaotic initial stage of the conflict, but is now unnecessary. On the one hand, the rebel-held parts of the country, which were previously thought to be temporary, will clearly continue to need help in the future and could be treated like any other humanitarian problem.
Cross-border aid is not illegal in Syria
This was similar to an argument legal experts made in 2014, before the UNSC became embroiled in aid delivery disputes.
“Under international humanitarian law, parties … cannot legally withhold consent to weaken enemy resistance, starve civilians or deny medical assistance,” said a group of 35 legal experts, including they law professors, a former president of the EU. Court of Human Rights and a former chief prosecutor of numerous UN international criminal courts – wrote in an open letter published in The Guardian. “When consent is withheld on these arbitrary grounds, the relief operation is lawful without consent.”
The UN acknowledges that Assad’s government is arbitrarily withholding aid shipments to opposition-held areas.
The legal initiative of the G37plans to publish a similar letter again shortly, this time with signatories including former judges of the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice.
“Changing the status quo taken for granted by many for the past eight years is not simple,” Ibrahim Olabi, a G37 lawyer and key strategist behind the initiative, told DW.
He and the initiative’s legal expert, Jack Sproson, have been working behind the scenes for more than six months to convince supporting governments to back the idea that cross-border aid to Syria is legal without UNSC permission. They have met with delegations in Berlin, Paris, Brussels, Washington, New York, London, Bern and Ankara, among others.
“The question now is how governments will be able to move forward on this issue,” he said. “But I think there are realistic prospects. There is great interest and some politicians have told us that the political cost of renewing [the resolution regularly] it has simply become too high,” he concluded.
