JPEG - 28.8 kb
Bashar Ja’afari, Permanent representative from Syria

Identical letters dated 7 July 2010 from the Permanent Representative of the Syrian Arab Republic to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General and the President of the Security Council

1. The report of the Secretary-General on the implementation of Security Council resolution 1701 (2006) continues the attempts to interfere in the development of Syrian-Lebanese relations and to make reference to meetings between the leaders and officials of the two countries, as though the countries’ bilateral relations fell within the scope of resolution 1701 (2006). Continued interference in the countries’ bilateral relations, both in form and substance, is reprehensible because Syria and Lebanon alone have the right to assess the state of those relations.

2. The Syrian Arab Republic reiterates that the question of Palestinian positions inside Lebanon is a bilateral issue that concerns the Palestinians and Lebanese alone; the Syrian Arab Republic has nothing to do with the matter. We therefore do not understand why the report’s authors call upon Syria to help dismantle those positions. This matter falls within the purview of the Lebanese National Dialogue, which brings together all Lebanese parties and is more capable of dealing with this issue in a manner that serves Lebanon’s interests. Syria does not wish to interfere in matters that are within the competence of the Lebanese Government.

3. We are surprised that the report includes the allegations of Israeli officials and the concerns of American officials regarding the smuggling of arms into Lebanon because it is unacceptable that reports by the Secretary-General should contain unsubstantiated claims and lies. The report notes that the United Nations does not have the means to verify those claims, which in itself raises questions. How is it possible that the report should give credence to Israel’s claims, using language that clearly indicates the Secretariat’s bias towards Israel and its supporters, and not give credence to the statements of senior Lebanese officials refuting those allegations? The problem is not whether the United Nations has the means to verify those claims, but rather the bias of some of its officials towards the claims made by Israel. Those officials believe everything Israel says and ignore the undeniable truth: Israel’s continuing occupation of Syrian, Lebanese and Palestinian territory is the source of strife and tension. If we are to believe those who say they are concerned about Lebanon and its sovereignty and regional stability, then they must address the root of the problem, namely, the Israeli occupation and Israel’s refusal to implement United Nations resolutions.

4. The Syrian Arab Republic reiterates its position that the report should not refer to the issue of the delineation of borders. That issue is a bilateral matter and part of the internal affairs of the two countries. Therefore, no country has a right to interfere in the matter, which is an internal affair. If the United Nations is committed to the full implementation of its resolutions, it must take meaningful action to compel Israel to implement the relevant resolutions in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

5. The Syrian Arab Republic affirms that stability in our region is vital to international stability, and regional stability cannot be achieved as long as Israel, which considers itself to be above the law, continues to occupy Arab territory and commit grave violations of international law and relevant Security Council resolutions. Just and comprehensive peace in the region cannot be achieved as long as the Secretariat and some of its representatives continue to deal with Israel in the manner referred to above.

6. Lastly, we should like to emphasize that the United Nations should create conditions that are conducive to positive relations between States. It should not interfere in States’ affairs or bilateral relations and create problems between them. It is also wrong to support one party over another in a particular State because, in the case of Lebanon, that would threaten the achievements made through the painstaking efforts of many parties, in particular Syria, that are solicitous of Lebanon’s unity, security, stability, sovereignty and independence.