Of course it’s that time of the year where UK and allies present the human rights council worth yet another biased, selective and politically motivated resolution that mischaracterizes and put sole blame on the legitimate Syrian government.

The international community and this council is again presented with unverified and unsubstantiated "evidences " due to the biased and partial nature of the current narrative on Syria.

This resolution in addition to being grossly biased, it ignores the atrocities caused by terrorist groups that are funded by the western counties and their GCC allies sponsoring this resolution and preaching human rights to the Syrian government - UK, USA, Turkey, Israel and Saudi Arabia.

These countries present the council with unfounded criticism of the legitimate Syrian government as part of their propaganda to further promote their own economic and political interest in the region. With little to no consideration to the innocent Syrian people’s lives who are under constant threat of terrorism. This resolution, to no-ones surprise, does not contain condemnation of violence by the armed opposition. The Syrian government is fulfilling its commitment of responsibility to protect its citizens as any sovereign government would do put under the same circumstances.

While tabling this politically motivated resolutions counties like Switzerland and UK kept on making statements like “we strongly support a peaceful political solution in Syria ..” however there was no mention of the unilateral tripartite aggression and threat against Syria by UK, USA, and France. The international law doesn’t not extend preferential treatment in its applicability ;hence the notion that the co-sponsoring counties are immune to any accountability for their illegal aggression is not only absurd but delusional.

During the discussion of the resolution , the Syrian delegation made the following remark, “this attempt to distort the reality which is the sponsoring of terrorist groups by the co sponsors of this resolution and ongoing propaganda against the government of Syria, the co sponsoring countries are continually violations international laws and UN charter on counter terrorism and unilateral coercive attack against a sovereign state. The COI is also politicized and biased in its reporting of he situation on Syria. The language and intent of the resolution doesn’t support the claim that these countries support peaceful political solution in Syria as it is non-objective, politicized”

UK further made a remark saying Russia’s amendment on this resolution that calls for a clear condemnation of terrorist groups is Unnecessary and disingenuous. Are we supposed to believe that UK, USA and their allies continued fabrication of propaganda and illegal aggression that amount to war crimes is genuine?

Most importantly, when dozens of people have died by the hands of terrorists, how can one resist condemnation of such attack as unnecessary, especially if the aim is to promote lasting peace and political solution for Syria. The authors and sponsors of the Resolution deliberately turn a blind eye on terrorist attacks and unilateral aggression against a legitimate government of Syria that results in the loss of innocent civilian lives.

It is also worth nothing that imposing economic embargo and inaction on the unilateral aggression that is claiming the lives of civilians is not in line with their propaganda of “protecting Syrians” or IHL by any means.

Venzuela, China, and Cuba states that they support inclusive national dialogue, and reject this biased, selective and politically motivated resolution. This resolution doesn’t contribute to a long lasting, just, inclusive peace and political solution in Syria.

In this context the Cuban delegation requested for a vote on the resolution and voted against it, together with China, Burundi and Venezuela.

It's is crystal clear that this resolution will not contribute to the political process in Syria and is imposed on the international community to promote and protect the political gains of the sponsoring countries.

This continuous one sided "human rights agenda" propaganda at the human rights council shows the real intentions of those who keep tabling this resolution at the council under the disguise of human rights. It seems their politicized agenda that will further destabilize the situation in Syria will continue to be entertained by the Human Rights Council with utter disregard for the consequences on-the -ground and future of this mechanism. This weakens the UN human rights system and norms underpinning it, and States obligations to protect and promote Human rights.

Council members’ adoption of this resolution risks undercutting the important work the Council is doing on other urgent human rights matters.

The same countries who are sponsoring the resolution are supporting terrorist groups further destabilizing the country and its people. The council is being used as a bet by UK and allies for politically motivated agendas. We are disappointed to be presented with another one-sided resolution at this Human Rights Council that does nothing to further the goals of achieving peace and stability in the Syrian republic.

Icsft strongly condemns this selective and politicized human rights narrative that lacks objectivity and is dominating the council's work! It is important to maintain the constructive atmosphere following the peace talks in Geneva, Sochi, and the Geneva International Conference and create conditions for consistent work with the Syrian government to end the violence and launch a political dialogue and reach people centered peaceful settlement in Syria.

In this context we would like to thank the delegations of Cuba, Burundi, Venezuela, Iraq and China who voted no on this Resolution.

If human right is our true agenda, we should uphold the underpinning principles of impartiality, objectivity, and non-politicization in all of its work. This council should focus on genuine human rights dialogues which is the fundamental pillar of this council.

Innocent Syrians lives and human rights interest should be at the center of the human rights council and other UN mechanisms work, politically sensationalized discourse should not take a precedent over genuine human rights agenda.

⇒A_HRC_38_L20