Counterproductive Security Council Resolution on Aleppo Evacuation Monitoring
by Stephen Lendman
With Aleppo virtually liberated, it’s unclear where monitors will be and what they intend to accomplish - other than undermining Russian, Syrian and Iranian good faith cessation of hostilities and conflict resolution efforts.
Unanimously passed on Monday, the Security Council resolution calls for Ban Ki-moon “to take urgent steps to make arrangements, including security arrangements in consultation with interested parties, to allow the observation by the United Nations and other relevant institutions of the well-being of civilians…inside the eastern districts of the city of Aleppo.”
It requires granting monitors “safe, immediate and unimpeded access.” Syrian UN envoy Bashar al-Jaafari expected remaining pockets of terrorists will be evacuated in short order, while noting elements affiliated with Turkey violated agreements reached numerous times before.
On Tuesday, Iran’s Supreme National Security Council Secretary Ali Shamkhani criticized the Security Council’s resolution, calling its approval “a move to continue the past destructive measures and paves the ground for the intelligence and military agents of the countries which support terrorism to enter Aleppo in disguise as observers.”
“In this resolution, no role has been foreseen for the legal Syrian government and only the issue of safe evacuation of militants from Aleppo has been paid attention instead of prioritizing the issue of aiding the people who are under the terrorists' siege in Syria.”
Shamkhani stressed Iran’s commitment to continue combating terrorism, along with providing support for Syria’s legitimate government.
He praised Russia’s contribution to Syria’s liberating struggle. What happens when monitors arrive in Aleppo remains to be seen. Shamkhani’s concerns are well justified.
UN-connected ones will likely be pro-Western terrorist supporters, unconcerned about the welfare of long-suffering Syrians. Having them involved is counterproductive and worrisome.
It’s unclear how Russia, Syria and allied forces intend dealing with this development. They’re allied in working for cessation of hostilities and conflict resolution nationwide, eliminating the scourge of US-supported terrorism entirely.
In Obama’s remaining days in office, he’ll continue going all-out to undermine peace. Positive geopolitical change depends on Trump’s agenda once in office.
Will he or won’t he combat terrorism instead of supporting it like Obama, and neocon-infested Washington? Is he bold enough to go a different way?
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at email@example.com.
His new book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III."
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.