Remarks at the end of Security Council Briefing on Idlib By Un Special Envoy for Syria, Staffan De Mistura on Idlib

Thank you Madam president for giving me back the floor. This time I really believe I need it because this meeting is potentially crucial -- like the, we were hoping and still hope the meeting in Tehran was and should be, and from what we are hearing there’ve been important discussions -- because time is of the essence.

Let me start myself also with a picture if I may, I don’t know whether you can see properly. [But] these are candles. And they are women, they are civilians. This is what 98.8 per cent of the people in Idlib are, and this is our top priority.

Now, I got also a letter from 1000 women in Idlib - women not terrorists, mothers not terrorists - who have been actually urging, if I may say so, all of us to actually remember that they are all civilians, that they are internally displaced people, that they are teachers, doctors, nurses engineers, writers, homemakers and many of them came from many parts of Syrian, so Idlib in a way symbolises the mosaic of Syria. It’s true, many of those fighters who were evacuated or decided to reconcile, or evacuate or whatever the terminology was - also went there. But they are one group which is very small comparing to those I am referring to. They also added: “we invite you Mr. de Mistura to Idlib to see and tell everyone in the world and see for yourself that we are civilians of Idlib, whose voices have been silenced and are not being heard. The civilians have been suffering over the past years and we are hoping that they will not suffer again. We want a country without a war and we want a future in which we can be alive”. They too are against terrorists, but they cannot show that that because the situation is very difficult -- but they are not expecting to be bombed while the terrorists are being actually identified or addressed.

So now let me go into some more - how would I say - substantive aspect. While we met, Madam President, and while all of us were very eager to meet today, there was an important meeting in Tehran at the level of Heads of State: Iran, Turkey, Russia. They were, and have been, we are aware of, discussing very intensively the future formulas for Idlib. We don’t know the details of what was discussed and what was the outcome. What I certainly got from that is that time is needed and time is of the essence and that perhaps more time -- I hope that was the outcome -- will be given for discussions, rather amongst them and with all of us, in order to avoid what all of us, and President Erdogan repeated again today, a potential catastrophe.

Now: there were reports that President Erdogan did put some ideas on the table and I understand that they were quite substantive. We are not seeing them yet and we are looking forward perhaps when we meet our Turkish partners and colleagues early next week to hear more, and perhaps you will be hearing more of that. The signals are anyway that they intend to continue talking about how to implement some ideas.

So on that basis let me offer also one idea myself. Well, actually, I have to be correct - this is an idea I heard from civil society, from people. I know some people say that civil society may be terrorists or not, these are, again, very normal people who have been expressing an opinion by being where they are, and being afraid of what could happen.

So, dear members of the Security Council, the key dilemma we are hearing all the time -- and it’s a dilemma, I feel it to -- how you square a circle, a terrible circle, related to the fact that there are a number of UN-listed terrorists, we know, I am saying it, they’ve been very clearly identified, but there are a very small number compared to the 2.9 million people, and then there are three million people almost who are just in between and would not like to end up in between?

Now, the key word I’ve been hearing and both also said it in Tehran, is something we’ve been hearing for many years now, at least three years I’ve heard, is separation. You heard it. How you separate between terrorist listed groups and other armed groups, which are not terrorists and can be what, quote unquote, reconciled or at least there can be a different approach, and how to separate them from the population? I think there is a reference even in the paragraph number 4 of the joint statement in Tehran on that. So, let’s address that aspect and that is where we need more creativity.

I was asked publicly, I think by one government recently, that said: well, why does not the UN come up with some ideas on how to separate them? Not easy, I agree. But, here is a potential plan, which is turning the table around. You know, we’ve been saying that there are no more Idlibs. I’ve been saying it, you’ve been saying it. Right, but if we then become a little more creative, are you sure that within Idlib there are no more Idlibs? Let me explain.

The population perhaps should not be moving away. Who should be moving out from the centres, from the population centres, from the villages, should be actually the fighters, al-Nusra. Now this type of idea is potentially doable for the following reasons. First of all, it has some assumptions. The first assumption is that the largest majority in Idlib, 98.5, 98.8 [per cent] even, are civilians and they have, Madam President, a voice, they are telling us, they want to use their voice, and they can use that voice in order to produce the separation we are talking about.

Second assumption is that Turkey, and we heard it from President Erdogan, is generally very worried, I am worried about a potential catastrophe, and Turkey has an influence, we know it, they know it, on armed groups who are present in the area and can exercise it.

Now, Russia and Iran and the Government [of Syria] stated their own priority, and how can we not agree on that, of defeating terrorists in Idlib, or at least separate them. Well, if that is the case, the main objective of a plan would be: one to spare lives of civilians, and avoid the mass exodus because that would be a problem. We can handle 700,000, 800,000 but there are 3 million of them in what direction would they go? Towards Turkey? Towards the government area where they are afraid to go? So that aspect is important to be avoided. The second point is we may be able to see whether we can de facto assist the separation between the population and the extremists, and the terrorists, and between the terrorists and other groups. Now, what could be the plan?

Ideally all militants, fighters, should be asked with a deadline to move their own military presence, bases, away, I repeat away, from populated centres, villages. The populated centres therefore would remain under the control of the civilian local councils and the local police. This would apply in particular for al-Nusra who should be notified by the guarantors, including very much Turkey who has got the capacity of sending strong messages to them to evacuate houses and villages. At the same time, and here comes the message, and the message I’ve got from the population: a media campaign indicating that this is what is being asked from these those armed groups, to move out. “Don’t stay in my house, don’t stay in my city.” Three million people can be mobilised on that. Do we have examples of that? Well, the social mobilisation is been already mounting. We’ve been seeing not only candle-lights, we’ve been seeing demonstrations without al-Nusra banner - there was an attempt today by al-Nusra to actually put its own flag, and people said no, we don’t want that. We want just to remind everyone we are civilians. Three million people have a voice and they can use it, if they hear that we are serious about it.

That would require of course, meanwhile, that the Russian Federation would ensure that while this type of plan, together with Turkey, because Turkey is a major player in doing this, during the period this is being attempted, and while the population will be made aware and mobilised to actually express their voice, to ask and to the fighters that there will be no aerial attacks and no military attacks on any population centre -- otherwise all this would be appearing to be futile.

Any type of plan, and this is not the only plan, it may be just one of the many, may be the one that President Erdogan has proposed to President Putin, I don’t know, I really don’t know -- but this one is based on common sense of the population, who the UN is supposed to represent sometimes, don’t you think so? Especially when they are in situations like they are now.

Russia, Turkey should be the guarantors, together with Iran, but particularly Russia and Turkey, of such a plan, and perhaps the Security Council then could support it. I will stop it there but since we are constantly -- including me, believe me, including me -- raising concerns, saying how dramatic and terrible the situation would be, warning about it, and we need also to have some plans and I heard one from the people of Idlib.

Thank you.


7 September 2018