Why Did the G7 Refuse to Criticize 'Normalization' With Damascus?

Attendees take part in G7 foreign ministers meeting in London, Britain May 5, 2021. Ben Stansall/Pool via REUTERS
Attendees take part in G7 foreign ministers meeting in London, Britain May 5, 2021. Ben Stansall/Pool via REUTERS
TT

Why Did the G7 Refuse to Criticize 'Normalization' With Damascus?

Attendees take part in G7 foreign ministers meeting in London, Britain May 5, 2021. Ben Stansall/Pool via REUTERS
Attendees take part in G7 foreign ministers meeting in London, Britain May 5, 2021. Ben Stansall/Pool via REUTERS

Discussions that took place between the foreign ministers of the Group of Seven in London over the past two days revealed some change in the position of the United States and its allies regarding the Syrian file. While the group has maintained the same policy, efforts to implement it have declined and are no longer an urgent priority for the administration of US President Joe Biden.

Some parties suggested adding a phrase to the final statement of the London meeting, including an indication that the time was not appropriate for “any form of normalization” with Damascus. The assistants of some of the ministers drafting the proposal relied on two previous statements issued on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the Syrian protests: the first by the foreign ministers of the US, Britain, Germany, France, and Italy, and the second by Josep Borrell, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

The two statements noted that the proposed Syrian presidential elections this year would be neither free nor fair, and should not lead to any measure of international normalization with the Syrian regime.

However, the G7 final statement issued following the first direct meeting between the leaders in two years reiterated previous points announced in UN Security Council Resolution 2254, namely the chemical file and humanitarian aid, in addition to a brief reference to the Syrian presidential elections scheduled for May 26.

The statement read: “In line with UNSCR 2254 and 1325, we urge all parties, especially the regime, to engage meaningfully with the inclusive UN-facilitated political process to resolve the conflict, notably the Constitutional Committee, to include the release of detainees and the meaningful participation of women. This includes a nationwide ceasefire and a safe and neutral environment to allow for the safe, voluntary, and dignified return of refugees. It should pave the way for free and fair elections under UN supervision, ensuring the participation of all Syrians including members of the diaspora.”

Without any reference to the normalization, the statement added: “Only when a credible political process is firmly underway would we consider assisting with the reconstruction of Syria.”

On the other hand, the focus of the G7 was placed on the humanitarian and chemical files, as the ministers condemned “the Assad regime and its backers’ ongoing atrocities against the Syrian people and attempts to disrupt regular and sustained humanitarian access into and within Syria.”

“We call for the full, unhindered humanitarian access into Syria that is vital for alleviating the impact of the crisis. We strongly support the re-authorization of cross-border humanitarian assistance later this year so that those in need can get the assistance they require,” the statement underlined.

The G7 also urged the regime in Syria to adhere to its obligations under UNSCR 2118. It strongly welcomed the decision of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) Conference of the States Parties to suspend Syria’s rights and privileges under the Chemical Weapons Convention, until it completes the steps set out in the OPCW Executive Council Decision of 9 July 2020 and refrains from further use of chemical weapons.

“We are firmly committed to accountability for those responsible for the use of chemical weapons and violations of international law, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law, as applicable, and pledge support for the work of appropriate international criminal justice and investigative mechanisms and transitional justice mechanisms,” the statement concluded.

The G7 position on Syria converges with priorities set by the new US administration. Since Biden came to power, his team has requested a review of the Syria policy, which is expected to be completed this month.

It is noteworthy that officials working on the Syrian file in Washington avoid participating in public meetings, in an indication to a break with the previous approach adopted by former US President Donald Trump, which was based on “maximum pressure” on Damascus and "strategic patience", through the use of tools such as sanctions.

The new US priorities in the Syrian file include three axes:

First, the humanitarian dimension, by focusing on the renewal of the Security Council’s decision to provide “cross-border” humanitarian aid on July 10.

Second, the chemical file, by exerting great pressure on Damascus and Moscow to abide by the Russian-US agreement signed between Sergei Lavrov and John Kerry at the end of 2013.

Third, the fight against ISIS, by making sure that reducing the US presence in Iraq and the region will not affect the strategy of preventing the re-emergence of the organization.

In these three axes fall the US focus, based on which Washington’s allies in Europe and Arab capitals are acting, until a major development in the US-Russian understanding takes place to revive the “step-by-step” approach, which is currently difficult to achieve amid mounting tension between Washington and Moscow on the one hand, and the Europeans and the Russians on the other.



Aid Groups Express Concern as US Says it Pushed Retraction of Famine Warning for North Gaza

Palestinian women and girls struggle to reach for food at a distribution center in Khan Younis, Gaza Strip Friday, Dec. 6, 2024. (AP Photo/Abdel Kareem Hana, File)
Palestinian women and girls struggle to reach for food at a distribution center in Khan Younis, Gaza Strip Friday, Dec. 6, 2024. (AP Photo/Abdel Kareem Hana, File)
TT

Aid Groups Express Concern as US Says it Pushed Retraction of Famine Warning for North Gaza

Palestinian women and girls struggle to reach for food at a distribution center in Khan Younis, Gaza Strip Friday, Dec. 6, 2024. (AP Photo/Abdel Kareem Hana, File)
Palestinian women and girls struggle to reach for food at a distribution center in Khan Younis, Gaza Strip Friday, Dec. 6, 2024. (AP Photo/Abdel Kareem Hana, File)

A lead organization monitoring for food crises around the world withdrew a new report this week warning of imminent famine in north Gaza under what it called Israel's “near-total blockade,” after the US asked for its retraction, US officials told the Associated Press. The move follows public criticism of the report from the US ambassador to Israel.

The rare public dispute drew accusations from prominent aid and human-rights figures that the work of the US-funded Famine Early Warning System Network, meant to reflect the data-driven analysis of unbiased international experts, has been tainted by politics. A declaration of famine would be a great embarrassment for Israel, which has insisted that its 15-month war in Gaza is aimed against the Hamas militant group and not against its civilian population.

US ambassador to Israel Jacob Lew earlier this week called the warning by the internationally recognized group inaccurate and “irresponsible." Lew and the US Agency for International Development, which funds the monitoring group, both said the findings failed to properly account for rapidly changing circumstances in north Gaza.

Humanitarian and human rights officials expressed fear of US political interference in the world's monitoring system for famines. The US Embassy in Israel and the State Department declined comment. FEWS officials did not respond to questions.

“We work day and night with the UN and our Israeli partners to meet humanitarian needs — which are great — and relying on inaccurate data is irresponsible,” Lew said Tuesday.

USAID confirmed to the AP that it had asked the famine-monitoring organization to withdraw its stepped-up warning issued in a report dated Monday. The report did not appear among the top updates on the group's website Thursday, but the link to it remained active.

The dispute points in part to the difficulty of assessing the extent of starvation in largely isolated northern Gaza. Thousands in recent weeks have fled an intensified Israeli military crackdown that aid groups say has allowed delivery of only a dozen trucks of food and water since roughly October.

FEWS Net said in its withdrawn report that unless Israel changes its policy, it expects the number of people dying of starvation and related ailments in north Gaza to reach between two and 15 per day sometime between January and March.

The internationally recognized mortality threshold for famine is two or more deaths a day per 10,000 people.

FEWS was created by the US development agency in the 1980s and is still funded by it. But it is intended to provide independent, neutral and data-driven assessments of hunger crises, including in war zones. Its findings help guide decisions on aid by the US and other governments and agencies around the world.

A spokesman for Israel's foreign ministry, Oren Marmorstein, welcomed the US ambassador's public challenge of the famine warning. “FEWS NET - Stop spreading these lies!” Marmorstein said on X.

In challenging the findings publicly, the US ambassador "leveraged his political power to undermine the work of this expert agency,” said Scott Paul, a senior manager at the Oxfam America humanitarian nonprofit. Paul stressed that he was not weighing in on the accuracy of the data or methodology of the report.

“The whole point of creating FEWS is to have a group of experts make assessments about imminent famine that are untainted by political considerations,” said Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch and now a visiting professor in international affairs at Princeton University. “It sure looks like USAID is allowing political considerations -- the Biden administration’s worry about funding Israel’s starvation strategy -- to interfere."

Israel says it has been operating in recent months against Hamas militants still active in northern Gaza. It says the vast majority of the area’s residents have fled and relocated to Gaza City, where most aid destined for the north is delivered. But some critics, including a former defense minister, have accused Israel of carrying out ethnic cleansing in Gaza’s far north, near the Israeli border.

North Gaza has been one of the areas hardest-hit by fighting and Israel’s restrictions on aid throughout its war with Hamas militants. Global famine monitors and UN and US officials have warned repeatedly of the imminent risk of malnutrition and deaths from starvation hitting famine levels.

International officials say Israel last summer increased the amount of aid it was admitting there, under US pressure. The US and UN have said Gaza’s people as a whole need between 350 and 500 trucks a day of food and other vital needs.

But the UN and aid groups say Israel recently has again blocked almost all aid to that part of Gaza. Cindy McCain, the American head of the UN World Food Program, called earlier this month for political pressure to get food flowing to Palestinians there.

Israel says it places no restrictions on aid entering Gaza and that hundreds of truckloads of goods are piled up at Gaza’s crossings and accused international aid agencies of failing to deliver the supplies. The UN and other aid groups say Israeli restrictions, ongoing combat, looting and insufficient security by Israeli troops make it impossible to deliver aid effectively.

Lew, the US ambassador, said the famine warning was based on “outdated and inaccurate” data. He pointed to uncertainty over how many of the 65,000-75,000 people remaining in northern Gaza had fled in recent weeks, saying that skewed the findings.

FEWS said in its report that its famine assessment holds even if as few as 10,000 people remain.

USAID in its statement to AP said it had reviewed the report before it became public, and noted “discrepancies” in population estimates and some other data. The US agency had asked the famine warning group to address those uncertainties and be clear in its final report to reflect how those uncertainties affected its predictions of famine, it said.

“This was relayed before Ambassador Lew’s statement,” USAID said in a statement. “FEWS NET did not resolve any of these concerns and published in spite of these technical comments and a request for substantive engagement before publication. As such, USAID asked to retract the report.”

Roth criticized the US challenge of the report in light of the gravity of the crisis there.

“This quibbling over the number of people desperate for food seems a politicized diversion from the fact that the Israeli government is blocking virtually all food from getting in,” he said, adding that “the Biden administration seems to be closing its eyes to that reality, but putting its head in the sand won’t feed anyone.”

The US, Israel’s main backer, provided a record amount of military support in the first year of the war. At the same time, the Biden administration repeatedly urged Israel to allow more access to aid deliveries in Gaza overall, and warned that failing to do so could trigger US restrictions on military support. The administration recently said Israel was making improvements and declined to carry out its threat of restrictions.

Military support for Israel’s war in Gaza is politically charged in the US, with Republicans and some Democrats staunchly opposed any effort to limit US support over the suffering of Palestinian civilians trapped in the conflict. The Biden administration’s reluctance to do more to press Israel for improved treatment of civilians undercut support for Democrats in last month’s elections.