With the United Nations Security Council’s (UNSC) mandate over extending the functioning of Syria’s Bab al-Hawa border crossing set to expire on July 10, the United States (US) and Russia have confronted each other in the Council over their conflicting positions. While Russia has threatened to use its veto power to prevent the UNSC from opening Syria’s last aid corridor, the US has warned that closing Bab al-Hawa could lead to a humanitarian catastrophe for millions of Syrian refugees who are in desperate need of aid.
The Bab al-Hawa crossing, situated in northwest Syria along the Turkish border, is the only cross-border opening into Syria through which aid is delivered to refugees in the last rebel-held province of Idlib and other parts of Syria. Last year, the UNSC adopted Resolution 2533 that allowed the flow of aid through Bab al-Hawa. However, it failed to extend the mandate of three other crossings—Bab al-Salama, Al-Yarubiah, and Al-Ramtha—due to opposition from Russia and China. The UN, Western countries and several international organisations have warned that halting cross-border operations could significantly deteriorate the already dire situation in Syria. According to Amnesty International, over a million people in northwest Syria “risk being cut off” from food, water, and medical supplies.
While most world powers have supported the US’ position, India—a non-permanent member of the Security Council—has taken Russia’s side in the debate. Last month, at a UNSC consultation on Syria, India delivered a statement that was aimed at being neutral but ended up aligning with Russia’s position. The statement affirmed India’s commitment to improving the deteriorating humanitarian conditions in Syria and called for “enhanced and effective humanitarian assistance to all Syrians throughout the country without discrimination, politicization or any preconditions.” However, it contained phrases that were in line with Moscow’s narrative.
The statement made it clear that transportation of aid should be “consistent with [the] sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Syria,” echoing Russia’s claim that extending border operations through Bab al-Hawa would undermine Syrian sovereignty. Russia has argued that Western countries seek to deliver aid into Syria without the consent of Bashar al-Assad’s government, which is against international humanitarian law. Moscow has also criticised the West for using the UNSC to prevent aid supplies from Damascus to Idlib.
In this respect, India emphasised the need to “address hurdles that are obstructing the functioning of both cross-border and crossline operations” and stated that “while the Council’s attention is focused on mandate renewal, terrorist groups such as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and Islamic State in Iraq and Levant are attacking civilians” in Idlib. Russia has said that the crossing is being used to provide supplies to rebels in Idlib, thereby severely constraining the Syrian regime’s efforts to combat militant groups.
Yet, despite Russian claims about the violation of Syrian independence and Western interference, Assad’s legacy in Syria has been one of brutal repression of his own people. During ten years of civil war that have ravaged the country beyond recognition, the Assad regime is responsible for mass killings through the use of chemical weapons, torture, extrajudicial killings, and conducting indiscriminate shelling in civilian areas.
Moreover, Russian involvement has only worsened the humanitarian crisis. Russian airstrikes in rebel-held territories, including Idlib, have “deliberately” targeted schools, hospitals, and civilian infrastructure. In light of these grave violations, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said: “Sovereignty was never intended to ensure the right of any government to starve people, deprive them of lifesaving medicine, bomb hospitals, or commit any other human rights abuse against citizens.”
Also Read: A Decade Later, the Syrian Nightmare is Far from Over
Considering the actions of the Syrian regime and Russia, it is important to ask why New Delhi’s statement on the border issue is aligned with Moscow’s outlook.
One of the main reasons why India has called for respecting Syria’s sovereignty is the Assad government’s stand on the issue of Kashmir. The Assad regime has consistently maintained a position of neutrality regarding Kashmir and has even stated that Kashmir is an “internal matter” of India. In 2019, when India abrogated Article 370 of the constitution and revoked the special status of Jammu and Kashmir, the Syrian ambassador to India, Raid Abbas, said that “any government has the right to do whatever it likes on its land to protect its people [and] we are always in favour of India on any action.”
Syria is also one of the few Muslim majority countries to expressly support India’s stand on Kashmir. More recently, there have been increasing calls from Islamic countries and groupings, including Turkey, Iran, and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), for supporting Kashmir’s independence, which India views as interference in its internal affairs.
Also Read: Is India Any More Thin-Skinned Than Its International Counterparts?
In addition, New Delhi views the imposition of sanctions on Syria as worsening the humanitarian condition in Syria. In fact, India’s statement to the UNSC mentions that “the adverse impact of sanctions on the health facilities and humanitarian operations have further exacerbated the situation” and calls on the countries that have imposed sanctions to review these measures.
India has consistently maintained that sanctions only worsen the condition of civilians and do very little to resolve conflict. This was seen in the position taken by India in March when it voted in favour of a United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) resolution on the “negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights.” According to the resolution, sanctions have a negative effect on the “right to development” and undermine countries’ right to sovereignty and self-governance. In the case of Syria, India’s permanent representative to the UN, TS Tirumurti, called for the easing of sanctions imposed on Syria, arguing that it would improve the lives of refugees and Internally Displaced Persons.
India also fears that a potential regime change in Syria would negatively alter the security dynamics of the region in favour of terrorist groups, who could then export their ideology to India. Therefore, India has been against any measures violating the Assad government’s sovereign rights over Syria. For instance, India had said that it regretted the US-led military intervention in Syria in 2011 because it led to political instability and the rise of extremist elements in the region. To this end, in 2016, Indian Minister of State for External Affairs MJ Akbar met Bashar al-Assad to increase security cooperation and discuss cooperation against terrorism. “India remains deeply concerned that the involvement of external actors in Syria has given a fillip to the growth of terrorism in Syria and in the region. We urge the international community to reflect on this aspect of the Syrian conflict with all earnestness. We need to be consistent in strongly condemning terrorism,” India said in a separate UNSC meeting on Syria.
Ultimately, while there are merits to the arguments of all conflicting sides, the fact remains that ever since the war broke out in Syria, the country has been turned into a geopolitical chessboard by various actors to pursue their interests. While the US has sought regime change in Syria by arming rebels, Russia has tried to enhance its influence in the region by positioning itself as fighting terrorism. As far as India’s position on Syria is concerned, it is merely following what is in its best interests—avoiding a reciprocal international examination of its domestic policies, maintaining stability in the region, and preventing a potential influx of terrorists into its borders.