U.S.-Russian Statement to the Security Council on Syria’s Coastline Events: The Regime’s First Loss /  Whitcoff Juggles Between Gaza and Ukraine, Seeking Temporary Solutions to Prolong Final Settlements

 March 15, 2025

The political editor wrote

Days after the U.S. and Russia called for a UN Security Council session to discuss the events on Syria’s coastline and the massacres committed against civilians – claiming the lives of thousands of unarmed women, children, youth, and elderly—the Council concluded its deliberations. It was one of the rare sessions where the usual U.S.-Russia tensions over Syria were absent. Meanwhile, European nations, which had been inclined to support the new regime, were left disillusioned by the events. Public outcry emerged in parliaments across France, Germany, and the Netherlands, condemning their governments’ engagement with the new authorities.

The Security Council’s statement marked the first international setback for Damascus’ new leadership after three months of diplomatic gains. The statement held the regime accountable for the massacres, calling for concrete steps to protect civilians and prosecute those responsible. It also reminded Syria of its obligations to combat UN-designated terrorist organisations while reaffirming Resolution 2254 as the recognised framework for a Syrian settlement. The statement underscored that the newly adopted constitutional declaration, passed by the regime just a day prior, was incompatible with Resolution 2254, both in terms of the transitional government’s duration and the composition of the ruling authority.

As global conflicts dominate the stage, particularly the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, U.S. Presidential Envoy Steve Whitcoff continues his shuttle diplomacy, conveying President Donald Trump’s aspirations for breakthroughs that could end these wars. However, the negotiations he spearheads primarily aim for interim agreements. In Ukraine, this means a ceasefire – a notion Russia rejects unless tied to a comprehensive and permanent peace deal. Nonetheless, Moscow remains open to considering it as a pathway to such an agreement, given the progress in U.S.-Russia relations.

In Gaza, Whitcoff’s efforts center on extending the ceasefire through reciprocal measures. However, the resistance remains steadfast in upholding the January 17 agreement, having implemented its first phase while awaiting the occupying entity’s commitment to move forward with negotiations for the second phase. Despite U.S. progress on both fronts, the complexity of final settlements continues to obstruct temporary ceasefire deals, as Washington wagers that prolonged truces could eventually reshape the conditions for negotiating permanent solutions.

Meanwhile, in Lebanon, there is growing advocacy for negotiations—an approach endorsed by Tel Aviv and encouraged by Washington. This push has been accompanied by claims that the proposed negotiations exclude normalisation, a concept broadly rejected by the Lebanese people. Yet, diplomatic and legal sources warn of the dangers of bargaining over Lebanese rights safeguarded by UN Resolutions 1701 and 425.

Resolution 1701 guarantees Lebanon’s right to an immediate and unconditional Israeli withdrawal from all territories occupied since 2000, without negotiations or delays. It also upholds Resolution 425, which mandates resolving territorial disputes between the 2000 withdrawal’s Blue Line and Lebanon’s internationally recognised borders. These resolutions shield Lebanon from the risks of direct negotiations by delegating the UN Secretary-General to mediate discussions and propose resolutions. However, stepping into negotiations would mean relinquishing the legal leverage these resolutions provide , just as Lebanon did in 1983 when it engaged in talks over the May 17 Agreement, disregarding Resolution 425.