NEW YORK CITY: The tragedy unfolding in Turkiye and Syria this week is “a moment in which we all must be together to support the people” affected by it, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres told Arab News on Thursday as he called for political differences to be set aside.
“People who have been so generous supporting others, as both Syrians and Turkish have been in the past with refugees from Syria, in Turkiye, and from Iraq, in Syria,” he added.
“Turkiye is home to the largest number of refugees in the world and has shown unparalleled generosity to its Syrian neighbors. Indeed, up to 3.6 million Syrians have lived in Turkiye for more than a decade. Many of them are now victims of the earthquake.”
Guterres said he previously visited Aleppo and met some of the Syrians who had “warmly welcomed Iraqi refugees fleeing violence and war, integrating them into their society. There were more than 1 million Iraqi refugees in Syria. They were not in camps, they were received by the communities and integrated into community life in enormous generosity.”
As he reflected on his past visits, which took place while he served as high commissioner for refugees, to the areas now devastated by the earthquake, Guterres said he had been “deeply moved by the solidarity of people who opened their homes and their hearts. Now those homes have been destroyed and those hearts are breaking. A center of solidarity is now an epicenter of suffering.
Guterres was speaking on the day the first UN relief convoy crossed the border into northwestern Syria, four days after the earthquake hit, and he voiced dismay at the slow pace of the aid operation.
He said the convoy included six trucks carrying shelter materials and other “desperately needed relief supplies” but added that this is only a fraction of the aid needed in the rebel-controlled area.
“More help is on the way but much more, much more is needed,” Guterres said.
The Syrian government wants all international aid to pass through Damascus, using a system known as “cross-line operations.” This means that relief supplies are delivered to authorities in the capital, who then distribute it where it is needed, including to rebel-held parts of the country.
The alternative, which the Syrian regime is opposed to, is “cross-border” aid that bypasses Damascus and is shipped directly to the affected areas by other nations. These direct deliveries have provided a critical lifeline for millions of Syrians in the northwest of the war-torn country, as part of the massive international humanitarian response to the long-running conflict.
Humanitarian experts have long argued that although cross-line operations can be an important supplement to this cross-border lifeline, they cannot match the size and scope of direct-delivery operations.
Aid agencies have also accused Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime of withholding basic goods and services, including food and clean water, from millions of Syrians in opposition areas as a tool of war.
Arguments about the mechanisms for the delivery of humanitarian aid to Syria have for years resulted in showdowns between Russia, an ally of the Assad regime, and the West within the UN Security Council.
The council approved the opening of four border crossings when international aid deliveries to Syria began in 2014. In January 2020, Russia used its power of veto to force the closure of all but one of them. Moscow argues that cross-border international aid operations violate Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and so all aid should be delivered through the cross-line mechanism.
In the aftermath of Monday’s earthquake, the EU and the US reiterated that they will only send aid directly to the Syrian people and restated their opposition to any form of normalization of relations with the Assad regime.
Meanwhile, aid agencies have called for the closed border crossings to be reopened to help them respond to the current emergency.
Guterres told Arab News that “cross-line (delivery of aid) is very important. We should do everything we can in cross-line. But (this) disaster is (of) such proportions that we need both cross-line and cross-border. We need to intensify all forms. And my appeal is for this question not to be politicized.”
Describing the earthquake as one of the biggest natural disasters of all time — the death toll stood at almost 20,000 on Thursday and is expected to rise — Guterres said this is “not a moment to politicize or to divide but it is obvious that we need massive support. And so I will be, of course, very happy if the Security Council could reach a consensus to allow for more crossings to be used, as we need also to increase our capacity to deliver on cross-line operations into Idlib.”
He also called for the lifting of all international sanctions “of any kind” on Syria.
“This is a moment in which everybody must make very clear that no sanctions of any kind interfere with relief to the population of Syria in the present moment,” said Guterres.
Stephane Dujarric, a spokesperson for Guterres, said that the secretary-general will consult with members of the Security Council about the possibility of reopening border crossings for the delivery of aid to Syria.
“We, as the UN, can only use a second border crossing if there is a (Security Council) resolution (to do so),” he said. “There are a lot of legal issues and it is a delicate issue.”
Turkiye and Syria earthquake disaster must not be politicized, UN chief tells Arab News
https://arab.news/533zn
Turkiye and Syria earthquake disaster must not be politicized, UN chief tells Arab News
- Speaking as the first UN aid convoy crossed the border into Syria, Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said much more assistance is required
- Mechanisms for delivery of aid to Syria have long caused friction in the Security Council between Russia, an ally of the Syrian regime, and the West
Israel’s Somaliland gambit: what’s at risk for the region?
- Somaliland’s strategic location near the Bab Al-Mandab raises fears an Israeli security presence could turn the Red Sea into a powder keg
- Critics argue the decision revives Israel’s “periphery” strategy, encouraging fragmentation of Arab and Muslim states for strategic advantage
RIYADH: It perhaps comes as no surprise to seasoned regional observers that Israel has become the first and only UN member state to formally recognize the Republic of Somaliland as an independent and sovereign nation.
On Dec. 26, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar signed a joint declaration of mutual recognition alongside Somaliland’s President Abdirahman Mohamed Abdullahi.
For a region that has existed in a state of diplomatic limbo since declaring independence from Somalia in 1991, this development is, as Abdullahi described it, “a historic moment.” But beneath the surface lies a calculated and high-stakes geopolitical gamble.
While several nations, including the UK, Ethiopia, Turkiye, and the UAE, have maintained liaison offices in the capital of Hargeisa, none had been willing to cross the Rubicon of formal state recognition.
Israel’s decision to break this decades-long international consensus is a deliberate departure from the status quo.
By taking this step, Israel has positioned itself as the primary benefactor of a state that has long sought a seat at the international table. As Dya-Eddine Said Bamakhrama, the ambassador of Djibouti to Saudi Arabia, told Arab News, such a move is deeply disruptive.
“A unilateral declaration of separation is neither a purely legal nor an isolated political act. Rather, it carries profound structural consequences, foremost among them the deepening of internal divisions and rivalries among citizens of the same nation, the erosion of the social and political fabric of the state, and the opening of the door to protracted conflicts,” he said.
Critics argue that Israel has long lobbied for the further carving up of the region under various guises.
This recognition of Somaliland is seen by many in the Arab world as a continuation of a strategy aimed at weakening centralized Arab and Muslim states by encouraging peripheral secessionist movements.
In the Somali context, this path is perceived not as a humanitarian gesture, but as a method to undermine the national understandings reached within the framework of a federal Somalia.
According to Ambassador Bamakhrama, the international community has historically resisted such moves to prioritize regional stability over “separatist tendencies whose dangers and high costs history has repeatedly demonstrated.”
By ignoring this precedent, Israel is accused of using recognition as a tool to fragment regional cohesion.
In the past, Israel has often framed its support for non-state actors or separatist groups under the pretext of protecting vulnerable minorities — such as the Druze in the Levant or Maronites in Lebanon.
This “Periphery Doctrine” served a dual purpose: it created regional allies and supported Israel’s own claim of being a Jewish state by validating the idea of ethnic or religious self-determination.
However, in the case of Somaliland, the gloves are off completely. The argument here is not about protecting a religious minority, as Somaliland is a staunchly Muslim-majority territory. Instead, the rationale is nakedly geopolitical.
Israel appears to be seeking strategic depth in a region where it has historically been isolated. Netanyahu explicitly linked the move to “the spirit of the Abraham Accords,” signaling that the primary drivers are security, maritime control, and intelligence gathering rather than the internal demographics of the Horn of Africa.
The first major win for Israel in this maneuver is the expansion of its diplomatic orbit. It could be argued that the refusal of the federal government in Mogadishu to join the Abraham Accords was an artificial barrier.
The evidence for this claim, from the Israeli perspective, is that Somaliland — a territory with a population of nearly six million and its own functioning democratic institutions — was eager to join.
Abdullahi said Somaliland would join the Abraham Accords as a “step toward regional and global peace.” Yet, this peace comes with a clear quid pro quo — formal recognition.
Israel can now argue that the “Somaliland model” proves that many other Arab and Muslim entities are willing to normalize relations if their specific political or territorial interests are met.
This challenges the unified stance of the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, which maintain that normalization must be tied to the resolution of the Palestinian conflict.
The second major gain for Israel is the potential for a military presence in the Horn of Africa. Somaliland’s strategic position on the Gulf of Aden, near the Bab Al-Mandab Strait, makes it a prime location for monitoring maritime traffic.
This is a ticking time bomb given that just across the narrow sea lies Yemen, where the Houthi movement — whose slogan includes “Death to Israel” — controls significant territory.
Israel may claim that a military or intelligence presence in Somaliland will boost regional security by countering Houthi threats to shipping. However, regional neighbors fear it will likely inflame tensions.
Ambassador Bamakhrama warned that an Israeli military presence would “effectively turn the region into a powder keg.”
“Should Israel proceed with establishing a military base in a geopolitically sensitive location... such a move would be perceived in Tel Aviv as a strategic gain directed against the Arab states bordering the Red Sea — namely Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Yemen, Sudan, and Djibouti,” he said.
The Red Sea is a “vital international maritime corridor,” and any shift in its geopolitical balance would have “repercussions extending far beyond the region,” he added.
The recognition is also a clear violation of international law and the principle of territorial integrity as enshrined in the UN Charter.
While proponents point to exceptions like South Sudan or Kosovo, those cases involved vastly different circumstances, including prolonged genocidal conflicts and extensive UN-led transitions.
In contrast, the African Union has been firm that Somaliland remains an integral part of Somalia.
The backlash has been swift and severe. The Arab League, the Gulf Cooperation Council, and the OIC have all decried the move. Even US President Donald Trump, despite his role in the original Abraham Accords, has not endorsed Israel’s decision.
When asked whether Washington would follow suit, Trump replied with a blunt “no,” adding, “Does anyone know what Somaliland is, really?”
This lack of support from Washington highlights the isolation of Israel’s position. The OIC and the foreign ministers of 21 countries have issued a joint statement warning of “serious repercussions” and rejecting any potential link between this recognition and reported plans to displace Palestinians from Gaza to the African region.
Israel’s recognition of Somaliland appears to be a calculated gamble to trade diplomatic norms for strategic advantage.
While Hargeisa celebrates a long-awaited milestone, the rest of the world sees a dangerous precedent that threatens to destabilize one of the world’s most volatile corridors.
As Ambassador Bamakhrama says, the establishment of such ties “would render (Israel) the first and only state to break with the international consensus” — a move that prioritizes “narrow strategic calculations” over the stability of the international system.
