On August 10, the United Nations Security Council welcomed a statement by the Syrian government condemning the violence that erupted in Suwayda governorate on July 12, and voiced approval of its steps to investigate and hold to account those responsible. 

In a presidential statement, the Council also strongly condemned violence against civilians, and called on all parties to adhere to the ceasefire measures and ensure the protection of the civilian population. 

The world body “reiterated the obligation to respect relevant human rights and international humanitarian law provisions… (and) urged all parties to ensure full, safe, rapid and unhindered humanitarian access.” It also “reiterated a call on the interim authorities to protect all Syrians.” 

The Council “further reaffirmed its strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity, and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic and called on all States to respect these principles, (and) reaffirmed the importance of the United Nations role in supporting Syria’s political transition, reiterating its support for the efforts of the office of the United Nations Special Envoy in this regard,” the statement read.  

“Additionally, parties must respect the 1974 Disengagement Agreement, including the principles regarding the area of separation, as well as the mandate and role of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF).” 

The statement, issued unanimously by all 15 members of the council, reflected a positive shift by the Security Council towards the Syrian government, compared to the statement it had issued on the wave of killings in the coastal region in March. The Council appears to see the Suwayda events, in principle, as a dispute between two population groups—the Druze and the Bedouin—and views the government’s intervention as an attempt to resolve the conflict, which then sparked a military confrontation with Druze factions holed up in the southern province. 

This prompted Israel to launch a military attack on the government force, forcing it to withdraw and creating a security vacuum that led to a series of violent incidents, after Bedouin factions panicked and sought to rescue their comrades, besieged by the Druze armed groups. 

This contrasts with the events on the coast events, which began when remnants of the Assad regime attacked government forces, forcing the latter to respond militarily. Given the government forces’ weakness and limited manpower at the time, that incident sparked a panic similar to that of the tribes in Suwayda, which in turn caused most of the chaos and violations against civilians, as was the case in in the southern province. 

This contrast helps explain the shift in the Security Council’s position, as reflected in several points, most notably: 

• No country requested a session devoted to the events in Suwayda, in contrast to the joint request by the U.S. and Russia for an emergency session on the events on the coast. 

•  The Council’s presidential statement came at the request of Denmark, the penholder on the Syrian humanitarian file. Denmark intended the statement to be exclusively humanitarian, without addressing political and security aspects. However, several member states opted for a broader statement, particularly in order to condemn the Israeli attacks and demand an end to foreign interference in Syria’s domestic affairs, which is undermining the transitional phase and stability in Syria. 

•   The Council described the events in Suwayda as an emergency, outside the framework adopted by the Syrian government toward all components of Syrian society, in terms of respecting human rights, ensuring protection for all without discrimination, and ensuring the rule of law. Accordingly, at the request of the U.S., the reference to international human rights law—which covers situations of peace and war—was removed from the draft statement. Washington also requested that no direct, general reference be made to international humanitarian law, which focuses on situations of armed conflict. Owing to mediation by the United Kingdom, the statement was limited to the inclusion of the phrase “ the obligation to respect relevant human rights and international humanitarian law provisions.” This is a compromise formulation that is less far-reaching than the formulation of the statement on the coastal events, which referred to respect for these provisions “in all circumstances.” 

• The international consensus is that the parties must adhere to the 1974 Disengagement Agreement, respect the mandate and role of UNDOF, maintain calm, and reduce tensions. Although this formulation is an alternative to explicitly condemning Israeli attacks—something the U.S. refused to include –it also indicates that the Israeli side shares responsibility for the violations that took place. It also reflects the fact that the Council does not recognize the new realities created by Israeli forces on the ground in the separation zone. 

• The wording of the Suwayda statement is similar to the statement on the coastal killings in that it condemns violence against civilians in general, but it does not specifically mention the Druze community, as it did the Alawite community. This indicates that the Council believes that the violence was between population groups, not a campaign directed against the Druze community in particular. 

The main reason for the shift in the Council’s position is Washington’s evolving stance on the Syrian government since President Ahmed al-Sharaa met his U.S. counterpart Donald Trump in Riyadh in May. In contrast to criticism by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio regarding the government’s role in the events on the coast, U.S. Special Envoy Thomas Barrack has praised the government’s approach to addressing the violence in Suwayda. 

It is also notable that Russia did not interference in the Council’s disputes over the statement. This indicates that the visit to Moscow by a Syrian delegation, headed by Foreign Minister Asaad Al-Shaibani, was a success. It also increases hope that Russia will not block the lifting of the terror designations against President Sharaa and Interior Minister Anas Khattab. Furthermore, Shaibani’s meeting with the Chinese ambassador in Damascus on the morning the statement was released also hints at a change in China’s position on the issue. 

In sum, the Security Council’s statement on the events in Suwayda is largely favorable toward the Syrian government. It indicates that the council did not yield to the wishes of some opposition factions within Syria which sought to condemn the government and hold it solely responsible for the violence and violations that took place. 

The government’s actions between the violence and the Security Council’s statement also undoubtedly contributed to this outcome. Most importantly, the government condemned the violence, reiterated its commitment to the ceasefire agreement, formed a committee of inquiry, and pledged to hold those responsible to account, regardless of their affiliations. It also facilitated the entry of humanitarian aid and opened humanitarian corridors for the evacuation of those wishing to leave Suwayda.