Russia and China VETO resolution on Syria at UN

1 day old, but not posted here yet, so here goes.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-16890107
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/04...54441.html

UNITED NATIONS, Feb 4 (Reuters) - Russia and China joined forces in a double veto on Saturday to knock down a Western-Arab U.N. Security Council resolution backing an Arab League plan for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to step aside.

The other 13 council members voted in favor of the resolution, which would have said that the council "fully supports" the Arab League plan aimed at ending 11 months of bloodshed as Syria has sought to crush an anti-Assad uprising.

Mohammed Loulichki, the U.N. ambassador of Morocco, the sole Arab member of the 15-nation council, voiced his "great regret and disappointment" that Moscow and Beijing struck down the resolution.

Dropping the usual diplomatic courtesies, U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice said she was "disgusted" by the Russian and Chinese veto, adding that "any further bloodshed that flows will be on their (Russia's and China's) hands."

French Ambassador Gerard Araud told the council, "It is a sad day for this council, a sad day for all Syrians, and a sad day for democracy." He said Moscow and Beijing were now "complicit in the policy of repression" of Damascus.

This is the second time that permanent members Russia and China have exercised a double veto on the Syria issue. In October, they vetoed a European-drafted resolution condemning Syria and threatening it with possible sanctions.

Diplomats said China had been expected to follow Russia's lead and the decision to veto the text came from Moscow. Russia had complained that the draft resolution was an attempt at "regime change" in Syria, Moscow's close ally and a key Russian weapons export destination.

Russia's decision to vote against the resolution came after U.S. and European officials rejected a series of Russian amendments to the draft resolution that Rice said were "unacceptable."

Prior to the vote, several Western diplomats said that if Russia vetoed the resolution, it would be a sign of what they referred to as the "re-Putinization" of Russian foreign policy - referring to expectations that Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin will return to the presidency after this year's elections.

The changes proposed by Russia, seen by Reuters, would have introduced language assigning blame to Syria's opposition, as well as the government, for violence in which the United Nations says more than 5,000 people have died.

Western nations reject the idea of equal blame, saying the government is mainly responsible.

Russia had also insisted on dropping a demand that the Syrian government withdraw its security forces from cities, but U.S. and European delegations refuse to include that change.

It doesn't really surprise me that 2 countries, which both have dictatorship of a single political party and to my knowledge have relations to Syria do this. But either way this will still give the message that Russia and China will not give a f'uck about human rights and they would probably do the same if people tried to voice out againt the government (and as we know, China already has in the past).

I'm pretty sure UN would be against China and Russia as well, if they weren't such big of a countries. If it were for me to decide, I would drive ambassadors/diplomats of both China and Russia out of the country.

To be honest I can see where they are coming from if I understand it right, I'm not really familiar with this. Although that doesn't mean I agree with it. Just sounds like they want to drop all responsibility of protecting another country?

Most likely due to the USA veto-ing all resolutions regarding Israel...

Anyway, why can't we do to this whole fcking area (Middle - East):

Ok noobs, you tried for 67 years now and fcked up so big time, the UN will now completely take over all your governments for the next 25 years.

After that, you can try again yourselves...

It's probably because of the large lack of transparency regarding Syria, as well as the unforeseen consequences that comes with regime change. The West more or less acted the same way during the Cold War era regarding dictatorships in South America and Africa. Many of them were fully endorsed by the States, even with human rights abuses and the existence of totalitarian or single party regimes.

The media eat up freedom fighting and civil war like babies do candy. They love this stuff but truth is that it's never going to be as simple as they seem. Afterall, according to the recent YouGov poll, more than 50% of Syrians don't want to see Assad step down. However the romanticism that comes with war and the west's fetish with being the shining white knight allows for a grand opportunity for misinformation to be spread.

While Syria has it's own problems regarding civil liberties and human rights, many other countries share similar issues but are never condemned (ie Saudi Arabia). And if recent history has taught us, replacing a linchpin only causes a power vacuum that leads to much less desirable effects (ie. Iraq and the subsequent rise of insurgence).

I admire your idealism, but uninformed idealism is tragically bigotry.

Just ask yourself this, why hasn't the US and their buddies done something about the dozen of countries around the world with worse issues?
IMO although it might sound bad or heartless, is better to leave it to them as most people outside of a country knows pomegranate of what going on in there and also it shows the people in that country that if they could took down an oppressive goverment they can do it again, while if they let an outside force do it they will become said force new peach.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=980_1328509622

They don't want to get shelled.. They can't defend themselves against this..

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=980_1328509622

They don't want to get shelled.. They can't defend themselves against this..

Sorry but what am I supposed to see? Some smoke?

Sorry but what am I supposed to see? Some smoke?

You don't hear it? pineappleing artillery strikes. The civilians are getting slaughtered by enormous ammunition.. If you look around on that site you'll find numerous videos of how uneven the playing field is.

Edit: Also, why the pineapple would they be risking their lives to get these videos to the public if they didn't want and need help.

Yeah Homs has it pretty bad. The whole situation is turning more into a civil war than anything, not some sort of national revolution like in Libya (who strangely enough, has been off the radar as of late), or Egypt (still facing political turmoil and dissidence).

People are dying, that's a fact. However, the international community can't do a damn thing about it unless Syria as a whole wants to topple down the government, and that doesn't look like it's going to happen anytime soon. Otherwise it's a breach in sovereignty and diplomatically leaves a bad taste in everybody's mouth.

Also I want to point out the fact that EVERY confrontation or bad news coming from Syria is coming from Homs. It's kinda weird. Not saying there's a conspiracy or anything. I just find it strange.