Russia and China veto UN action on Syriam crisis

[Lord Consul]

UNITED NATIONS — A United Nations Security Council effort to end the violence in Syria collapsed in acrimony with a double veto by Russia and China on Saturday, hours after the Syrian military attacked the city of Homs in what opposition leaders described as the deadliest government assault in the nearly 11-month uprising.

The veto and the mounting violence underlined the dynamics shaping what is proving to be the Arab world’s bloodiest revolt: diplomatic stalemate and failure as Syria plunges deeper into what many are already calling a civil war. Diplomats have lamented their lack of options in pressuring the Syrian government, and even some Syrian dissidents worry about what the growing confrontation will mean for a country reeling from bloodshed and hardship.

The Security Council voted 13 to 2 in favor of a resolution backing an Arab League peace plan for Syria, but the measure was blocked by Russia and China, which opposed what they saw as a potential violation of Syria’s sovereignty. The support of those countries has proven crucial in bolstering the Syrian government’s confidence, despite an isolation more pronounced than any time since the Assad family seized power more than four decades ago.

After the vote, and the failure before that of the Arab League peace plan to stem the violence, predictions were grim about what lay ahead in a conflict that the United Nations says has claimed more than 5,000 lives. To many, two inexorable forces were at work: a government bent on crushing the uprising by force, faced with an opposition that, if not increasing in numbers, appears to be radicalizing and growing in determination.

“What more do we need to know to act decisively in the Security Council?” Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton asked at a news conference in Munich. “To block this resolution is to bear responsibility for the horrors that are occurring on the ground in Syria.”

Responding to the Russian foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, who asked, “What’s the endgame?” Mrs. Clinton replied: “The endgame in the absence of us acting together as the international community, I fear, is civil war.”

Full Article: Click here

Ms Clinton may try to use her charms, but the Russians and the Chinese won't play ball. The Chinese, specially, who have millions invested in the region, won't lift a finger to help deal with their former pal, Assad.

[PointOfViewGun]

Here: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=520033

[Lord Consul]

Here: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=520033

Those threads, albeit sharing a passing similarity, are fundamentally different. This one is about a double veto by China and Russia. The one you linked is about the (then) possibility of Russia vetoing a motion.

How did Russia and China get on the security council in the first place?

The Soviet Union won this thing called World War Two.

As for China, blame Roosevelt and Kissinger. Roosevelt for including Nationalist China in the council, against the many reservations made by Soviets (oh, the irony). Kissinger for handing the China seat on the council back to "Red China".

[Papay]

Those threads, albeit sharing a passing similarity, are fundamentally different. This one is about a double veto by China and Russia. The one you linked is about the (then) possibility of Russia vetoing a motion.



The Soviet Union won this thing called World War Two.

As for China, blame Roosevelt and Kissinger. Roosevelt for including Nationalist China in the council, against the many reservations made by Soviets (oh, the irony). Kissinger for handing the China seat on the council back to "Red China".

Its funny because the west thought that China would support west so they would be 4 against one.Instead they are 3 against 2...

[Captain Arrrgh!]

China has major investment in the region.

[Dr Zoidberg]

Russia's veto: No surprise. China's veto: Interesting. I would have expected an abstention. Does anybody know who vetoed first? I.e. Did the Chinese not really have anything to lose by vetoing because the Russians had already done so?

[Lord Consul]

Surely that's for a mod to decide.

Back on topic: Russia's veto: No surprise. China's veto: Interesting. I would have expected an abstention. Does anybody know who vetoed first? I.e. Did the Chinese not really have anything to lose by vetoing because the Russians had already done so?

You make a very good point, Zoidberg. A Chinese veto was not necessary, since the Russians had already buried the motion. However, I do think the People's Republic is trying to send the message to the region that they do not care about politics - everything's fine as long as the oil keeps flowing and Chinese firms keep getting major contracts.

[mrmouth]

Totally expected, but still totally disappointing. Forget politics and interests - many people will die because of their choice to veto. No other way to spin it.

You'd better believe that if it were the US, people who have a serious problem with it. It is time that we hold these two important world powers to the standards as everyone else, and stop letting them enable the worlds rogue regimes. It's pitiful, and it should be embarrassing to them - that their old alliances have alienated themselves from the global community, for obvious reasons.

[AqD]

However, I do think the People's Republic is trying to send the message to the region that they do not care about politics - everything's fine as long as the oil keeps flowing and Chinese firms keep getting major contracts.

Hmm, China has never agreed any international intervene on any countries.

[Bobz]

Russia's veto: No surprise. China's veto: Interesting. I would have expected an abstention. Does anybody know who vetoed first? I.e. Did the Chinese not really have anything to lose by vetoing because the Russians had already done so?

It was almost certain to us in the public that Russia would veto it, China would of known even better about how they were going to vote (or not). Doesn't answer why they did though.

You would think when they were making up the rules of the UN they would of thought of having a way to get around a veto. Honestly what's the point of having 15 members when only 5 of them can really decide anything?

[nameless]

Probably because no matter how this would roll even stepping in would be taking sides with the opposition and lead to another Libya-regime change. That and they are concerned about deploying troops in a potential powder keg.

Though just out of curiosity do they need UN approval? If push comes to shove wouldn't NATO simply send another fleet to bombard Assad and force his troops back? Hence giving the opposition time to arm themselves and attack him?

The European seats should be combined into one and Japan and India should join.

Horrible idea.

Aside from the artocities Japan committed in WWII (so I doubt Asian nations would be happy for Japan to represent that area) Japan is a vassal of the US. That would give US two votes on the council. India aligns as well to the US/west and that puts it to 3 votes.

Same thing with Germany. You already got France representing Europe as a whole and Britan is just...well Britain.

In all fairness a South American country along with an African Nation should be put on the council to represent those areas.

I'm not surprised that Russia and China is standing up for their interests, I mean the US would do the same if something like this happened against Saudi Arabia.

Well according to WIKI leaks the US have been backing a regime change in Syria for some time so obviously Russia/China does not want to give the US an excuse to go in and prop up a puppet government under their payroll.

[selder]

Chinese not really have anything to lose by vetoing because the Russians had already done so?

and nothing to gain

China has major investment in the region

and what region do they not have major investment in?

[Phier]

Why go to the UN?

Its easier to seek forgiveness than ask permission.

[Nikitn]

Russia's veto: No surprise. China's veto: Interesting. I would have expected an abstention. Does anybody know who vetoed first? I.e. Did the Chinese not really have anything to lose by vetoing because the Russians had already done so?

China wants to be on good terms with the probable winner. After this revolt has been crushed, there will be lots of investment needed to rebuild, after all.

[Captain Arrrgh!]

Good for China and Russia.
Go back to the kiddy pool, Ms. Clinton.

[Kanaric]

Good for China and Russia.
Go back to the kiddy pool, Ms. Clinton.

Of course, its GOOD that Syria kills hundreds of people. Russia and China understand.

[Captain Arrrgh!]

Of course, its GOOD that Syria kills hundreds of people. Russia and China understand.

Ten year olds talk like this. Don't worry, America and Britain are doing and have done quite well in the innocent blood department.

[legate]

Telling Assad to step down is like telling Eamon Holmes to stop putting his foot in it, never gonna happen.

[Exarch]

in the history of the UN, france, UK an the US have used their veto more times than either Russia or China; usually to protect regimes in Israel and apartheid south efrica.

that aside, it's natural that Russia and China would veto this considering
1) the libyan travesty that continues to this day in the form of anarchy was conducted in our names.
2)

Despite attempts to circumscribe debate, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov insists that the full Arab League monitors' report be tabled. According to Ria Novosti, apparently "some of the report's information was missing" in the document that Arab League foreign ministers submitted to the UN Security Council. Of course, we'll hear their proposals but we would like to see the report itself," Lavrov said. [8]

Lavrov is wise to ask for the full contents to be discussed (the full report is available online here), because the Saudi claim that "the Syrian government did not execute any of the elements" is plainly untrue. The initial one-month mission of the Arab League observers had four clear aims: to protect citizens, cease acts of violence, release detainees and withdraw all military presence from cities and towns. This should then lead to dialogue between the government and the opposition, and the launching of a parallel political process.

Source: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NB03Ak03.html

those in favour of sanctions and regime change lack credibility and are obviously motivated by geopolitics than genuine welfare for syrians, most of whom support Assad anyhow.

[ivan_the_terrible]

Of course, its GOOD that Syria kills hundreds of people. Russia and China understand.

That's not what he meant and I suspect you know it. Clearly, by 'good for Russia/China' he means good for them that they're looking after their interests.

Kanaric you seem like a smart guy; you ought to realise international politics are seldom about morality - they're about interests.

The original protests were peaceful. Assad's violent crackdowns though have forced them to fight back. The current insurgency was started because of the government crackdowns.

Or so some of the rebels claim. We don't know what's really going on. Every single news report about the unrest in Syria I've seen begins with 'although this cannot be independently verified, protesters say...[etc, etc]'.