Be a Supporter!

Us 'disgusted' At Ru/cn Syria Veto

  • 753 Views
  • 21 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
lapis
lapis
  • Member since: Aug. 11, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 26
Blank Slate
Us 'disgusted' At Ru/cn Syria Veto Feb. 4th, 2012 @ 03:00 PM Reply

"An Arab and Western-backed resolution condemning the violent crackdown in Syria has been vetoed at the UN Security Council by Russia and China.

The two permanent council members rejected the draft resolution, which came hours after activists accused Syrian security forces of killing at least 55 people at Homs. The US ambassador said the vetoes were "shameful", Britain was "appalled". China and Russia defended their move, saying the draft was "unbalanced"."

On one hand:

US ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice: "The United States is disgusted that a couple members of this council continue to prevent us from fulfilling our sole purpose here, addressing an ever-deepening crisis in Syria, and a growing threat to regional peace and security. For months, this council has been held hostage by a couple members. These members stand behind empty arguments and individual interests, while delaying and seeking to strip bare any text that would pressure Assad to change his actions."

On the other hand:

"But Russian policymakers have developed an allergy to Western leaders' moralizing. Just as it was pressing al-Assad to resign, the U.S. State Department quietly lifted a ban on military aid to the Karimov dictatorship in Uzbekistan, which had butchered its own protesters a few years earlier. (Uzbekistan is important for supply lines to NATO troops in Afghanistan.) Neither did Washington press the king of Bahrain -- where the U.S. Navy has a port -- to step down after he crushed popular demonstrations in his capital." (see links in this article)

What I find more interesting that the usual power play between the global powers is the rather powerful wording used to condemn the Russian/Chinese veto. Two questions:

1) Are the US and its allies right in trying to put pressure on Syria through the Security Council by means of a resolution supported by the Arab League?
2) Do the US and its allies have the moral authority to be "disgusted" and/or "appalled" at the Russian/Chinese decision to veto said resolution?

I'm curious about what you think about this.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Us 'disgusted' At Ru/cn Syria Veto Feb. 4th, 2012 @ 05:25 PM Reply

At 2/4/12 03:00 PM, lapis wrote: 1) Are the US and its allies right in trying to put pressure on Syria through the Security Council by means of a resolution supported by the Arab League?

If the resolution was supported by the Arab League, the UN definitely has the right to put pressure on Syria. My only question is why isn't the Arab League trying to fix this itself?

2) Do the US and its allies have the moral authority to be "disgusted" and/or "appalled" at the Russian/Chinese decision to veto said resolution?

100% yes. Russia and China have two real reasons to veto this and none of it has to do with "improper wording", "It's too strong", or "The US should mind its own business". They want to veto the US for the sole purpose of vetoing the US. They get joy in knowing that they can stonewall our convention just because they feel like it. Second, they don't want crackdpowns on dictatorships because that may turn attention to them. China has a terrible record when it comes to human rights and Putin, well, I bet Putin gets a hard on when reading about Stalin's death toll and secretly wishes he could return back to the red days so he could kill and murder as he wished with no repercussions.

X-Gary-Gigax-X
X-Gary-Gigax-X
  • Member since: Dec. 3, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 25
Blank Slate
Response to Us 'disgusted' At Ru/cn Syria Veto Feb. 4th, 2012 @ 10:11 PM Reply

This is easily explainable. There are two things China cares about:

1. China

2. See number one

And the same goes for Russia


hsgeisdhesduenskalwidmfjrjdjfidjmfm ekdmsjfjjfjd

BBS Signature
orangebomb
orangebomb
  • Member since: Mar. 18, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 19
Gamer
Response to Us 'disgusted' At Ru/cn Syria Veto Feb. 4th, 2012 @ 10:36 PM Reply

At 2/4/12 03:00 PM, lapis wrote: 1) Are the US and its allies right in trying to put pressure on Syria through the Security Council by means of a resolution supported by the Arab League?

I would assume that the resolution is supported by the Arab League, so yes, the UN has every right to put the screws on Syria, and frankly it should've been done a long time ago, when we first heard that Al-Assad was shooting protesters and even children down in cold blood.

2) Do the US and its allies have the moral authority to be "disgusted" and/or "appalled" at the Russian/Chinese decision to veto said resolution?

Of course. All China and Russia care about is themselves, and considering how these short-sighted and egotisical these assholes can be towards the West, this isn't much of a surprise that both nations would vote this resolutions down. It seems like their main goal is to find ways to piss us off, while they try to mask the corruption in Russia, and the human rights issues that China faces every day.

Considering how dictatorships have been dropping like flies over the last year or so in the Middle East, naturally China and Russia would be the next ones on the proverbial microscope.


Just stop worrying, and love the bomb.

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Us 'disgusted' At Ru/cn Syria Veto Feb. 5th, 2012 @ 12:07 AM Reply

At 2/4/12 10:11 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: And the same goes for Russia

Russia only cares about China?

sjsyami
sjsyami
  • Member since: Jan. 10, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Artist
Response to Us 'disgusted' At Ru/cn Syria Veto Feb. 5th, 2012 @ 12:59 AM Reply

its sad but Russia and china are most likely don't want any more instability in the region until the Iran-Israel conflict is put under control but then again they could be lobbying to support Syria for a power realm over west Asia


That guy

Iron-Hampster
Iron-Hampster
  • Member since: Aug. 27, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to Us 'disgusted' At Ru/cn Syria Veto Feb. 5th, 2012 @ 03:37 AM Reply

maybe they are just acting up on their best interests, but we shouldn't be getting involved anyway. Unless their change happens from with in, who is to say that the new government will have had enough support from the populace to support itself? Us getting involved might just make the rebels look like disloyal traitors for all we know and basically sabotage the whole revolution.


ya hear about the guy who put his condom on backwards? He went.

BBS Signature
Dogbert581
Dogbert581
  • Member since: Nov. 4, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to Us 'disgusted' At Ru/cn Syria Veto Feb. 5th, 2012 @ 06:12 AM Reply

I've never really supported the idea of vetos anyway - it seems a bit strange that it only takes a no vote from 1 of the 5 permanent members and the whole vote collapses no matter how many people had voted yes. Doesn't seem very democratic/fair to me

lapis
lapis
  • Member since: Aug. 11, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 26
Blank Slate
Response to Us 'disgusted' At Ru/cn Syria Veto Feb. 5th, 2012 @ 09:15 AM Reply

At 2/4/12 05:25 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
At 2/4/12 03:00 PM, lapis wrote: 1) Are the US and its allies right
the UN definitely has the right

I'm not asking whether they have the right, I'm asking whether they should, even from a Western perspective. Although the ideological background of the protesters in Syria is a complete mystery to Westerners, there are some that warn that there might be a hard core of Jihadi Iraq veterans behind a lot of the anti-government violence --- the same kind of elements that were the cause of the 2007 Lebanon conflict in which 168 Lebanese soldiers and 226 Jihadists were killed. Remember that the Assad regime in Syria is a minority Shi'ite clan ruling over a majority Sunni country. Should the Assad regime in Syria fall, there is the serious risk of a civil war in which the Shi'ites and the Christians will be the big losers. Remember also that alongside the dead protesters, some 700 Syrian soldiers have also been killed --- far too much for a peaceful protest, and if there's an insurgency going on, then one could wonder what kind of forces are prepared to wage an insurgency.

Here's an (unfortunately rather long) opinion article about the Syrian protests written by a former MI6 agent in the Middle East: I recommend everyone to read it and not dismiss it completely depsite the fact that it is published in a Chinese newspaper. The West seems eager to dispose of Iran's main ally in the region, and (sometimes US-funded) Syrian expats might make it look like the protest movement is completely pro-democratic and secular, but we really have no idea what dark forces might lurk in Homs' shadows. With that in mind, it might not be a good idea to pressure for quick regime change through the UN. I aksed that question because I've seen people make this case on other forums.

At 2/4/12 10:36 PM, orangebomb wrote: Of course. All China and Russia care about is themselves,

In what way does that make them different from other countries?

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Us 'disgusted' At Ru/cn Syria Veto Feb. 5th, 2012 @ 11:55 AM Reply

At 2/5/12 09:15 AM, lapis wrote:
At 2/4/12 05:25 PM, Camarohusky wrote: the UN definitely has the right
I'm not asking whether they have the right, I'm asking whether they should,

I meant the UN has the moral right, as in they are right for doing so. Sure the US may have its own ulterior motives, but the UN as an organization has always condemned attacks upon civilians by their governments. In that respect, there is nothing unqiue about Syria when compared to all of the other places the UN has tried to get involved.

Globex
Globex
  • Member since: Nov. 9, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to Us 'disgusted' At Ru/cn Syria Veto Feb. 5th, 2012 @ 02:27 PM Reply

At 2/4/12 10:11 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: This is easily explainable. There are two things China cares about:

1. China

2. See number one

And the same goes for Russia

There's 2 things China cares about

1. China

2. Communism

There's 200000 things Russia cares about

1. Russia

2. Russian elections

3. Russian people

4. Europe

5. Lil' Bro Serbia

6. Fighting poverty

7. Former USSR

8. Pissing off America

and so on so on.

ClickToPlay
ClickToPlay
  • Member since: Jan. 23, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Us 'disgusted' At Ru/cn Syria Veto Feb. 5th, 2012 @ 04:25 PM Reply

The West and Russia, China don't care about civilian lives, or spreading freedom and democracy, but I believe each side see's the Syria crisis as a potential investment in the future.

On one hand the West will endorse freedom and protesters for their support in return if things ever come to a halt, and Russia and China are probably trying to wait it out to see what Assad will do, or in some cases probably even convince his actions through diplomatic talks to get their support when things stop.

In the short-term, the U.N's draft would save civilian lives and the bombardment of cities, but in the future it's just another gold-scheme, and I think Russia and China don't want that to happen again, or probably rather see the fortune run their way, especially since the West is lacking in economic resource.


All Eyez On Me.

BBS Signature
Ranger2
Ranger2
  • Member since: Jan. 28, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Blank Slate
Response to Us 'disgusted' At Ru/cn Syria Veto Feb. 5th, 2012 @ 11:51 PM Reply

At 2/4/12 05:25 PM, Camarohusky wrote: If the resolution was supported by the Arab League, the UN definitely has the right to put pressure on Syria. My only question is why isn't the Arab League trying to fix this itself?

Because the rest of the Arab League is just as bad as Syria. They're just as repressive (if not more so) and any actual fighting would lead to the people in their countries realizing "hey, we're not free either. Let's rebel!"

And I agree with you answer to #2.

bcdemon
bcdemon
  • Member since: Nov. 9, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Us 'disgusted' At Ru/cn Syria Veto Feb. 6th, 2012 @ 09:34 AM Reply

Personally I think it's very hypocritical of the USA to be "disgusted" by the veto.
The USA vetoes every UN draft resolution that criticises Israel, and as pointed out, they support Uzbek dictator Karimov and have once again, ignored human rights violations in favour of "national interests".

But that's the way US politics works. On one day they sell Iraq chemical weapons, the next day they criticise Iraq for using chemical weapons.
They complain to Egypt about the treatment of US NGO's, yet they turn a blind eye to the treatment of US NGO's in Bahrain (which houses the US 5th Fleet).


Injured Workers rights were taken away in the 1920's by an insurance company (WCB), it's high time we got them back.

J1993
J1993
  • Member since: May. 26, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Blank Slate
Response to Us 'disgusted' At Ru/cn Syria Veto Feb. 9th, 2012 @ 09:51 AM Reply

At 4 days ago, lapis wrote:
1) Are the US and its allies right in trying to put pressure on Syria through the Security Council by means of a resolution supported by the Arab League?

As a stand alone its obviously right to pressure anyone butchering their own citizens. However Im cynical as to whether the US would be pushing this if they knew China/Russia wouldnt oppose them after all theres no oil in Syria.

2) Do the US and its allies have the moral authority to be "disgusted" and/or "appalled" at the Russian/Chinese decision to veto said resolution?

On this one the US is being clearly hypocrytical due to their support of many dictators during and after the Cold War.

ClickToPlay
ClickToPlay
  • Member since: Jan. 23, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Us 'disgusted' At Ru/cn Syria Veto Feb. 9th, 2012 @ 09:44 PM Reply

At 11 hours ago, J1993 wrote:
At 4 days ago, lapis wrote:

As a stand alone its obviously right to pressure anyone butchering their own citizens. However Im cynical as to whether the US would be pushing this if they knew China/Russia wouldnt oppose them after all theres no oil in Syria.

While that may be the case, Syria could also prove to be a vital strategic position for Israel or the United States when sending planes to Iran if they do go to war because of Western oppression.
If Syria turns free, and the US manage to implement yet another 'democratically' imposed leader, then they can use Syrian airspace to fly freely right to Persia.



On this one the US is being clearly hypocrytical due to their support of many dictators during and after the Cold War.

Yep, can't say anything about that.


All Eyez On Me.

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Us 'disgusted' At Ru/cn Syria Veto Feb. 9th, 2012 @ 10:25 PM Reply

At 37 minutes ago, ClickToPlay wrote: If Syria turns free, and the US manage to implement yet another 'democratically' imposed leader, then they can use Syrian airspace to fly freely right to Persia.

The US doesn't care about Syria in terms of air space. The US has the majority of its forces positioned south of Iran, not the the West. What the US wants in Syria is a Democratic ally. The US wants some country that it can try to use as a way to legitimize itself among the people of the region. The US's involvement in libya, Egypt, Syria and the rest of the Arab Spring is an attempt (likely in vain) to rectify its image in the region.

lapis
lapis
  • Member since: Aug. 11, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 26
Blank Slate
Response to Us 'disgusted' At Ru/cn Syria Veto Feb. 12th, 2012 @ 03:32 PM Reply

At 7 days ago, Camarohusky wrote: the UN as an organization has always condemned attacks upon civilians by their governments.
At 3 days ago, J1993 wrote: As a stand alone its obviously right to pressure anyone butchering their own citizens.

This isn't just about killing civilians. The resolution put forth before the SC didn't just tell Assad to stop the bloodshed, it called on him to step down. Russia and China have also supported calls on both sides (Assad and the rebels) to stop the violence, but will not support regime change forced from the outside. I am not asking if it's good that the UN is standing up against civilian casaulties, I'm asking if trying to do so through forcing Assad to resign is beneficial, even in terms of civilian casualties. The five to seven thousand confirmed civilian casualties so far are still dwarfed by the 100,000+ that got killed in the near-civil war in Iraq a few years back. If Assad were to fall, and the Sunni Islamist rebels unleash their vengeance upon the Shi'ites and the Christians, who still largely support the Assad regime, it might make the current killings look mild by comparison. This is something that must be considered, awful as it may be.

J1993
J1993
  • Member since: May. 26, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Blank Slate
Response to Us 'disgusted' At Ru/cn Syria Veto Feb. 14th, 2012 @ 11:26 AM Reply

At 1 day ago, lapis wrote:
This isn't just about killing civilians. The resolution put forth before the SC didn't just tell Assad to stop the bloodshed, it called on him to step down. Russia and China have also supported calls on both sides (Assad and the rebels) to stop the violence, but will not support regime change forced from the outside. I am not asking if it's good that the UN is standing up against civilian casaulties, I'm asking if trying to do so through forcing Assad to resign is beneficial, even in terms of civilian casualties. The five to seven thousand confirmed civilian casualties so far are still dwarfed by the 100,000+ that got killed in the near-civil war in Iraq a few years back. If Assad were to fall, and the Sunni Islamist rebels unleash their vengeance upon the Shi'ites and the Christians, who still largely support the Assad regime, it might make the current killings look mild by comparison. This is something that must be considered, awful as it may be.

To be fair I did just say pressure there not enforce stepping down though some sort of power sharing arangement to ensure he doesnt do something like this again would be good, more specifically as a prelude to elections that should have UN inspectors keeping an eye on.

lapis
lapis
  • Member since: Aug. 11, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 26
Blank Slate
Response to Us 'disgusted' At Ru/cn Syria Veto Feb. 18th, 2012 @ 07:28 AM Reply

This is not a response to anyone in particular, but I thought it was relevant to the topic:

Russia is not completely wrong about Syria

Russia has been roundly criticised for vetoing a draft UN Security Council resolution aimed at stopping the violence in Syria and ousting President Bashar al-Assad. Moscow is reluctant to give up on the al-Assad regime for the moment: it has a direct interest in the survival of the regime, which buys its arms and provides a naval base; it is strongly opposed to Western-led interventions, on principle; it believes that Arab revolutions are likely to lead to takeovers by Islamic fundamentalists; and it is still fuming that, after it refrained from vetoing UN Security Council resolution 1973 on Libya âEU" about the protection of civilians âEU" the West abused the resolution by using it to justify regime change.

However, Russian diplomats concede that change is inevitable if the violence in Syria is to be contained. Russia wants a managed transition that preserves its influence. The draft UNSC resolution called for the confinement of the Syrian army to barracks and endorsed the Arab League plan for al-Assad to hand over power to his vice president prior to the holding of elections. Russian diplomats are right to say that such a resolution would have been unenforceable and, if implemented, would have led to the sudden collapse of the Syrian government without a credible alternative to take its place. Anarchy could have ensued. The Kremlin may be playing realpolitik and taking pride in blocking the West, but it has a point.

Western leaders have been sincere in expressing revulsion at the continued crackdown by the Syrian military upon largely peaceful protestors. But their diplomacy has been ineffective. Preferring to issue ultimatums from afar, they have given up on dialogue with the Syrian regime when there is no other viable alternative.

A number of diplomatic rules have been ignored by Western governments in Syria. First, never rule out force publicly even if you have done so privately. (...) Second, the main function of an embassy is to act as a liaison with a host government, even one as odious as that in Damascus. (...) Third, do not encourage regime change without any concept of how, and with what means, such a revolution might come about. (...)

Given the enduring strength and resistance of the Syrian regime, and the lack of any immediate military means to weaken it, it is disappointing that Western countries have all but cut off diplomatic contacts with Damascus. The West should re-start diplomatic dialogue with Syria without pre-conditions. In the end an unsavoury deal such as that made with President Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen âEU" granting him immunity from prosecution âEU" may be appropriate for key members of the Syrian elite. Western leaders need to grapple with what an acceptable deal could look like. Issuing statements that condemn a regime is easy; but it is tough diplomatic negotiations with the government in Damascus that can best help the Syrian people.

However, there are limits to the role Western diplomacy can play. Although the West can embark on a supportive dialogue, it is now impossible for the West to play a leading role as an intermediary in the conflict. A trusted interlocutor is urgently required to negotiate a credible transition in Syria. Such leadership cannot come from Europe, the United States, the Arab League, or Russia âEU" none of whom are trusted by all sides. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has been content to sit on the side-lines, choosing not to deploy his 'good offices' in the manner of his more courageous predecessors. It is time to appoint a UN Special Representative to engage with the regime and opposition alike. Even if his or her proposals are ultimately rejected by Moscow or Washington, some options are better than none.

djack
djack
  • Member since: Aug. 10, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 27
Movie Buff
Response to Us 'disgusted' At Ru/cn Syria Veto Feb. 18th, 2012 @ 03:05 PM Reply

At 7 hours ago, lapis wrote: However, Russian diplomats concede that change is inevitable if the violence in Syria is to be contained. Russia wants a managed transition that preserves its influence. The draft UNSC resolution called for the confinement of the Syrian army to barracks and endorsed the Arab League plan for al-Assad to hand over power to his vice president prior to the holding of elections. Russian diplomats are right to say that such a resolution would have been unenforceable and, if implemented, would have led to the sudden collapse of the Syrian government without a credible alternative to take its place. Anarchy could have ensued. The Kremlin may be playing realpolitik and taking pride in blocking the West, but it has a point.

I've never known a country to collapse because the vice president took over after the president stepped down. I can see how a revolution could be started if the army was truly confined to the barracks but if change and possibly revolution are inevitable, which the Russian government admits that it is, then it doesn't matter what is done with the Syrian army. What makes the resolution of the Arab League any worse than Russia's veto which leaves the current Syrian president in charge and allows the violence to continue?

ClickToPlay
ClickToPlay
  • Member since: Jan. 23, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Us 'disgusted' At Ru/cn Syria Veto Feb. 19th, 2012 @ 04:47 PM Reply

At 1 day ago, djack wrote:
I've never known a country to collapse because the vice president took over after the president stepped down. I can see how a revolution could be started if the army was truly confined to the barracks but if change and possibly revolution are inevitable, which the Russian government admits that it is, then it doesn't matter what is done with the Syrian army. What makes the resolution of the Arab League any worse than Russia's veto which leaves the current Syrian president in charge and allows the violence to continue?

The thing is, at least in my opinion, I do strongly believe that there are foreign-backed heavily armed gangs in Syria, and that same resistance was also found in Libya, but unlike Syria, the Libyans didn't have as much support for Gaddafi.

Both sides are doing the killing, and the worst part is only the civilizations are feeling the heat of this show of power.
Russia might see this too, and maybe wants to intervene without force, because we all know that doesn't work well.


All Eyez On Me.

BBS Signature