U.S. ‘Disgusted’ As Russia And China Veto U.N. Resolution On Syria

[ProSense]

U.S. ‘Disgusted’ As Russia And China Veto U.N. Resolution On Syria | Amid brutal violence in Syria, Russia and China vetoed a resolution before the 15-member body to support an Arab League plan to end the crisis. Earlier, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave dueling speeches in Munich, Germany. “As a tyrant in Damascus brutalizes his own people, the U.S. and Europe stand shoulder to shoulder…alongside the Arab League, in demanding an end to the bloodshed and a democratic future for Syria,” Clinton said. President Obama also threw his support behind the resolution and, going even farther, ended his statement by saying: “The suffering citizens of Syria must know: we are with you, and the Assad regime must come to an end.” But Russia and China blocked the resolution. U.N. ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice, who tweeted that she was “disgusted” by the veto, said on the Council floor: “This intransigence is even more shameful when you consider that at least one of these members” — Russia — “is still delivering weapons to Syria.”

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/02/04/418928/russia-china-un-veto-syria/

[Scootaloo]

1. What? Someone blocked a resolution against a violent state in the mideast?!

I've never heard of such a thing! And they're still fueling the conflict with weapons sales?!

*cough*

[2ndAmForComputers]

40. Heh!

[nanabugg]

45. Nail, meet hammer! nt

[BeFree]

2. Damn

We coulda had a new 'no fly zone' bombing campaign.

[tabatha]

4. Did you read it?

There was no provision for military intervention - or anything that could lead to military intervention.

It was watered down because of Russia - yet Russia vetoed its own provisions.

[BeFree]

5. First step is the hardest

The neo-cons and one other ME state would have been happy as heck to get a leg up on dropping more bombs.

Did you hear the other rumors of wars in the ME?

[tabatha]

9. You are wrong.

The resolution was to support what the Arab League wanted - nothing to do with neocons.

That is a very right-wing tactic - conflate and make false equivalencies.

As for the Iran issue, you must have missed it - a post by me that has 20+ comments on it.

You might like to start here, and read the sub-threads and the responses.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=43532

[BeFree]

16. Geez

The neo-cons have been looking for a way to bust in to Syria for years now.

That is the simple truth. You may trust the neo-cons, but I don't.

If anyone is supporting right-wing tactics it is not me. So stop throwing that bullshit out there.

[Snake Alchemist]

18. Thank goodness we have China keeping President Obama in check. nt

[tabatha]

22. The neocons are not in charge.

Bob Gates, a Republican, said he does not want to see the US ever in the ME again.

Please see Amnesty and HRW statement below.

Btw, I am quite aware of the baying of the neocons on the side, such as Bolton and Krautwahtever. But Obama does not listen to them. They are not in the UN. And Leon Panetta is in charge of the military.

Fix your facts.

[Dokkie]

39. It doesnt matter what the resolution says

You have to understand that these people want a regime change no matter what. They will use any mandate to intervene to oust the Assad govt. These people have still havent admitted that the protesters are not peaceful and infact armed to the teeth. A repeat of Libya would happen if Russia and/or China lets any resolution passes.

I am sure you would object if any outside force interfered during our civil war, now lets not interfer in another countries business.

[malaise]

52. 100% correct

I'm so glad that there are countries willing to stand up to the bullies. by the way, I love the use of the word intransigence - the irony is breath-taking.

[Fool Count]

53. In fact, a repeat of Libya would likely happen even without any UN resolution.

Ultimately, they really don't give a fuck. All that screaming about hurt feelings and
"betraying Syrian people" is just a hissy-fit of people not allowed to feel better about
themselves by gaining some miniscule and truly irrelevant "legitimacy". At the end
they will bomb Syria and do a regime change there anyway, they are just mad at
Russians for not letting them enjoy the official UN appreciation in the process. What
a bunch of evil fucks.

[Hutzpa]

46. lol

looks like Russia is using the republicans playbook, damn, the war hawks are not
going to like that.

[Pirate Smile]

8. Wow. You're quite the humanitarian.

Russia & China appreciate your support.

[BeFree]

11. They stopped us for now

But we will find a way to get around them and get our war on.

The people of Syria are in a tough spot. One reason is because of American foreign policy. And the neo-con iteration of foreign policy is mo' bombs. Tell me something... what countries have Russia and China invaded recently? No who the fuck is being real humanitarian?

[tabatha]

13. Please go and read the resolution.

There was nothing to stop.

Russia said it agreed - then vetoed.

China raised no objections - then vetoed.

The US will not invade any country under Obama.

[teddy51]

28. "The US will not invade any country under Obama." Really? I would not bet $$$ on that, we will see

Iran if he does or not.

[tabatha]

31. Obama will not invade Iran - period.

Please read my comments in this thread, and see the Baer video by another poster.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101442489

[Pirate Smile]

15. I find it very interesting how people blame the US for allowing any horrible atrocities to happen in

the world yet will in the next breath slam the US for in any way trying to stop it.

[BeFree]

19. heh

Invaded Iraq. Invaded Vietnam. Grenada. South America.

Yeah... the US has a great reputation.

Your accusations are bullshit. You may want to delete your posts?

[Pirate Smile]

26. Nope.

Sometimes it is easy to see where the smear "blame America first" that Republicans have spent years putting onto Democrats came from even though it only applies to a small segment of people on the left.

[BeFree]

29. heh

Just a chicken-hawk style of response from the smile?

The litany of over-bearing US military responses is well articulated in the Oakland PD response to the American protestors. just a smaller scale.

You may want to revisit your support for such responses?

[Pirate Smile]

33. I'm able to differentiate between various wars, military responses and police brutality.

Support some wars, military responses. Oppose others - certainly police brutality.

I don't find it that difficult to deal with the specific facts of particular situations.

They are not all the same with the US or the cops always the bad guys. That doesn't mean they aren't sometimes.

[treestar]

57. You might want to revisit considering whether China and Russia are any better?

This thread is about them. Both have interfered in other countries, and as for police brutality, well.

[teddy51]

30. I'm in agreement with you! The US reputation in the world sucks big time over the past several

decades. What I want to know is, did the US have any roll in Syria's current uprising to topple Assad?

[joshcryer]

43. Russia unilaterally invaded Georgia in 2008. But so easily we forget.

Chinese intervention (saber rattling) in Burma is uncontroversial and common knowledge.

When Russia invades Syria without the UN in a while from now a lot of people are going to look really stupid. Russia cannot allow their client state to be in a protracted civil war.

Bush unilaterally invaded Iraq without UN support. Obama won't do that. Anyone who says, suggests, or implies that will happen is deluded.

[Scootaloo]

47. You mean after Georgian forces began attacking Russian citizens?

Explicitly in hte hopes of generating such a response from Russia, in an effort to spur US action against Russia? Which... failed miserably? That unilateral invasion?

Lesson learned: Don't sic your military on another nation's citizens, and don't fish for a war you can't fight.

[joshcryer]

48. The question was "what countries did Russia invade."

I answered that question.

Ignorance is no excuse.

Russia is not anti-imperialist. They are as imperialist as they come.

Russia wanted the Georgian pipeline, so did the US. The US backed off because it didn't think it was worth global war.

[tabatha]

3. Russia had said they agreed with the Arab League's plan.

Then vetoed. They acted in bad faith.

The Chinese veto was a surprise, because they had raised no objections.

The resolution had been watered down several times because of Russia. There was nothing that could lead to military intervention - just a condemnation of what Syria was doing, and that Assad should hand over power.

[BeFree]

21. Russia is smart... they played us

....“nothing in this resolution authorizes” military action, responding to Russian concern that last March’s UN authorization of all necessary measures to protect civilians was used to bring down Muammar Qaddafi’s regime.

[tabatha]

24. There was not even that type of language in there.

Please go and read it.

You are conflating again - the Libyan agreement is not the same as the Syrian agreement, no matter how much you try to make it so. RWers do that - conflate.

[MattSh]

49. Wow!

We send how much money each year to the CIA and the NSA and all manner of other intelligence agencies and the Chinese still surprised us?

That tells me either the money spent on intelligence is a big waste -or- our intelligence agencies were not the least bit surprised by the Chinese action. Of course they would never tell anyone that they were not surprised.

[Fool Count]

54. You lie again, Russia never said it agreed with the Arab League plan.

In fact, it always said the demand for Assad to step down was a non-starter for them.
No military intervention? Just a demand that Assad should hand over power? And if he
refuses, then what? After Libya anyone should know what then - freelance enforcement
of "international community's" demands by its selected members, that's what. Russia
was stupid to believe the US/NATO liars once and got screwed. How stupid do those
bozos think the Russians are?

[davidpdx]

56. Russia and China have long been supporting despot nations

like Syria, Iran and North Korea. They continue to say things will be handled through diplomacy and then force watered down resolutions or veto them. It is Russia and China that are the true enemies of the US.

[mwooldri]

58. Look at that Portugese ambassador - evil eye or what?!!!

@tabatha - thanks for posting that picture.

That Portuguese guy - I don't know his name or anything but to me he appears to be giving the guy from the Russian Federation one nasty look whilst that Russian ambassador looks as glum as anything. I suspect though the Russian ambassador knows what's right in his heart but is following Vladamir's orders.

[inna]

6. Freedom drones!! No-fly zone!! Liberate them, quick!

Cannot believe this shit. I mean, I do but I do not want to.

[tabatha]

10. Oh good grief.

There was nothing about military actions at all.

Try reading and not jumping to conclusions.

I guess you support the massacre of Syrians.

[inna]

14. nc

not worth it

[FarCenter]

35. Got a link to the text that was voted on?

I don't see it on the un.org site?

IIRC, it had a demand that Syrian forces withdraw from contested cities and towns, and also a demand that Assad step down, (at least by impliction via support of the Arab League resolution).

There was also some language that if Assad did not step down in two weeks, further action would be necessary.

The last in particular sounded like an open invitation to start bombing in two weeks.

[tabatha]

36. A statement from Clinton

Asked if there would be any possibility of military intervention, Clinton replied: "No, military intervention has been absolutely ruled
out. And we've made that clear from the very beginning."

[FarCenter]

37. That's what we say before the vote; then we do some fancy reinterpretation later

In view of changed circumstances, of course, what really must have been meant was something else.

Statements mean nothing. You have to see the actual text and evaluate the opportunities it might offer for exegesis.

[mazzarro]

41. Unfortunately, that has always been the way western nations play at the UN

They will push and claim one thing. Then after the resolution is adopted, it is then reinterpreted by the western nations along with their sycophantic nations in the particular region(s) to mean something else later using some so-called changed situation. This has happened so many times.

I hope Syria finds a suitable way to settle its internal problems. And not the western imposed solution and more especially the hypocritical Saudi solution.

[Fool Count]

55. The simplest "changed circumstance" in this case would be Assad's refusal to step down

as that resolution would have demanded. Then with UN "credibility" on the line, who
could argue against a little bombing? Purely humanitarian, of course. This shit is so
transparent it is not even funny. And now they are all hurt, because Russians saw
through it.

[tabatha]

63. There seems to be a lack of comprehension between the Libyan resolution and the Syrian resolution.

Consider is not the same as granting that does not require further consideration.

[joshcryer]

42. Nothing surprises me anymore.

People making stuff up out of nowhere is par for the course.

[inna]

7. not as if the US gives a flying fook about anyone's "veto", anyway

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. U.S. Vetoes of UN Resolutions Calling for an End to the Cuban Embargo 182-2

Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba. (A/RES/66/6)
2011 186 in favour to 2 against (United States, Israel)

To see all of the vetoes against ending the embargo from 1992 - 2011 see here.

http://elpidiovaldes.wordpress.com/2011/11/07/u-s-vetoes-of-un-resolutions-calling-for-an-end-to-the-cuban-embargo-1992-present/

[tabatha]

17. Human Rights Watch statement.

Philippe Bolopion, UN director at Human Rights Watch in New York, said the vetoes by Moscow and Beijing four months ago were “irresponsible”, but today “after weeks of Russian diplomatic game-playing and in the middle of a bloodbath in Homs, they are simply incendiary.”

“For Russia and China to double veto after the regime’s brutal assault on Homs last eve, after the West diluted the resolution language to suit Russia’s demands, effectively means they were helping Assad play for time and ensure his rule,” said Andrew J. Tabler, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and an expert on Syria.

In a final effort to win Russian acceptance, Arab and European Union negotiators made concessions in response to objections that the proposal endorsed regime change.

The draft that was voted on by the council said there should be no “prejudging the outcome” of the political process and that “nothing in this resolution authorizes” military action, responding to Russian concern that last March’s UN authorization of all necessary measures to protect civilians was used to bring down Muammar Qaddafi’s regime.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-04/syrian-un-resolution-turns-on-russia-s-power-of-veto-in-security-council.html

[tabatha]

20. Amnesty: Syria Veto a 'Shockingly Callous Betrayal'

Russia and China's veto Saturday of a U.N. resolution on the bloodshed in Syria is a "shockingly callous betrayal" of the Syrian people, Amnesty International said. Moscow and Beijing have acted in a "completely irresponsible" way, the London-based human rights group added.

Russia and China vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution condemning Syria for its lethal crackdown on protests, as activists said Syrian troops killed more than 230 people in shelling of the city of Homs.

"The decision by Russia and China... is a shockingly callous betrayal of the people of Syria," Amnesty said. The group's secretary-general Salil Shetty added: "This is a completely irresponsible use of the veto.

"It is staggering that they have blocked the passage of what was already a very weak draft resolution. "After a night in which the whole world watched the people of Homs suffering, the actions of these members are particularly shocking."

http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/28949-amnesty-syria-veto-a-shockingly-callous-betrayal

[ProSense]

32. Thanks for posting the two statements n/t

[Poll_Blind]

23. LOL- just like the US is disgusted by its own auto-veto against all resolutions regarding Israel.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

There's very little light that shines between our veto against UN resolutions regarding Israel and Russian/Chinese vetos regarding Syria. Without a doubt the US has shown, indeed taught, the international community that politics always trumps human rights- even when it involves murder.

Another example of where our past/current behavior paints our attempt to portray ourselves as "taking the moral high-ground" as a well-known, world-wide joke.

PB

[tabatha]

25. I cannot but agree with the negative things that the US has done.

However, the Syrians need help.

[Poll_Blind]

27. I agree. And it's during times like this that our propping up of some regimes bits us on...

...the ass the worst.

PB

[Purveyor]

38. What you said. +1

[Cali_Democrat]

34. The US had it right, but unfortunately the United States has pretty much squandered all credibility

mainly because of the "War on Terra".

If countries see the United States backing an issue, they will be suspicious and many times will do the opposite. This is a direct result of our insane foreign policy.

[madrchsod]

44. no one really has a clue who is on who`s side in this civil/religious war.

russia,china,and the usa have very little influence in this hell hole of the middle east. it would be best for the usa to just back who ever wins.

[tabatha]

61. It is not a religious war.

[Monk06]

50. The US is pushing for regime change in Syria as leverage against Iran. If Syria comes

under Western control then Iran is surrounded on all sides. A 'liberated' Syria would be used as a forward operating base for the eventual invasion of Iran. The US could give a shit about Assad's dictatorship which they have tolerated since it's inception. In fact Syria as well as Egypt were the two
rendition destinations of choice during the Afghanistan/Iraq wars. For example the deportation and torture of Maher Arar. The hypocrisy of the US State Dept under Clinton is grotesque.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/

[polly7]

51. +1000 !

[FarCenter]

60. It's a move against Iran, but don't overlook the pipeline from Kurdistan to the Mediterranean

One of the first pipelines in the Middle East (1934) ran from around Kirkuk to al Haditha, and then to the Mediterranean coast at Tripoli and at Haifa.

Peeling off Kurdistan and Kurdish oil from increasingly Shiite controlled Iraq has always been a priority. But given the Turkish-Kurdish conflict, the Kirkuk-Ceyhan pipeline has suffered repeated attacks and interruptions of flow. It is not reliable.

A compliant Syria would allow the establishment of a new pipeline to the Med that avoids Turkey and is much more reliable as well as going through more hospitible terrain.

It also increases the power of the Sunni Arabs controlling the "new Syria", who would likely be in alliance with the Iraqi Sunni and Jordanians under the influence of Saudi Arabia as the big Sunni power.

This drives a Sunni controlled wedge between the Shiites in Lebanon, in the coastal areas of Syria, and in the Hatay Province and nearby areas of Turkey and the Shiite core area in Iraq and Iran.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

59. That 90% of the posts in this thread are condemning the US, not Russia or China or Syria, is vile.

I'm afraid I don't think the conservative stereotype that liberals hate the US can be entirely without base, sadly - this thread is strong evidence that some DUers - including most of the DUers who've posted in this thread - will seek to side against the US even when it's right.

Shameful. Just shameful.

[tabatha]

62. Not all of the posters here are "liberal".

There are a couple in particular who seem to be supporters of autocrats in the ME, and try to muddy the waters on this site. Unfortunately, I try to challenge them on their facts as much as possible. Which is draining.

[FarCenter]

64. So opposition to US imperialistic adventures is not "liberal"?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

65. Branding attempts to support the Syrian opposition an "imperialistic adventure" is not liberal.

It's just silly.

[FarCenter]

66. Asserting that our support of the Syrian opposition is to benefit the people of Syria is just naive.