There’s an interesting anecdote in former U.N. Under-Secretary General Marrack Goulding's account of his time at the organization. In the book Peacemonger, Goulding writes of a conversation a colleague once had with the Soviet ambassador over his country's regular wielding of its Security Council veto power. The ambassador reportedly said that he had been told: "Casting the veto is like adultery; you worry about it the first time, but after that it's fun."
One can only hope that this wasn’t the state of mind that prompted the Russian veto yesterday of a resolution condemning the violence in Syria, because it was, as U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton noted, a “travesty.”
The resolution, aimed at stemming government-led violence that has claimed an estimated 7,000 lives since last March, backed an Arab League plan to try to resolve the crisis through a “Syrian-led political transition to a democratic, plural political system…including through commencing a serious political dialogue between the Syrian government and the whole spectrum of the Syrian opposition.”
It also called for the violence to cease.
To the other 13 nations on the Council, it was a no-brainer. But China and Russia apparently felt the call was unreasonable. Despite the resolution demanding an end to violence “irrespective of where it comes from,” the Russian ambassador somehow felt the text was “unbalanced.” China’s ambassador, meanwhile, said that the resolution put “undue emphasis” on pressuring Syria’s authorities.
This is patent nonsense – the first step, before any peaceful resolution can be found, is for the violence to stop. Seeing as the Syrian state is largely responsible for the violence, then yes, the emphasis will be on the Assad government.
Of course, one of the key reasons for Russian and Chinese reluctance to step up is that both countries face growing criticism and unrest at home. Neither may be ready for their own revolutions, but both undoubtedly want to keep open the option of a “robust” security response to any domestic upheaval.
In addition, some will no doubt reflexively point to the repeated U.S. failures to condemn Israel over the use of force against the Palestinians, as well as the continued settlement building. But whatever the wrongs of U.S. reticence, that’s still no excuse for yesterday’s vetoes.
So we are left with decisions that in Chinese and Russian minds allow them to avoid charges of hypocrisy, and which allow the Chinese in particular to play the non-interference card further down the road if any more "Jasmine revolutions" need to be stamped out.
Following the vote, General Assembly President Nassir Abdulaziz Al-Nasser said:
“The longer the Security Council remains divided in adopting consensus position on developments in Syria, the more difficult the situation becomes, with more Syrians being killed daily.”
He’s absolutely right.
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Klee
I believe the reasons for Chinese & Russian veto was because
1.) Both countries don’t want the repeat of what happened to Lybia. NATO & US did indeed kill more civilians there than Garfardi did and have the regime changed that may favor the West more.
2.) Russia has more in stick because they have a navy base there and they want to keep it. China does’t want US to muddle other countries’ internal conflict, not their own also.
3.) As some people claimed that US used its veto power 50 times to do favor to Israel in the past years. Why can’t the Russians & Chinese do the same thing.
I believe the internal conflict of a country should be solved by their own people, like the US civil war in 1880’sand the Chinese civil war right after the WWII. After the US civil war US prospered. After the Chinese civil war and additional trial & error by Mo, China also propered after 1970’s. So, if the world let Syria to settle the internal conflict by their civil war. Who knows, they may prosper in 10 years.
Davis
Here are the facts: NATO saved a countless number civilians from being slaughtered by Gadhafi last year, and both Russia and China know it. The main reason Russia and China does not want NATO to help the people of Syria is because they do want another highly successful NATO mission. Anytime NATO has a success it simply reinforces the fact that they are the strongest military alliance in the world to which Russia and China can nowhere near compare. This feeling of inadequacy makes the two countries feel like their security is being threatened. Anytime they have the opportunity to criticize or undermine NATO, like they are doing now, they take that opportunity without hesitation. This is simply done to make them feel powerful by challenging NATO and the other countries allied with the West. Another reason they don’t care about the human rights of the Syrian people is because they value human rights just as much Assad does. Both Russia and China are notorious human rights violators and want to keep as many similarly oppressive regimes in existence for as long as they can so they feel like their not the only countries in the world that grossly violate human rights. Also, the fact that both countries are going to have “elections” this year plays a part in their decision to vote against the oppressed people of Syria. They hope that by denying UN intervention, Assad will eventually be able to put down the uprising and serve as a warning to the Russian and Chinese population not to try and rebel against their oppressive governments during fragile power transitions later this year. What they don’t realize is that day-by-day the Assad regime weakens and as a result the Free Syria Movement strengthens and both countries are ultimately burning their bridges. When Assad is overthrown its doubtful the new regime, which was denied help by Russia, will continue to let them operate a Naval base on their soil. China could be losing out many commodities, including oil, as well as many business ventures in the New, Free, Syria. China and Russia are going to find out the hard way when you shake hands with the Devil, your going to get burned!
Varun
@Davis
That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. NATO is only as strong as its member nations. Another NATO operation could bankrupts some of its members and/or force them to leave the organisation.
NATO, as it stands today, is hardly a threat anymore.
Reason
@Klee
Sorry – you’re not gonna be allowed to get away with such a blatantly wrong statement as,
“NATO & US did indeed kill more civilians there than Garfardi did.”
This is complete communist propaganda claptrap
Matt
This shows the folly of the diplomatic path. The truth is, to expect Czar Putin and Communist China to go along with this UN resolution is to expect the dictator Assad to step aside peacefully. Not going to happen. The only thing truly pathetic about these vetoes is that we have allowed these two tyrannies to veto another country’s right to freedom through democracy. The UN should be replaced with free democratic countries only. Why allow dictators to dictate freedom’s march? How about replacing Russia and China with Germany and India?
Regardless the US should intervene to give the two the bird…promptly!
Cam
Totally agree! China and Russia are not deserved any seats on UN council.
Cam
No surprises here! Dictator supports dictator! Look at the nature of China and Russia regimes. They don’t want any Arab Spring on their own country. Well said, Davis!
Leonard R.
It’s disgraceful. It’s tragic. But that shouldn’t surprise anybody.
We can hope the arc of the universe bends toward justice.
Sic semper tyrannis.
Mishmael
Actually, if I be so bold as to offer a dissenting opinion, the Security Council failed to act because of reasons more complex than your typical Western boilerplate about how Russia and China are terrible countries.
First of all, Russia had already made it clear that certain clauses within the document were unacceptable to Russia. Nothing strange about that, since the US has objected to many many clauses it found objectionale in its UN history. The duty of the Council then would heve been to negotiate using diplomacy to achieve a text that was mutually acceptable, and hence enforceable. The Western bloc in my view failed to do this, rushing this resoulution to a vote within a few days of its drafting. They obviously didn’t care about the actual passage of a resolution if they rushed through a document that Russia had already stated it was going to veto.
Secondly, there is much more at work here than the author suggests. The domestic circumstances of Russia and China may be relevant, but they are not really tied to the actions of the Russian and Chinese delegates at the UN. Rather, the decision to veto was made in what they would percieve as the slippery slope of Western interventionism, not the actual conduct of Assad. Before some hotheaded liberal interventionist pops a vein, I would like to point out thet the Security Council exists primarily to decrease the likelihood of war between Great Powers, which means that great powers like Russia must necessarily have its say, supportive or not. The casual dismissal of such concerns on the basis of atrocities in Syria is quite deplorable. There is no reason to throw away 70-odd years of peace, especially for someone like Bashar al-Assad.
Thridly, the attempts to portray the veto as a deliberate middle finger to the Syrian people is wrong, and slanderous. Russia and China have engaged with Syria in a much more meaningful way than any Western (or Gulf) country before this uprising, and their interests in Syria are plainly not served by ongoing civil war. They vetoed an attempt to resolve the crisis which they believe will be ineffective and destabilizing, and they did not veto the Syrian people. In fact, if one steps back and looks at the text of the resolution itself, it is unclear how such a document will be able to better protect the Syrian people especially given that many of its clauses are directly targeted at Bashar al-Assad. The US and Co. have already stated that they will not send troops to enforce the resolution, which in my mind means that they are simply writing a long and extensively researched threat to Assad, which will only serve to provoke him and his henchmen to fight all the harder. The resolution is highly inflammatory in a situation that requires mutual de-escalation.
The Russians and Chinese decision to veto the resolution is in my view neither here nor there. The actual resolution sounds more like a provocation and Western posturing since there is no force backing it up. What the resolution should have accounted for are the objections raised by Russia and to a lesser extent China. Since it did not, there is no reason to assume that it will pass and there is no reason to go about casting blame. The international community is deeply divided on the issue and the mere fact that Western and GCC powers managed to get the other 13 members to vote in favour is not a sign of righteousness, just hard-hitting negotiation. The situation in Syria can only be resolved with either massive military force, a volutary setp-down by Assad, or an Assad victory. If a resolution were put before me without a clear orientation towards any one of those three objectives, I would veto it.
nirvana
@Mishmael,
I would possibly agree with you if I could read the amendments proposed by Russia (and China?). But I can not find them on the Internet. The proposed text that was vetoed is here:
http://www.newson6.com/story/16676644/text-of-proposed-un-resolution-on-syria
Watcher
The Quatari foreign minister said they gave in to the Russian objections and changed the resolution accordingly. He was stunned that the Russians still vetoed the resolution. Either you or he is messing up the facts. (see Al Jazeera for the interview).
SCdad07
Article that tell more:
“The shadow war in Syria” &
“Exposed: The Arab agenda in Syria”
By Pepe Escobar
which were posted on Asiatimes.
Cyrus14
This is truly sad though.
bonis nocet quisqus malis perpercit
Someone
If the majority of the masses are buying this, well…
mareo2
I was watching the news today and saw Syrian people in the street burning the Russian and Chinese flags. How it feel saw that? Oh… I forgot, is likely that the CCP is not going to allow the chinese media show that to their people. In the PRC ignorance is a bliss.
Matt
This shows the folly of the diplomatic path. The truth is, to expect Czar Putin and Communist China to go along with this UN resolution is to expect the dictator Assad to step aside peacefully. Not going to happen. The only thing truly pathetic about these vetoes is that we have allowed these two tyrannies to veto another country’s right to freedom through democracy. The UN should be replaced with free democratic countries only. Why allow dictators to dictate freedom’s march? How about replacing Russia and China with Germany and India?
Regardless the US should intervene to give the two the bird…promptly!
SCdad07
It is another proxy war.
Citing from recent article by Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar, a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service:
According to former Central Intelligence Agency officer Philip Giraldi, writing in the current issue of The American Conservative magazine:
Unmarked NATO warplanes are arriving at Turkish military bases close to Iskenderum on the Syrian border, delivering weapons from the late Muammar Gaddafi’s arsenals as well as volunteers from the Libyan Transitional National Council who are experienced in pitting local volunteers against trained soldiers, a skill they acquired confronting Gaddafi’s army. Iskenderum is also the seat of the Free Syrian Army, the armed wing of the Syrian National Council. French and British special forces trainers are on the ground, assisting the Syrian rebels while the CIA [Central Intelligence Agency] and US Spec Ops are providing communications equipment and intelligence to assist the rebel cause, enabling the fighters to avoid concentrations of Syrian soldiers.
Giraldi adds that the CIA analysts themselves are “skeptical regarding the approach to war”, as they know that the frequently cited United Nations account of civilians killed is based largely on rebel sources and uncorroborated. The CIA has “refused to sign off on the claims” of mass defections from the Syrian Army. Likewise, accounts of pitched battles between deserters and loyal soldiers “appear to be a fabrication, with few defections being confirmed independently”.
Klee
US as a warmonger has never learned the lesson from the last 40 years. I don’t have time, so I just make it brief. Look at the following scenarios.
1.) After more than 58000 soldiers died & more than half a million handicapped, Vietnam was and is a communist state and not a friend with US;
2.) After 9 years & close to 5000 died, yes, the dictator was gone, but Iraq still doesn’t have a stable government and there are civilians killed in conflict everyday. The only thing US gains is a foothold of a military supply base.
3.) After more than 11 years in Afghanistan, Taliban is getting back stronger & stronger. US soldiers are still being killed every day. US now is trying to back away by withdrawing before 2014. Because, US knows they will not win there regardless. They now are talking to Taliban under the table. Under Bush administration, US refused to talk to them.
4.) After Egypt’s dictator was gone, the people still go to the streets to protest every one & then to the military government which has no intention to give up ruling power. The Islamic brotherhood rules and they will not be friendly with the US.
5.) After 6 months bombing by US & NATO, Libya society is still in choatics and not democracy.
Now, US wants to have another one, if US succeeds, the next one will be Iran, and next one, on & on. I hope you guys will get the picture.
Matt
As long as NO mideast country is able to “wipe” another country off the map I don’t care what BS they put themselves through. That’s kind of the point…we are doing our job by keeping the US and allies safe. The fact that they can’t get along with eachother after they are defanged is their problem. We certainly had a hell of a civil war…but we didn’t EVER threaten other countries with such stupid talk. It is almost funny to hear such idiots like Saddam and Komini-man telegraph to the world they wish to commit genocide and then be surprised when the US comes knocking on their door.
ben
Russia wants to continue to stimulate its economy by selling weapons to Syria and continue to maintain its military bases on the Syrian Mediterranean coast. China is the worlds largest consumer of oil and to meet their demand they are supplied by Iran. Iran and China have economic ties and considering that Syria is a proxy of the Iranian theocratic regime, I’m sure Iran is coercing China to stay out of any Syrian issues. This is hardly a quixotic resolution, so the bottom line must be, as the article mentions, both these countries have there own questions over their governance and human rights violations.
Arssam
Regardless of who is responsible for the draft resolution being vetoed, it shows one thing clearly. The Security Council as a whole has failed to act and respond adequately to a major crisis in the Middle East because of conflicting state interests. Consequently, people keep on dying on a daily basis in Syria.
It should be evident that the post World War II hierarchies do not reflect the current global political reality.
I hope this will encourage talks about reforming the structure of the SC and encourage other worthy and qualified countries to join the permanent members.