Russia/China veto re: Syria

**angelman** · 07-02-2012, 08:43 AM

Are Russia and China right to veto the UN resolution regarding Syria? Russia seem to take the line that they don't interfere with sovereign states and that other countries shouldn't be allowed to either!! Having intefered for decades to suit their own needs, it is "amusing" to see such double standards. Not only are they against Western countries doing so, they are also against all other Arab countries, although I suspect that the latter aren't of concern. I also find our double standards a little distasteful. While we (and our allies) meddled with Libyan politics, why aren't we doing the same thing in Syria? Yes, I know the oil situation, and whatever Russia/China say, it is also in their interests to have stable oil prices/production, but the attacks on civilians and the time scale....

But the Russian foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, criticised the UN resolution, saying it made too few demands of anti-government armed groups, and could prejudge the outcome of a dialogue among political forces in the country.
Russian news agencies reported that Lavrov and Russia's foreign intelligence chief, Mikhail Fradkov, will meet with Assad in Damascus on Tuesday. Syria has been a key Russian ally since Soviet times and Moscow has opposed any UN demands that could be interpreted as advocating military intervention or regime change.

Syria resolution vetoed by Russia and China at United Nations | World news | guardian.co.uk

Maybe the Russians have a point about the transitional government. The Libyan one seemed to appoint itself and was given legitimacy by the West when they had done nothing, save for picking up a gun to defy Gadaffi - did they deserve to take power?

I find this article about the Chinese stance by the BBC interesting, or rather the last part which goes off on a tangent and starts talking about increasing inflation in China. What that has to do with vetoing UN resolutions is anyone's guess!! Propaganda?
BBC News - China morning round-up: Defending Syria veto

There is also a question about the usefulness of the UN. Should they reorganise themselves so that two members (admittedly Permanent members) can derail the other 13 current non-permanent members (including India, Pakistan, Germany, Colombia, Morocco...)? Maybe it is working properly and the Russians/Chinese have a point. However, I think that pretty much the rest of the world is unified on the fact that something needs doing about Assad and doing now. Turkey, North African countries, Europe, America et al, so there is no religious divide that often goes with these situations. The Arab League seem to be a little toothless so turned to the UN for help and were abandoned by Russia/China. I wonder what would have happened if the AL decided to roll some tanks in from (realistically) Jordan or Turkey?

**chimera** · 07-02-2012, 12:38 PM

The UN could change its charter to allow foreign armies to elect new governments. And amend the charter to have majority, not total unanimity, votes in the Council. Sadly, Russia and China are being correct and US isn't.

**Road_Hog** · 07-02-2012, 12:58 PM

I'm glad China and Russia vetoed the UN. We have to stop causing regime change in other countries, it is not our right to do so. The BBC is just a political propaganda arm, who has spent the last few days 'dissing' those countries, telling us about atrocities in Syria (which I imagine are made up like they were for Libya) and trying to find anyone in Russia to talk to, that will say, I don't agree with the veto and I don't like Putin.

**Roland** · 07-02-2012, 01:07 PM

Russia and China are quite right to have vetoed the resolution. They simply said they would not support a resolution that favoured one side over the other, making it quite clear that efforts to bring a peaceful resolve to the argument and bring the two sides to the debating table was fine but picking winners and meddling in the internal affairs of other countries is not expectable. I think they are quite right.

**chimera** · 07-02-2012, 07:26 PM

They both are based on heroic revolution by workers, peasants and soldiers but that was yesterday.

**ron** · 07-02-2012, 08:34 PM

Originally Posted by angelman

...The Libyan one seemed to appoint itself and was given legitimacy by the West when they had done nothing, save for picking up a gun to defy Gadaffi - did they deserve to take power?...

The Libyan NTC had a stated aim which included democracy, equal rights etc., not to mention its own dissolution after elections, and had broad support amongst the majority opposition to Gadaffi. The Syrian National Council aren't as forthright about this and don't have broad support, particularly amongst the Kurds, so many countries are seeing them as simply a group that represents the most active rebel movement rather than a potential new administration. Whilst Libya are having a few problems if the SNC take power there could well be real chaos in Syria, something that many Syrians are well aware of.

Russia have a huge responsibility for what is happening in Syria and can stop the killing if they wanted to. Obviously having a friendly territory in the region is more important to them. The Arab League are toothless but it was right to give them the opportunity to sort things first. The fact that they have failed means the rest of the world have good reason to get involved. Russia should be allowed the opportunity also. Once again, give them a chance and if they fail it is time for others to get involved.

So far the West is in favour amongst many Arabs thanks to what went on in Libya, hopefully we won't mess things up elsewhere.

**BCG Jason** · 07-02-2012, 08:45 PM

Out of interest Ron, which Arab states or peoples do you refer to that are in support of the West that are not police states?

**BCG Jason** · 07-02-2012, 08:48 PM

Originally Posted by Road_Hog

I'm glad China and Russia vetoed the UN. We have to stop causing regime change in other countries, it is not our right to do so. The BBC is just a political propaganda arm, who has spent the last few days 'dissing' those countries, telling us about atrocities in Syria (which I imagine are made up like they were for Libya) and trying to find anyone in Russia to talk to, that will say, I don't agree with the veto and I don't like Putin.

Well said, I think the PTB want to destabilise Syria as a stepping stone to attakcing Iran. After all Iran and Syria have military alliances.

**ron** · 07-02-2012, 08:54 PM

Originally Posted by BCG Jason

Out of interest Ron, which Arab states or peoples do you refer to that are in support of the West that are not police states?

Not states, but people. I'm sure plenty of states are too but that's not surprising as you intimate. Helping remove Gadaffi, and helping is the key word, has won friends amongst Arab people. OK perhaps not friends but they certainly have a better attitude towards us and a far worse attitude towards the Chinese and Russia. I'm not confident it will last though e.g. Syria, Iran, Israel and also since the Chinese and Russian propaganda is far more effective than ours.