China and Russia... you guys should of Veto' the resolution

[cross1993]

Well , if China and Russia don't act now there will be one permenent Army base in Africa to watch over china's trade in Africa and stop China and Russia to help promote trade and defence pacts in regions thats all it is THE BIGGER picture

Do not worry. China will find the French and new Libyan Govt ask for compensation.

 

[oceanx]

You should let your government to ask your fellow muslim countries: arab countries within arab league, why they so strongly insist that China should NOT use veto in this matter.

Weren't you just laughing at the desire of (some) Muslims to unite into a "caliphate"? I am not saying I have any personal position to come down on this "caliphate business" one way or another.

But at least you can see why a few of them would ponder such a question - in some degree of open seriousness.

And take it from me - a nobody just like you, that the CIAs around the world take this "caliphate conspiracy" more seriously than you'd think.

BTW, I don't think a "caliphate" will come ... more likely a new, geographically contiguous "CENTO" of some shape/variation will come to assume "guardianship" (the attitude of Iran is key here) ... that's a digression btw.

Let me ask you: is there any 地球人who doesn't know that the Arab League is a league of jokers?

The proper question to ask here, IMO, is why the Arab League, knowing they are a club of clowns, did not want to give this more time to percolate through at the OIC level, and instead "referred" so "urgently" to UNSC, which again every 地球人can see will just lead to the partition of Libya.

Perhaps the Colonel was doing so well that they didn't have "time".

Perhaps ...

 

[cross1993]

Arabs have oil and Canal and Mediterranean and Indian Ocean and Africa and Banknote and Resources and Population and ...
They have enough wealth, they can become the NO.1 world power. But they do not understand what united and dedication.
That is their own mistakes, No one can help them.

 

[Nan Yang]

Think this time they will stay airborne.

Did not Iraq started with a "no fly" zone and sanctions that lasted a few years and did not work.

Bombing only make Gaddafi stronger.

 

[CardSharp]

Did not Iraq started with a "no fly" zone and sanctions that lasted a few years and did not work.

Bombing only make Gaddafi stronger.

Well if we go by that count, we have a good 12 years before the actual business of war starts.

 

[Nan Yang]

Well if we go by that count, we have a good 12 years before the actual business of war starts.

Another war another quagmire ? And this time just next door to Europe and far from China ? How would that benefit the West ?

Well , if China and Russia don't act now there will be one permenent Army base in Africa to watch over china's trade in Africa and stop China and Russia to help promote trade and defence pacts in regions thats all it is THE BIGGER picture

US already have hundreds of military bases to watch the entire world. And China is already trading with the entire world (Including US).

 

[lcloo]

Did not Iraq started with a "no fly" zone and sanctions that lasted a few years and did not work.

Bombing only make Gaddafi stronger.

This time is different, the UN resolution is very flexible than just a "NO FLY ZONE", the resolution also gives the intervention countries to use all means they deem necessary to stop Libyans attacking the rebels. This means even tanks and land vehicles will be subject to attack if they moved or are positioned to attack the rebels or deemed to be a threat to rebels and intervention forces. And also in this context, intervention forces may be whatever force, i.e. air, sea and land.

The likely outcome would be a partition of Libya into a west and east divided nation, much like former North/South Vietnam, former East/West Germany, and North/South Korea. US and Europeans countries simply can not afford to drain their financial resources in a prolong war unless the rich Arabs are willing to be the financier.

 

[Rig Vedic]

The Security Council Vote on Libya: U.S. Concessions to Russia and China?

March 22, 2011
Ted Galen Carpenter

Last week’s UN Security Council vote authorizing the imposition of a no-fly zone and other measures against Muammar Gaddafi’s forces in Libya was something less than an emphatic mandate. A number of observers have noted the unusually high number of abstentions, and that all of them came from such major international players as Germany, Brazil, India, Russia, and China.

The votes by Brazil and India did not come as a great surprise. Both countries have long records of skepticism about military adventurism—even adventurism under the color of international authority. Germany’s abstention raised more than a few eyebrows, since it signaled a clear policy breach between Berlin and its traditional NATO allies (and European Union partners) Britain and France, as well as the United States.

But the most significant development was the decision of both Russia and China to abstain. Since they are among the five permanent members of the Council, a negative vote by either country would have vetoed the resolution. Given their repeated, vocal assertions about the importance of respecting national sovereignty, and their previous wariness about giving a UN imprimatur to military interventions, many experts in the weeks leading up to the vote expected one or both countries to cast a veto. After all, the United States and its allies bypassed the UN Security Council regarding both the Kosovo war and the Iraq war precisely because they knew that “no” votes from Russia and China were virtually certain.

Their decision to abstain on the Libya resolution begs the question of why they were so cooperative this time. And that leads to a subsidiary question relevant to all political outcomes, domestic or international: what concessions did the winning party (in this case, primarily the United States) have to make to gain its policy victory?

We may not be able to determine that answer with any certainty for months or years—or conceivably not for decades, when the pertinent documents are declassified. But there is little question that there had to be concessions. Neither Moscow nor Beijing regards foreign policy as an altruistic enterprise. The United States paid something to get them to abstain rather than cast a veto.

What Washington paid is, of course, pure speculation. But there are a number of probable candidates, and we should watch for indications over the coming months and years. For example, China has always wanted Washington to decrease and eventually eliminate its arms sales to Taiwan. Will the Obama administration be less receptive to Taipei’s future arms purchase requests? Beijing is increasingly unhappy about U.S. criticism of its policy in Tibet and general human rights policy. Do U.S. leaders now become much quieter about those controversial matters? Will Washington’s policy toward North Korea soften and correspond more closely to China’s preferences? Will allegations about Beijing’s currency manipulation or the PRC’s insufficient respect for intellectual property rights decrease in both frequency and intensity?

With respect to Russia, will we hear far fewer calls for further enlargement of NATO, including eventual membership for Ukraine and Georgia? Will the Obama administration mothball plans for even a limited missile defense system in Eastern Europe? Will Washington become more understanding of Russia’s annoyance at the discrimination against Russian-speaking minorities in the Baltic republics? What about Russia’s ambitions to join the World Trade Organization?

There are no clear answers yet to any of these questions, but the questions deserve to be asked. It would be naïve in the extreme to assume that the United States secured its diplomatic victory in the Security Council without having to make some significant policy concessions to the two permanent members who reluctantly withheld their vetoes.

The Security Council Vote on Libya: U.S. Concessions to Russia and China? | The National Interest Blog

 

[illuzioN]

China has considered veto but Arab League strongly insist that China should not cast veto. In the end, China has to agree with Arab League since there are so many arab countries there.

you are correct.