Russia and China veto UN Resolution against Syria

[gubbi]

America is not fully independent in decision-making. Oligarchic system of government led to the formation of influential clans lobbying for their interests. The Israeli lobby is very strong and completely subdued the U.S. policy in the region.

If that was the case, Iran would have been bombed by Israel a long time back.

You guys overestimate Israeli lobby and underestimate US's resolve to safeguard its own and its allies interests (in that particular order). Just FYI, I am speaking from a very neutral perspective.

 

[Smarterthanyou]

OK, then I am sure that the Iraqis and the Libyans are eternally grateful to the US for all the help. Ummmmmm.... any idea why the US supported the Saudi backed regime in crushing the Shia protesters in Bahrain? After all, the monarchy in Bahrain were Sunnis beating the crap out of Shias. So they qualified for intervention and rescue as per your parameters stated above, no? Or maybe it all had nothing to do with righteousness or principles but only about self interest and convenience? After all, you guys have the USN Fifth Fleet headquartered at Manama. It would have looked very funny if the protesters over ran that base.

Yes, majority of Iraqis and Libyans are grateful that they were liberated.

Bahrain was not supported by the US. We made clear statements that any violent attacks by the rulers was not acceptable. We made a clear statement in public that we believe in democracy and its principles. Just like we did on Egypt, Libya, Syria. Bahrain rulers stopped their heavy handed response. You should take the time to make an effort of reading up on a subject matter before spreading lies.

The White House on Friday released the following statement from President Obama on the violence in Bahrain, Libya and Yemen:

I am deeply concerned by reports of violence in Bahrain, Libya and Yemen. The United States condemns the use of violence by governments against peaceful protesters in those countries and wherever else it may occur. We express our condolences to the family and friends of those who have been killed during the demonstrations. Wherever they are, people have certain universal rights including the right to peaceful assembly. The United States urges the governments of Bahrain, Libya and Yemen to show restraint in responding to peaceful protests, and to respect the rights of their people.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/02/obama-statement-on-bahrain.html

 

[fly2012]

Listen, you and your ignorant Chinese friend have been shouting on this thread all this while trying to convince every one that you are angels of mercy. Do you even know what the UNSC motion which China just vetoed was all about? Kid, it was not about the west invading Syria as the two of you have been rattling about. The UNSC resolution was about censuring Mr Assad and calling for his resignation after he murdered more than 200 civilians recently. Do you think Assad was right in killing his own people? And that the international community is wrong in telling him to stop the mass murders? Do you know anything at all kid? One can understand why Russia did this. But why China? China is not affected in any way geopolitically by the happenings in Syria. And who was that joker who said that China did it because it could not let Russia do it alone? All that is needed is one veto to defeat a UNSC resolution. Please do not go around telling every one that the west had planned this resolution to invade Syria. And that China has saved the middle east from an invasion. That is a lie. This was to tell Assad that he has been a bad boy and he should resign and stop the killings. All China has done is to ensure that Assad continues to kill people.

No Chinese claims China is an angel. Chinese simply say that NATO are not angels as they claimed. Yes the motion is not about invading Syria, but what if Assad refuses to step down? Then NATO fire powers will move in to "ensure" the motion. Russian and China didn't veto last motion on Libya, which was not about an invasion either, look what has happened. NATO powers sided in the civil war and one brutal regime replaced another brutal regime, the only difference is that this one is pro-western so you don't see much from the media. Just yesterday a former UN official was tortured to death after only one day in prison. And you tell me why China should not veto the BS? Everyone curses Assad for the killing of his own people but the question is whether foreign intervention can make it better, or worse. So far I didn't see any example of true peace brought by foreign powers. Not in Iraq, not in Afghanistan not in Libya and certainly won't in Syria.

If it is indeed people's war, Assad cannot hold the power regardless of how powerful his army is. This has been witnessed hundreds of times when 3rd world countries got independent from mighty imperial powers. Let them fight their own cause.

As to the veto, US vetoed 44 times on motions condemning Israel, alone. Where were justices at those times? The world is moving towards hypocrisy more and more and I don't get why people still cannot see through this after so many recent events.

China doesn't have direct interest in Syria but it simply doesn't like the idea of western powers poking into other's internal affair with self-interest in mind but with an angel's voice. As to a person living in US, I'd rather have my tax money spent inside US instead of bombing and killing around.

 

[Dron.ru]

Fair enough. But then why did Russia agree with NATO action in Libya? President Medvedev specifically asked Ghaddifi to stop military action against civilians/rebels and step down. Explain that. Or the action in 2008 in what was Georgia's internal affair in the rovinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

1. The Russians did not support Medvedev's decision on the Libyan issue.
2. The attacker entrusts his fate in the hands of the defender. Georgia has risked and lost. Now it's her karma.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Let Assad's government crushes those rebels, so everything will maintain on status quo.

 

[CarbonD]

heard somewhere in news russian aircraft carrier in syria?? can anyone confirm if it is this is serious

 

[Smarterthanyou]

In addition to the national interest, we have principles. One of the principles is the idea of non-interference of external forces in the internal affairs of countries. Such interference creates karma (reverse punch). If country does not threaten a neighbor, he has no right to attack, regardless of the reasons.

And besides, we do not think that the life of the Syrian soldiers less valuable than the Syrian civilians or armed insurgents.

We support the country, not government.

Did this revelation come to you after Georgia?

 

[Mosamania]

Let Assad's government crushes those rebels, so everything will maintain on status quo.

Don't you get it?? NOBODY likes the status quo the whole reason behind the Arab uprising is to change the status quo. The status quo sucks.

 

[gubbi]

1. The Russians did not support Medvedev's decision on the Libyan issue.

Medvedev was elected to the office of the President of the Russian Federation. And by extension it means that he represents the entire Russian population. Govts. make certain 'unpopular' decisions (either for the majority or the minority) taking into consideration various factors, some of which may never be made public. So while the public harps on how unpopular the decision was, most will never know all the reasons behind those decisions. In that context Medvedev probably had much more insight into the Libyan conflict which prompted his decision to support NATO action.
But this still goes against what you claim to be non-interventionism principles.

2. The attacker entrusts his fate in the hands of the defender. Georgia has risked and lost. Now it's her karma.

I know about the conflict and depending on what I understand I support Russia's actions in Georgia. Saakashvili had it coming. I just brought up the point to argue against your claim that Russia does not interfere in others' internal affairs.

Every country does what it must to safeguard its own interests. From that perspective, apart from a naval base in Syria, I still dont understand Russia's objection to UNSC resolution against Syrian massacres.

 

[Yeti]

Medvedev was elected to the office of the President of the Russian Federation. And by extension it means that he represents the entire Russian population. Govts. make certain 'unpopular' decisions (either for the majority or the minority) taking into consideration various factors, some of which may never be made public. So while the public harps on how unpopular the decision was, most will never know all the reasons behind those decisions. In that context Medvedev probably had much more insight into the Libyan conflict which prompted his decision to support NATO action.
But this still goes against what you claim to be non-interventionism principles.

I know about the conflict and depending on what I understand I support Russia's actions in Georgia. Saakashvili had it coming. I just brought up the point to argue against your claim that Russia does not interfere in others' internal affairs.

Every country does what it must to safeguard its own interests. From that perspective, apart from a naval base in Syria, I still dont understand Russia's objection to UNSC resolution against Syrian massacres.

Along with the naval bases there is arms sales and Syria is a very important country for Russia given past history.


As of 2011, Syria's arms contracts with Russia were worth at least $4 billion.


Russia has significant trade relations with Syria. Its exports to Syria were worth $1.1 billion in 2010 and its investments in the country were valued at $19.4 billion in 2009 according to The Moscow Times

 

[Dron.ru]

But this still goes against what you claim to be non-interventionism principles.

Formally, we have refrained from action (veto). But inaction is also action.

Here's an example:
Soviet Union made ​​the mistake of entering troops in Afghanistan. 10 years of war and the losses began to pay for the mistake.
U.S. made ​​a mistake in supplying the Afghan rebels through Pakistan and sponsoring radical Islamic groups fighting against the Soviet Union. In fact, the U.S. created Alkaidu.

In the end, everyone got a reverse shock in proportion to their participation.

 

[regular]

brother his family rule 45 years its not enough to them last time hamah and now all over Syria

Imran Bhai I know U are right , we all people are equally responsible for the worlds sins. The people of Syria are equally responsible for the killings there. Its the public and the foreign governments back the cruel rulers to be in power. We people always get greedy, take money and bringup the bad people to rule us. We need to blame ourselves first before blaming others. I guess its the time for God /Allah SBWT to show his decision on the evils of this world.....cuz nobody is accepting his mistakes but alwayz blaming others.......

 

[canadian icehole]

Many innocent women and children have been tortured and killed and it was said to be done by the Syrian army

One needs to remember that the truth is a three-edged sword.

Listen, you and your ignorant Chinese friend have been shouting on this thread all this while trying to convince every one that you are angels of mercy. Do you even know what the UNSC motion which China just vetoed was all about? Kid, it was not about the west invading Syria as the two of you have been rattling about. The UNSC resolution was about censuring Mr Assad and calling for his resignation after he murdered more than 200 civilians recently. Do you think Assad was right in killing his own people? And that the international community is wrong in telling him to stop the mass murders? Do you know anything at all kid? One can understand why Russia did this. But why China? China is not affected in any way geopolitically by the happenings in Syria. And who was that joker who said that China did it because it could not let Russia do it alone? All that is needed is one veto to defeat a UNSC resolution. Please do not go around telling every one that the west had planned this resolution to invade Syria. And that China has saved the middle east from an invasion. That is a lie. This was to tell Assad that he has been a bad boy and he should resign and stop the killings. All China has done is to ensure that Assad continues to kill people.

We all understand that it takes one vote to bring down a resolution at the UNSC. However, China voted with Russia to show solidarity, inform the Western-bloc of their displeasure with previous resolutions (i.e. Libya), and indirectly show support to Iran.

Why? Doesn't China have a mind of its own? Why does it always have to support Russia? And this is not a tug of war that two will pull the rope better than one. One veto is enough.

What relations with Iran? This is Syria and not Iran. Iran may be supporting the Assad regime but how does supporting Assad in the killing of Syrian civilians equal supporting Iran?

Iran would have lost it's influence in Syria without Assad.

 

[Yeti]

If the family of the teen's tortured and kidnapped are themselves saying they were taken by the security forces who can i believe? even though Assad is pro india I must agree with India supporting the UN Resolution today.

 

[pmukherjee]

No Chinese claims China is an angel. Chinese simply say that NATO are not angels as they claimed. Yes the motion is not about invading Syria, but what if Assad refuses to step down? Then NATO fire powers will move in to "ensure" the motion. Russian and China didn't veto last motion on Libya, which was not about an invasion either, look what has happened. NATO powers sided in the civil war and one brutal regime replaced another brutal regime, the only difference is that this one is pro-western so you don't see much from the media. Just yesterday a former UN official was tortured to death after only one day in prison. And you tell me why China should not veto the BS? Everyone curses Assad for the killing of his own people but the question is whether foreign intervention can make it better, or worse. So far I didn't see any example of true peace brought by foreign powers. Not in Iraq, not in Afghanistan not in Libya and certainly won't in Syria.

If it is indeed people's war, Assad cannot hold the power regardless of how powerful his army is. This has been witnessed hundreds of times when 3rd world countries got independent from mighty imperial powers. Let them fight their own cause.

As to the veto, US vetoed 44 times on motions condemning Israel, alone. Where were justices at those times? The world is moving towards hypocrisy more and more and I don't get why people still cannot see through this after so many recent events.

China doesn't have direct interest in Syria but it simply doesn't like the idea of western powers poking into other's internal affair with self-interest in mind but with an angel's voice. As to a person living in US, I'd rather have my tax money spent inside US instead of bombing and killing around.

Friend, the Libyan resolution which China and Russia abstained was one authorising the NATO to enforce a No Fly Zone. We also abstained that one and it was wrong, we should have opposed it and China being a permanent member should have vetoed it outright. Look at the destruction and suffering three months of war caused to Libya which was once a prosperous country.

This resolution was simply a censure or admonition to Assad. I have a friend in Syria. She has lost two brothers within a month. One was a primary school teacher, newly appointed and the other was an intern at a hospital. None of them were terrorists, just ordinary citizens. Killed in cold blood. They were planning to run away to Turkey but did not survive. India would never support an invasion of Syria. But Assad has to be stopped and made to step down. In fact China and Russia should use their special relationship with Syria and Iran to kick this guy out and not encourage him to cause further mayhem.