Why won't the U.N. Security Council intervene in Syria? The answer is Russia.
28 replies, posted
[QUOTE]United Nations (CNN) -- Last year, the U.N. Security Council authorized "all necessary measures" to stop the violence when the nation in question was Libya. It has come nowhere close to that on Syria, where the United Nations estimates more than 5,000 people have been killed since March. Why?
Diplomats say the answer is simple: Russia. Tensions between Russia and the other permanent members of the Security Council have always been a factor. But diplomats say that Russia's conduct in its refusal to condemn Syria, or even negotiate on resolutions in good faith, have reached new lows.
At this point, the only way Western diplomats believe the Security Council will be able to pass a resolution on Syria is with a request for intervention from the Arab League.
Russia and China abstained from the vote on Libya after the Arab League and the African Union requested UN involvement in that country.
[B]In October, Russia and China issued a rare double veto of a sanction-less resolution that would have condemned the violence in Syria.[/B]
Though China joined Russia in its veto on Syria, and India, Brazil and South Africa abstained, diplomats say that it is Russia that has been taking the lead in opposition to action.
[B]In Russia's view, NATO overstepped the Security Council's mandate in Libya, and they fear a similar mistake being made in Syria. Though Western diplomats insist they have not proposed anything approaching military intervention, Russia insists that the Syria crisis should be solved internally.
[/B]
"I think Libya has been beat to death, overused and misused as an excuse for countries not to take up their responsibilities with respect to Syria," Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said.
Last month, Russian U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin pushed the Security Council to open an investigation into civilian deaths in Libya. European and American diplomats immediately called foul.
"Is everybody sufficiently distracted from Syria now?" Rice asked the media after a meeting called by Russia. "Let us see this for what it is. That this is duplicative, it's redundant, it's superfluous, and it's a stunt."
"This is not the kind of issue which can be drowned in expletives," Churkin countered the next day. "You cannot beat a Stanford education, can you?" referring to Rice's alma mater, saying she should be "more Victorian."
Shortly thereafter, Rice's communications director tweeted a picture of Churkin's face superimposed on the Grinch, with the text "rough day at the Security Council." (Churkin later said that he "thought it was a nice joke.")
[B]Despite Rice's high-profile tit-for-tat with Churkin, it is the four European countries on the Security Council, not the United States, that have taken the lead on issues Libya and Syria.
[/B]
Those countries -- France, Germany, Portugal and the United Kingdom -- have expressed deep frustration at Russia's scuttling of attempts at a resolution.
In December, Russia held the rotating presidency of the council, which gave it significant power to determine the agenda. Diplomats complained of having to fight tooth and nail for even routine briefings.
[B]
Western Diplomats admit that Russia has been using its close relationship with Syria to apply pressure on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. But their criticism of Churkin's conduct at the Security Council is unequivocal.
[/B]
"Churkin is practicing shoe diplomacy," another senior Western diplomat said, referring to Soviet Premier Nikita Krushchev's famous shoe-banging speech in the General Assembly.
[B]"Russia and Syria are the last two members of the Warsaw Pact, and Russia is behaving in an imperialistic manner," another Western diplomat said.Churkin does not disagree that the mood is contentious. But he says that the root cause is a "my way or the highway" attitude. He called December the toughest of his five separate month-long terms at the helm of the Security Council.
[/B]
"There is a lot of nervousness, a lot of expectations that things are going to be done my way or no other way," Churkin said. "That what I need to have, I must have now. ... I think that if this trend were to continue it might seriously hurt the ability of the Security Council to work."
[B]Russia surprised even its allies last month when it introduced its own draft resolution condemning the violence in Syria. Publicly, Western diplomats seemed encouraged by the move but privately were deep cynical.
[/B]
Western Diplomats said Russia had expected the Europeans and Americans to reject the draft out of hand, because it did not include some of the provisions they consider non-negotiable. (And, for example, they say it drew an unacceptable equivalence between violence perpetrated by the government and violence perpetrated by protesters.)
Since then, Western diplomats say that Russia has not engaged in negotiation on their proposed additions.
They also complain that Churkin has misrepresented to the media the content of closed Security Council meetings. He claims productive work on the draft Syria resolution, they say, when in fact he has been stonewalling.
"We are working all the time," Churkin said Tuesday of Russia's draft resolution.
They have not held a single negotiation on the text since Christmas, Western diplomats say.
[B]Western diplomats admit that when it comes to Syria, they are at a "dead end." The only way around it -- the "only game in town," as French U.N. Ambassador Gerard Araud says -- is the Arab League.
[/B]
The Arab League has a group of observers in Syria, who were sent there to gauge the situation on the ground. Their report is expected on January 19.
If that report is unequivocal about the Syrian government's culpability -- an outcome Western diplomats admit is a long shot -- then they may have enough political capital to push forward. And in-person briefing from the Qatari prime minister, who has been very outspoken on Syria, or the secretary general of the Arab League, may help to push Russia, they say.
The Arab League report, a Western diplomat said, is a necessary condition for action. But it may not be sufficient.[/QUOTE]
Source: [url]http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/13/world/meast/un-security-council-syria/index.html?hpt=hp_bn2[/url]
Russia, stop being a prick
I'm Russia, and I'm going to continue being stroked off by Syria in order to stop it from falling to ~radical islamists~
"Oh, well there's a mass murder going on, but that's none of your concern, even though there are unarmed civilians among them."
Russia you're such an asshole
You know I kind of see Russia and China's point in the matter, but that still doesn't make it right to not condemn the actions of a mad-with-power government that will do anything to mandate its right to rule.
thing is what they did in libya was exactly what should have been done, they supported the rebels by providing capability that they couldn't provide for themselves, and let them managed everything else themselves
Russia needs to put and end to the shit going on in Syria.
All this is so cold war...
[quote]In Russia's view, NATO overstepped the Security Council's mandate in Libya, and they fear a similar mistake being made in Syria.[/quote]
I agree with this reasoning. If the people want to change the regime, they need to do it themselves.
The UN needs to get rid of this veto shit, it only gets abused.
A single country should not have the power to veto resolutions, that's not democracy.
[QUOTE=Ringo_Satu;34214866]I agree with this reasoning. If the people want to change the regime, they need to do it themselves.[/QUOTE]
And how exactly? Syria has a modern military. The people would get slaughtered more than they already are.
[QUOTE=OvB;34214925]And how exactly? Syria has a modern military. The people would get slaughtered more than they already are.[/QUOTE]
Ringo's views on Lybia were the same, there's no point in arguing with him, he's too stubborn.
It's obvious whose side he's on.
At least the US isn't the only country that's being an asshole on an international scale.
It's the democracy of the major powers, and generally when one of them dislikes something it's not in everyone's interest to pursue it, it creates political struggle, which eventually leads to war. The UN is here for stability, not the majority rule of member nations to attack whoever they like.
It's not surprising Russia is doing this, it's not in their interest to have all this regime change. The US reacted the same way towards the spread of communism in the western hemisphere.
[QUOTE=Ringo_Satu;34214866]I agree with this reasoning. If the people want to change the regime, they need to do it themselves.[/QUOTE]
Go topple a regime that sends snipers, tank battalions and their airforce after unarmed protesters.
Yeah, see where that gets you.
I'm not sure if you're just 12, stupid, or joking. But I hope it's the last one, for your own sake.
[QUOTE=Electrocuter;34214899]The UN needs to get rid of this veto shit, it only gets abused.
A single country should not have the power to veto resolutions, that's not democracy.[/QUOTE]
the world of international politics doesn't work on democracy
it works on who has the biggest stick
and who has convinced the most people that wielding a stick for XYZ is best for them
[editline]15th January 2012[/editline]
Russia is right on some level though
If it's pushed by the West, any revolution will just install more of the same shit
[QUOTE=Electrocuter;34214951]Ringo's views on Lybia were the same, there's no point in arguing with him, he's too stubborn.
It's obvious whose side he's on.[/QUOTE]
You're right. I'm really damn stubborn, no point of arguing.
Never changed my views, noir will I do. I just like stating it over and over again because it sorta amuses me how people build me box forts because they can't understand/deal with the views of other's (different views, in other words).
It's been said a lot that ratings don't matter, but still, I think that a disagree would work better than a fucking box. My views don't mean that I'm dumb, it's just how it is.
We intervened in Libya, a country that was having a civil war, not a slaughter, and instead allow Syria to go along unnoticed?
Went into the wrong country.
[QUOTE=viperfan7;34214826]thing is what they did in libya was exactly what should have been done, they supported the rebels by providing capability that they couldn't provide for themselves, and let them managed everything else themselves[/QUOTE]
I disagree. We were there to protect civilians. That was our mission statement. Protect civilians by enacting no-fly zones in certain areas. The UN has no business choosing which ideologies should be overthrown, and whose worthy and unworthy of ruling a nation, and then act militarily to overthrow dictators. China and Russia abstained because our statement was we were going to protect civilians, and we ended up using our military power to crush the dictatorship.
in retrospect, the intervention in libya was an absolutely huge mistake compared to intervention that couldve taken place elsewhere (i.e syria)
[QUOTE=Ringo_Satu;34214866]I agree with this reasoning. If the people want to change the regime, they need to do it themselves.[/QUOTE]
You're the fool who thought Ghadaffi slaughtering his civilians was justifiable, right?
[editline]15th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ringo_Satu;34215419]You're right. I'm really damn stubborn, no point of arguing.
Never changed my views, noir will I do. I just like stating it over and over again because it sorta amuses me how people build me box forts because they can't understand/deal with the views of other's (different views, in other words).
It's been said a lot that ratings don't matter, but still, I think that a disagree would work better than a fucking box. My views don't mean that I'm dumb, it's just how it is.[/QUOTE]
I respect other peoples views, and I'm always open to changing mine if someone can present logic and reasoning, but you're an idiot. A dictator using the military to slaughter peaceful protesters because they want basic human rights is not in any way justifiable, and the people doing so willingly are monsters.
[QUOTE=Ringo_Satu;34215419]You're right. I'm really damn stubborn, no point of arguing.
Never changed my views, noir will I do. I just like stating it over and over again because it sorta amuses me how people build me box forts because they can't understand/deal with the views of other's (different views, in other words).
It's been said a lot that ratings don't matter, but still, I think that a disagree would work better than a fucking box. My views don't mean that I'm dumb, it's just how it is.[/QUOTE]
It's not just that I disagree with your views.
Your views are also dumb.
Dumb is thus a better rating than disagree.
You know why it's dumb, don't you? Because I think you're only posting shit like this to troll, you can't be such a horrible human being to actually hold these views as your own.
[QUOTE=Miskav;34216938]It's not just that I disagree with your views.
Your views are also dumb.
Dumb is thus a better rating than disagree.
You know why it's dumb, don't you? Because I think you're only posting shit like this to troll, you can't be such a horrible human being to actually hold these views as your own.[/QUOTE]
"I disagree with your views so much that you're not only wrong, you're an idiot. Or a troll, because no one is that stupid."
This reminds me of a video I saw of a huge Arab (I believe it was Syria) crowd screaming and burning Russian and Chinese flags. Such is life, now that China is growing into a superpower, they'll have to know how the US feels.
Ok found it
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgR4VVgfRBc[/media]
[QUOTE=cat man;34217396]This reminds me of a video I saw of a huge Arab (I believe it was Syria) crowd screaming and burning Russian and Chinese flags. Such is life, now that China is growing into a superpower, they'll have to know how the US feels.
Ok found it
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgR4VVgfRBc[/media][/QUOTE]
Russia and China being disliked is like the sun rising and setting
[QUOTE=Ringo_Satu;34215419]You're right. I'm really damn stubborn, no point of arguing.
Never changed my views, noir will I do. I just like stating it over and over again because it sorta amuses me how people build me box forts because they can't understand/deal with the views of other's (different views, in other words).
It's been said a lot that ratings don't matter, but still, I think that a disagree would work better than a fucking box. My views don't mean that I'm dumb, it's just how it is.[/QUOTE]
Shit, if I get dumbs people will think of me differently over the internet. What am I going to do with my life?
[QUOTE=Bobie;34216290]in retrospect, the intervention in libya was an absolutely huge mistake compared to intervention that couldve taken place elsewhere (i.e syria)[/QUOTE]
Wrong, son.
The intervention gave the French and British a [I]fuckload [/I]of oil.
That is the [B]ONLY [/B]reason they intervened, none of this 'bring democracy to the middle east!' has ever worked.
I think Russia and China did the right thing. The last thing we need is for Europe and the US to intervene and make both of us even poorer.
[QUOTE=Kiwi Bird;34218079]I think Russia and China did the right thing. The last thing we need is for Europe and the US to intervene and make both of us even poorer.[/QUOTE]
Oh no! You're going to be poor?!
At least you aren't getting your forehead blasted in by a sniper in Syria!
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.