Russia, China Veto Syria Resolution

As expected by many, Russia and China have refused to back even a watered-down UNSC resolution on Syria, the only two of 15 member states on the council to vote against the resolution.

Susan E. Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said after the vote that the United States was “disgusted” by the Russian and Chinese vetoes. The council has “been held hostage by a couple of members,” she said, adding that “these members stand behind empty arguments and individual interests while seeking to strip” any resolution of meaningful terms.

“A couple of members of this council remain steadfast in their willingness to sell out the Syrian people and shield a craven tyrant,” Rice said. She said Saturday’s action was even “more shameful” given Russia’s role in selling arms to Assad’s government.

[...]

[Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov] said that the resolution was impractical and unfair and voiced concern about adopting what he called “an absolutely unrealistic provision expecting that the government of Syria would withdraw from the cities and towns exactly at the time when the armed groups are taking over the quarters of those cities and towns.”

“We are not friends or allies of President Assad,” said Lavrov, who plans to visit Damascus on Tuesday. “We try to stick to our responsibilities as a permanent members of the Security Council, and the Security Council by definition does not engage in domestic affairs of member states.”

It seems to me there are two main reasons for the vetoes. The first is that of Of $8.2Billion in total arms sales to Syria since 2003, 98% came from Russia or China. The second is not unconnected with that venal motive: the initial wave of the Arab Spring provoked regime change in pro-US nations and both China and Russia were just fine with that, but the second upsurge of revolutionary fervor has been in nations that favored Russia and China, e.g. Yemen, Libya, Syria. Given the way in which Western nations twisted the UNSC resolution on Libya, which talked about separating fighting sides and an arms embargo, into bombing on behalf of the rebels and arming them, neither nation wants to set another precedent where regime change can masquerade as an R2P mission. This resolution was clearly a big step down that road and so it had to be vetoed.

So what next? Susan Rice was unusually blunt for a UN ambassador after the vote, saying that "the United States is disgusted that a couple of members of this Council continue to prevent us from fulfilling our sole purpose here-addressing an ever-deepening crisis in Syria and a growing threat to regional peace and security."

Were this 2002, we might expect some "coalition of the willing" would now be put together by the U.S. to take further steps up to and including military intervention, even without a UNSC imprimatur. But it isn't and Libya further increased international suspicion of R2P militarism. Thus Hillary Clinton is describing the Syrian best case scenario as "similar to what we see now in Yemen."

Steve Hynd February 4, 2012 - 2:40pm

Steve Hynd's diary | printer friendly version |

( categories: Global Politics and Culture | Levant )

Just for clarity:

Google tells me that R2P stands for "Responsibility to Protect." Is that correct?

Bolo February 5, 2012 - 1:35am

Yep

R2P is the new COIN (counter-insurgency doctrine), an excuse for those who like America being involved in wars to say "Can we intervene? Yes we can! And it'll all turn out well!"

Steve Hynd February 5, 2012 - 3:42am

If one is going to look at R2P in a realist framework...

...the question is less will it turn out "well" than will the costs associated with it be modest for the gains achieved. Given current circumstances, MHO, one should be a lot more afraid of the pure R2P advocates than the ones using it as a tool of convenience.

"In combat one should be very suspicious of painless moral choices. When you are confronted with a seemingly painless moral choice, the odds are that you haven't looked deeply enough." ~ Karl Marlantes

JustPlainDave February 5, 2012 - 8:14am

Aftermath

The problem is that making that "will the costs associated with it be modest for the gains achieved" calculation is something we seem to be very bad at, because we (as a nation and as The West, I mean) seem to be bad at forseeing second and third order consequences.

No argument with your second sentence.

Steve Hynd February 5, 2012 - 9:45am

I think the difficulty in calculating costs...

...and consequence management is one of the key differences between the "neo- school" (be they neo-libs or neo-cons) and the "paleo- school". Yes, the visibility of the consequences are higher, the playing fields more interconnected and the global system more sensitive to perturbation, but it still seems to me that there is less understanding of the implications of military force. It would appear that RMA has made people stupid.

Cynically, I tend to blame it on too many bong hits while watching PGM imagery on CNN during university in the 90s...

* RMA: the Revolution in Military Affairs
* PGM: Precision Guided Munitions

JustPlainDave February 5, 2012 - 10:03am

It's a hard choice to make

In Libya we intervened and assisted the rebels to overthrow Ghadafi. But now Libya is facing a very uncertain future as different clans/tribes in different locales (you know, the ones that refused to disarm their militias after Ghadafi was killed) struggle with each other. The situation is deteriorating.

So in Syria, it looks like we might not do much, thanks to Russia and China. They will have to deal with it internally (read: civil war, with the govt being armed by Russia and China).

Is that better? Or maybe the real question is: are there, in reality, any "good" options for the international community besides just watching how the Syrians play this out?

yogi-one February 5, 2012 - 5:08pm

There may be another option

Turkey shares a large border with Syria. The Turks have already accepted Syrian refugees. What would stop them from smuggling weapons to the Syrian freedom fighters?

Let the world powers play their chess games. The real power resides with the Syrian people ... death and torture doesn't faze them. FREEDOM is what they care about.

_{"OTP - Occupy The Patriarchy" ~ me}

adrena February 5, 2012 - 5:33pm

Muslims urged to boycott Russia, China goods

From The Daily Star

AMMAN: Jordanian Islamists on Sunday called on Muslims and Arabs to boycott Russian and Chinese products after the two countries vetoed a UN Security Council resolution condemning Syria's regime over bloodshed.

_{"OTP - Occupy The Patriarchy" ~ me}

adrena February 5, 2012 - 5:42pm

Hello?

Susan E. Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said after the vote that the United States was “disgusted” by the Russian and Chinese vetoes. The council has “been held hostage by a couple of members,” she said, adding that “these members stand behind empty arguments and individual interests while seeking to strip” any resolution of meaningful terms.

And this is different than the USA's obstructionism about calling out Israeli crimes and atrocities how?

chalo February 5, 2012 - 6:23pm

Ah yes, hubris at it's penultimate; of course...

...I may be exaggerating a bit...

Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them,and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows,or with both~FDouglas

Celsius 233 February 6, 2012 - 12:21am

Things may not be as they seem or reported...

...at least, food for thought;
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NB04Ak01.html

Celsius 233 February 5, 2012 - 11:05pm

A Syrian speaks

Dear sir, I am a Proud Syrian citizen and I am from Homs, I bet that you read about it.. It is the city where I was born and lived under oppression. I live in inshaat close to baba amr and my aunts in khaldyee and we are marching for our freedom chanting liberty and dignity ( I bet they feel great we do not know that feeling although we are humans) we want our freedom peaceful and their is no armed gangs and crap, there is free Syrian army trying to protect us.... Arabs and non arabs wants to benefit from this revolt but we do not have any deals with outsiders...Russia want assurance that Syria will not let Qatar gas pass through Syria and military base, America wants stable Israel, Israel wants a neighbors that is weak not friend with Iran, europe wants influence in the region.... But after all we are marching for triumph alone, with or without anyone blessings because we syrians love freedom and we will build our country together Muslims, Christians and alawits.....thank you for your opinion but when u speak about Syria you have to know us first.... Thank you sir ~ Samer A Kseibi

One of the comments to the article.

_{"OTP - Occupy The Patriarchy" ~ me}

adrena February 5, 2012 - 11:35pm

Yes, Mr. Kseibi's closing line is well stated...

Celsius 233 February 6, 2012 - 12:17am

Search

latest

User login

Navigation

Create new account

Team Agonist

Thoughtful

Global

Timely

Who's online

Syndicate

Russia, China Veto Syria Resolution

Comment viewing options

Premium Advertising

Our Friends

Agonist Page on FaceBook

Agonist Facebook Activity