More like this
Russia and China deserve praise for Syria veto
Anyone who wishes for a peaceful world should welcome this double veto against UN sanctions
AMERICA is 'outraged'. Britain and France are pretty miffed too. The vetoing by China and Russia of a European-sponsored UN resolution which threatened sanctions against Syria if President Bashar Assad's violent crackdown on protestors did not stop, has been met with angry denunciations by the self-appointed leaders of the 'international community'.
"The courageous people of Syria can now clearly see who on this council supports their yearning for liberty and human rights, and who does not," declared Susan Rice, the US ambassador to the UN.
Speaking at the Conservative Party conference, William Hague accused Moscow and Beijing of siding with the "brutal regime" of President Assad. "The decision of Russia and China… is mistaken and regrettable," the Foreign Secretary said. His French counterpart, Alain Juppe, called the action "deplorable".
Rubbish. The reality is that the Chinese and Russian veto is good news - not just for Syrians - but for the whole world.
Contrary to Hague's insinuations, both China and Russia have made it clear that they do not support Assad's crackdown. What they have done is make sure that Syria will not be another Libya - with internal political unrest being used as a pretext for western military intervention.
Forget the claims of Susan Rice that the proposed UN resolution was "not about military intervention". Had it been endorsed by the Security Council, the western approach to Syria would have led to ever-tougher sanctions, with the chances of full-scale civil war and military intervention being greatly increased.
The proposed resolution made no call for Syria's opposition to enter into dialogue with the government. It was, as Vitaly Churkin, Russian ambassador to the UN correctly stated, "based on a philosophy of confrontation".
On Capitol Hill, the war drums are already being beaten, with the neo-con Joe Lieberman becoming the first US Senator to call publicly for internationally enforced no-fly zones to be imposed over parts of Syria. Doesn't it all sound familiar?
The less confrontational Chinese and Russian approach, by contrast, greatly increases the chance of a peaceful solution to Syria's problems, with the country being encouraged to resolve its internal disagreements through dialogue and negotiation.
China and Russia intend to use their influence with the Syrian regime to persuade Assad to make further concessions. It's hardly been front-page news in the west, but Assad has already announced the legalisation of opposition parties.
Experience tells us that if the aim of the game really is to bring warring factions together, as opposed to plunging a country into civil war, the Chinese and Russian approach is the right one.
Think back to the last time the two exercised their 'double veto'. In 2008 China and Russia derailed a US-sponsored resolution to impose sanctions on Zimbabwe after Robert Mugabe stayed in power following a disputed election. On that occasion too, China and Russia were denounced by the west and accused of siding with a brutal regime.
But in the three years since then, the situation has improved significantly in Zimbabwe, with the opposition Movement for Democratic Change signing a power-sharing deal in September 2008 with Mugabe's ZANU-PF party.
The Chinese argued in 2008 that the US resolution would "interfere with the negotiating process". Thanks to the diplomatic efforts of China, Russia and South Africa, the 'negotiating process' was able to continue to the benefit of all Zimbabweans.
Looking at the bigger picture, China and Russia's veto - and the abstentions of India, Brazil, Lebanon and South Africa - shows that we are now living in a multi-polar world. No longer can the US and its allies easily get their way.
After the end of the Cold War we saw what happened when we had a uni-polar world, with US-led wars being launched against Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq. It was no coincidence that all three of those countries were, prior to the attacks, subject to sanctions supported by the US.
This week's UN vote shows that the balance of power has shifted. China and Russia, who clearly feel that they were duped by the way that UN Resolution 1973 was used by the US and its allies to bring about regime change in Libya, have drawn their line in the sand.
Far from joining in the western elite's wave of China and Russia bashing, those who wish for peaceful solutions to world problems and an end to US-led military interventions, should be toasting China and Russia's assertiveness. So, too, should ordinary US citizens, now paying the economic price for the wars their government couldn't wait to get started. ·
Comments are now closed on this article
Comments
Oh yes Luigi, Yearning for a state are they? Why didn't they accept a state in 1947 instead of launching a war of annihilation on the Jews which fortunately they lost. Why wasn't a Palestinian state established when Jordan had the West Bank and Egypt had Gaza between 1948 and 1967? Why did they refuse a state when after the 1967 war Israeli Prime Minister, Levi Eshkol, offered to return all the captured territories in exchange for peace? Why did they refuse a state on over 90% of the west Bank and all of Gaza when Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Barak and President Clinton offered it at Camp David in the year 2000, A refusal which the Saudi representative in the US, Prince Bandar, called 'a crime'? Why did they refuse a state on even better terms which Pres. Clinton offered them one a few months later? Why did they ignore Israeli Prime Minister Olmert's offer which included Palestinian sovereignty over east Jerusalem in 2008? Why did they refuse to negotiate a peace with Israel in 2010 when Israel and Pres Obama were begging them to come to the table for the ten months that Israel stopped construction in the West bank to facilitate the talks and negotiations. They made a pretend appearance just a week or so before the ten month period ended and then withdrew from the talks. Suddenly they ask the UN to give them a state without peace, hoping that once they have a state they can continue to work for the destruction of Israel and create an apartheid state on the west Bank and Gaza where, according to Abbas, no Jew will be able to reside. Israel learned her lesson when she withdrew completely from Gaza, removed all the Jewish residents, and that besides the kidnapped Israel soldier, Shalit, there are no Jews in Gaza. What did Israel get in return? 8,000 rockets fired into her southern towns, in an Hamas inspired attempt at ethnic cleansing of Israel's South, that's what she got!!!
Bold and perceptive analysis above. Promoting civil wars is destructive. I have a hard job convincing myself that British and US military action improves anything at all. It would be a better idea to send a plane of businessmen instead. In the end things evil go.
normtrub, actually the US encourage the Bosnian Muslims to start a war they had no chance of winning and prolonging it for many years.
It isn't at all surprising that Russia and China have vetoed as last time the US, UK and France used a "no fly zone" resolution to protect civilians to overthrow a government.
The US Ambassador's statement is pathetic and can be easily dismissed. The US Ambassador accuses Russia & China of not supporting the 'Yearning for Liberty and Human Rights' of the Syrian people. What Horse C$$p! So why doesn't the USA support the 'Yearning for Liberty and Human Rights' that the Palestinians have been struggling for the past 63 years? Every country on this planet supports the creation of a Palestinian state except the USA and Israel. The USA and Israel are despciable war mongerors and their actions of the past few decades clearly demonstrate this. This Russo Sino Veto signifying the shift of the balance of power eastwards is a good thing. One day in the not too distant future, when an Eastern led 'coalition of the willing' will lead a humanitarian military intervention to effect regime change in Israel, is when the West will understand the consequence of their ignorance and short sightedness.
Yes AMERICANS ARE TRULY TERRIBLE! One Million dead in Iraq as a consequence of brutal US occupation is no joke Normtrub! The continuing killing of Afghan civilians is no joke either. THANKS BUT NO THANKS. I think we've seen enough of US led disaster internventions. Not too mention the cruel and inhumane American led sanctions back in 90's which led to the deaths of hundreds and thousands of innocent civilians especially children.
A most interesting article. China and the new Soviet Union in waiting are major arms suppliers to Syria. Also France,the UK and USA are not in the slightest bit interested in action over Syria. It is too big, too expensive with no gain - no real oil.
It is a bit like calling the Greeks penniless bad borrowers and then, last month selling them 5 warships Mr Juppe.
Thank you China and Russia, you may well have saved the world from another 'no-fly zone', or part of the US colonisation process. The US has killed enough civilians in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan, and lest we forget the foray into Viet Nam. Leave the world alone!
Fantastic article Neil, so we can now await another 2,000 deaths in Syria and another 2,000 after that and so on. Good you mention America's crimes in Yugoslavia. Shame on America for saving the Bosnian Muslims from extinction at the hands of the Serbs. Oh yes, America should have quietly thanked Bin Laden for 9/11 and not cleared or tried to clear the Taliban out of Afghanistan. America should just have left them to use football fields to continue to shoot and kill innocent people Yip, terrible people those Yanks!