TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 2 °C Saturday 25 May, 2013

Russia, China again block UN resolution for sanctions against Syria

The vote – which the West says is “appalling” – put the future of the on-the-ground observer mission in serious doubt.

Britain's UN ambassador Mark Lyall Grant speaks with his US counterpart Susan Rice during this afternoon's Security Council meeting.
Britain's UN ambassador Mark Lyall Grant speaks with his US counterpart Susan Rice during this afternoon's Security Council meeting.
Image: AP Photo/Kathy Willens

RUSSIA AND CHINA have again vetoed a Western-backed UN resolution aimed at pressuring President Bashar Assad’s government to end the escalating 16-month conflict in Syria.

The 11-2 vote, with two abstentions from South Africa and Pakistan, was the third double veto of a resolution addressing the Syria crisis by Damascus’ most important allies.

The defeat leaves the 300-strong UN observer mission in Syria in limbo – just as the mission was forced to suspend operations because of the intensified fighting.

Its mandate, to monitor a cease-fire and implementation of international envoy Kofi Annan’s peace plan, expires tomorrow.

Britain’s UN Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant, who sponsored the Western-backed draft, said he was “appalled” at the third double veto of a resolution aimed at bringing an end to the bloodshed in Syria and creating conditions for political talks.

“The consequence of their decision is obvious,” he said. “Further bloodshed, and the likelihood of descent into all-out civil war.”

The resolution had threatened sanctions if the Syrian regime didn’t quickly stop using heavy weapons. Activists say more than 17,000 people have been killed since the uprising began in March 2011, most of them civilians.

“The consequence of today’s action is the situation will continue to deteriorate,” US Ambassador Susan Rice told reporters.

Russia’s UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said the resolution should never have been put to a vote because the sponsors knew it had no chance of adoption.

“We simply cannot accept a document under Chapter 7, one which would open the path for the pressure of sanctions and further to external military involvement in Syrian domestic affairs,” he said.

The latest veto was a blow to Annan, the joint UN-Arab League envoy to Syria, who had called for “consequences” for non-compliance with his six-point peace plan, which has been flouted by the Assad government.

The vote on the resolution was originally scheduled for Wednesday, but Annan requested a delay and appealed to the council to unite behind a new resolution.

Moscow wouldn’t budge, and the West insisted on including the threat of non-military sanctions under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter. That could eventually open the door to the use of military force.

Wednesday’s delay was announced shortly after the deadly bombing of a high-level security meeting in Damascus that has made Assad’s hold on power look increasingly tenuous.

His whereabouts have been a mystery since the attack, though Syrian state TV said Assad attended the swearing-in of his new defence minister earlier today.

- Edith M Lederer

Read next:

Comments (42 Comments)

  • The problem with Syria is the pipelines that are being built between the Middle East and Europe. Everyone is on board except Syria and Russia doesn’t want to lose its monoply of supplying Europe with its Energy. Its a lot more complicated than that but i would imagine its a strong reason. A lot of money involved.

    Reply
    • Russia’s opposition has nothing to do with oil. How is the Assad regime guaranteeing the Russians an oil monopoly to Europe?

      Russia has a naval base in Syria which makes them more interested in events in Syria than they otherwise might be but I think that the Russians just see the American-led West’s sense of entitlement in choosing who is a suitable leader in other people’s countries unbearable.

      Reply
  • Black gold, cheap lives.

    Reply
  • Popcorn 19/07/12 #

    “You shall know them by their deeds”. China cannot be viewed as a benign influence in the world any longer.

    Reply
  • I trust all the idiots who are boycotting Mauritius are boycotting Syria, china and Russia too due to this. One thing to take a photo, another to allow mass murder of innocents. Of course, there won’t be a Facebook campaign on this.

    Reply
  • Daithi – the photos shouldn’t have been published but my point is that people care more for a photo of an already dead woman than getting worked up about saving thousands of lives.

    Reply
    • Its not about saving lives, so lets not delude ourselves. If it was really, really about dictatorships, and saving lives, then why is Saudi Arabia (named after the family who own it) America and Britain’s chief ally in the Mid East, despite its absolutely rotten reputation for human rights abuses.

      If it was about saving lives, then the West would not arm one side of what is probably a civil war.

      And I see you avoided my other points, and another question which was, what do you propose when mass murder of civilians occurs, should the rebels succeed?

      I can pretty much guarantee any woman living in Damascus who isn’t wearing a hijab, will be a target, considering the rebels are made up of more than just raving fundamentalist oppression loving Islamic militants (a lot of which come from… Saudi Arabia)

      Reply
    • Also Dave, there is a direct correlation between what the media puts on the agenda, to what people feel and what emotions they emit. Obviously, the Mauritius story is an emotive one, not just for the obvious reasons, but also because the media is highlighting the issue. I don’t think Syria is going to be to the top of peoples minds, so I wouldn’t be too quick to deploy the emotional blackmail as such.

      Similarly, its not about “saving lives from the brutal Assad regime”. Just because CNN or whatever, says so, doesn’t mean that there is an effort being made to bring a peaceful end to the conflict.

      The opposite is the case – America, Britain and a list of other countries actually have a hand in this conflict, as they did in Libya and beyond. It doesn’t take much of a memory to list the civil wars and conflicts which America and Britain have been up to their necks in, in some way.

      Reply
    • Well said, Daithi. Some sense on this issue.

      Reply
    • I think Daithí brings up valid questions. I still think that there needs to be some form of intervention, providing safe zones for high-risk areas. It may very well be true that whoever comes out on top, the Syrian population have a bleak future – But Assad is creating an environment that is rife for revolution. He simply cannot silence opposition by cracking down on freedom of speech and assembly. And he most certainly is responsible for the slaughter of countless civilians. I wouldn’t accept it here in Ireland and we shouldn’t accept it in Syria.

      The whole veto in the UN is disaster and needs to be addressed.

      Reply
    • @Sean

      This is an interesting photo essay. You don’t normally see the other side.

      http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/07/16/the_other_side_of_syrias_civil_war

      Reply
  • Good auld Russia. Once again on the wrong side of history. Thank god they’re a democracy; oh wait….

    Reply
  • To say residents of Damascus (who are generally secular and liberal) are scared is an understatement. There will be a true massacre of civilians when the rebels enter.

    Reply
  • Will the anti US crew on this website ever get their heads out of the sand and renounce Russia and China for their backing of these murders? Or is it all part of the “evil western conspiracy plan”

    Reply
    • The US is directly or indirectly responsible for murders too. You do realise that? Or do you actually believe that their hands are clean? you could be pretending to be blind to the obvious.

      Reply
    • I explained it to him here. Not sure it got through though.

      Reply
    • Replace US with Ireland and you get the same statement. Pundit you are.

      Reply
    • Russia & China claim they vetoed it because it “could eventually open the door to the use of military force”.

      I’m no fanboy of any of these superpowers, but they do have cause to be concerned.
      Did you realise that the USA have been involved in twice as many invasions (10) as the next-nearest aggressor (Israel, at 5) since WW2?

      It’s not a record to be proud of…

      Reply
    • You’s need to read up on your hating of American oil culture. This started back in the 1920’s in central America. Not the middle east. One of the most revered US Marines left the Corps to protest the very wars he was sent into on behalf of the Rockefeller’s. Smedley Butler is one of the most highly regarded and decorated Marines you will find and should you purchase his book, War is a Racket, you will be further enlightened. They don’t teach you that part of his history in Marine Corps boot camp.

      Reply
    • Petr or Old Nokia Charger (whichever you are today), That “explanation” was a load of waffle about the UN and your own red politics that you directed to someone called Chuck Eastwood as part of your sidestepping questions about Israeili tourists getting blown up.
      Absolutely nothing to do with Russia or China using their veto (again) to back up Assad and his campaign of murdering his own countrymen.

      Reply
    • Chuck Norris/Chuck Eastwood or whatever fake name you’ve decided to hide behind today, you really need to learn to think critically about issues and not just swallow the Western media narrative whole.

      Reply
  • This is a proxy war between Iran and the West. Syria is the last hole to go before all attention is focused on Iran. Russia is flexing it’s virtual “cockles” just to stand up to the west and protect any and all monies they have invested in Syria. They did the same with Iraq. Will we see boycotts of Chinese products due to their support of Syria? Hardly. The world can’t afford it.

    Reply
  • Now who is gonna stand up against russia and china mr cameron..

    Reply
  • Russia and China are correct to veto these resolutions which are soley intended to give The Friends of Syria countries a legal pretext to start military intervention against the Assad government. The notion that the USA/UK coalition are seeking peace as this article claims is completely bogus. They have been arming and financing the rebels and they want a rebel victory not a negotiated settlement.

    see: http://www.voanews.com/content/report_us_aiding_syrian_opposition/1216745.html

    Susan Rice’s lamenting of the deteriorating conditions in Syria is rank hypocrisy – her country and their Arab state allies are arming, equipping, and encouraging the insurgents and terrorists and continuing the bloodshed – even though Assad has made significant concessions and reforms!

    I’m dismayed at how the Journal and other media outlets are so unwilling to question the narrative being handed down by the Western governments

    Reply
  • I one word it’s all about “Oil”

    Reply
    • I’d love to hear why if you could explain it to me.

      I think it’s all about the American-led West fueling a proxy-war to get rid of Iran’s single biggest ally in order to make the Middle East a safer place for Israel. They are using humanitarianism as a pretext. Russia And China don’t wanna go along, thank goodness.

      Reply
    • That’s it in a nutshell, James.

      Reply
    • Paul, do you drive a car? What do you fill the tank with? Do you ever use a bus? What does the bus run on? Where do you buy your food? How does the food get to the store? Ever get on a plane? Have you ever bought something? Take out the oil and the worlds economy shuts down! Good luck doing anything without oil.

      Reply
  • It will be interesting to see how the Syrians treat the Russian naval base in Syria my instinct is they are going to throw them out of Tartus and if so great. That will be two fingers to the Russian criminal

    Reply

Add New Comment