Oh my: US may seek UN Security Council vote on Syria
The United States has not decided whether to
go to the UN Security Council for approval to attack Syria.
U.S. Secretary of
State John Kerry said on Sunday the United States did not rule out the
possibility of returning to the United Nations Security Council to
secure a resolution on Syria once U.N. inspectors complete their report.
Speaking at a news conference
in Paris with his Qatari counterpart Khaled al-Attiya, Kerry said
President Barack Obama had yet to make a decision on the issue.
Whatever the decision is about Syria, this is the wrong decision. There is no way Russia or China are going to consent to any kind of action on Syria, and we have seen that repeatedly over the last two years. Moreover, Obama seems determined to weaken the United States in every way possible. Going to the UN will continue to lead to the end of the United States as a great power.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Bashar al-Assad, Chinese veto, John Kerry, Russian veto, Syria, Syrian army, United Nations Security Council
Obama: US has to enforce international norms because UN can't
So is
this going to apply to Iran too? Can he at least make it preventative rather than reactive?
“I have no interest in any kind of open-ended conflict in Syria,”
Obama said in an interview with the PBS NewsHour, stressing that he has
not decided to order a military attack.
“But we do have to make
sure that when countries break international norms on chemical weapons
they are held accountable,” he said.
A closed-door meeting of the
five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, called to consider a
British-drafted resolution authorizing the use of force to prevent any
further use of chemical weapons in Syria, adjourned without action after
Russia and China opposed the measure.
In response, U.S. officials
made clear they considered such initiatives irrelevant to Obama’s
decision on military action. Although officials gave no indication of
when a U.S. attack might occur, they said they expect U.N. inspectors to
leave Syria on Saturday.
“We see no avenue forward [at the United
Nations] given continued Russian opposition to any meaningful Council
action on Syria,” deputy State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said.
“Therefore, the United States will continue its consultations and will
take appropriate actions to respond in the days ahead.”
The U.S.
dismissal seemed to put the administration and its allies at odds with
the U.N. leadership. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, without setting a
deadline or addressing the Syrian request for an extension, said it was
“essential to establish the facts” and the U.N. team “needs time to do
its job.”
Lakhdar Brahimi, the U.N. special envoy for Syria, said international
law requires a Security Council decision before any military action. “I
do know that President Obama and the American administration are not
known to be trigger-happy,” Brahimi said at a Geneva news conference.
“What they will decide, I don’t know.”
Not anymore we don't need a Security Council resolution. Heh.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Bashar al-Assad, chemical weapons, Chinese veto, Iranian nuclear threat, Russian veto, Syria, United Nations Security Council
France calls for armed intervention if chem weapons used in Syria
France is calling for
armed intervention if chemical weapons were used in Syria.
"There would have to be reaction with force in Syria from the
international community, but there is no question of sending troops on
the ground," Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said on French television
network BFM.
He added that if the UN Security Council could not make a decision, one
would have to be taken "in other ways." He did not elaborate.
On Wednesday, Russia and China blocked a Security Council investigation into the likely chemical weapons attack that took place in Syria on Wednesday morning.
But if the West is not willing to put troops on the ground in Syria (and no, I'm not advocating that, I think it's too late), how does France believe that the West can stop these attacks?
The UN Security Council released a brief statement on Wednesday
evening,
stopping short of calling for an investigation into Wednesday morning's
allegations of a massive chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of
Damascus that reportedly
killed more than a thousand people.
After two hours of closed consultations with the
Security Council, UN Deputy Secretary General Jan Eliasson briefly relayed once
again how "deeply disturbed" and "shocked" Secretary General Ban Ki-moon was
about the alleged attack. Eliasson also emphasized the reports have not been
confirmed, but said the UN will "investigate this as soon as possible."
"This
represents, no matter what the conclusions are, a serious escalation with grave
human consequences," Eliasson said.
...
UN diplomats said Russia and China opposed language containing an
explicit call for a UN probe. An earlier Western-drafted statement, seen
by Reuters, would have asked the United Nations to "urgently take the
steps necessary for today's attack to be investigated by the UN
mission."
That proposed statement was diluted to accommodate Russian and Chinese objections, council diplomats told Reuters.
It's just Muslims killing Muslims. Why did you ever think the UN would care?
Labels: Bashar al-Assad, chemical weapons, China, Chinese veto, Free Syrian Army, Russia, Russian veto, Syrian army, Syrian uprising, United Nations Security Council
This is rich: Russia accuses US of preventing Security Council action on Gaza
This is truly rich. Russian UN ambassador Vitaly Churkin is
accusing the United States of preventing UN Security Council action on Gaza.
The Security Council held heated closed-door negotiations on a
possible statement, but diplomats said a sticking point was that the
text did not mention Hamas missile attacks on Israel. Israel said it was
these attacks that prompted its major offensive against Gaza.
Council
members were consulting with their capitals on the draft statement,
which needs to be approved by consensus, but several diplomats said it
was unlikely an agreement would be reached by a Tuesday morning
deadline.
Russia's UN envoy Vitaly Churkin said that if the
council could not agree, he would put a resolution - a stronger move by
the council than a statement - to a vote on Tuesday to call for an end
to the violence and show support for regional and international efforts
to broker peace.
"One member of the Security Council, I'm sure you
can guess which, indicated ... they will not be prepared to go along
with any reaction of the Security Council," Churkin said earlier in a
thinly veiled reference to the United States.
"Somehow, allegedly, that could hurt the current efforts carried out by Egypt and the region," he said.
A
resolution is passed when it receives nine votes in favor and no vetoes
by the five permanent council members - Russia, China, Britain, the
United States and France. Some diplomats said a vote on the Russian
resolution would likely be tight and could force a veto by the United
States.
...
Council diplomats, who did not want to be identified, said the United
States' UN delegation had been instructed by Washington not to engage
in consultations on a statement by the Security Council.
France,
Germany and Britain submitted amendments to the draft Security Council
statement earlier, diplomats said, but Churkin said too many changes had
been proposed.
"Unfortunately it looked like a little bit of a
filibustering attempt. Maybe I am mistaken, maybe it's just a laid-back
attitude in a situation where we cannot afford procrastination," Churkin
told reporters after consultations.
One council diplomat described the filibustering accusation as "utter nonsense."
Hey Ambassador Churkin, how many Syrians have been killed since the start of this operation (hint:
many more Syrians than 'Palestinians' have been killed) and why has
your country been
blocking Security Council action against Bashar al-Assad for months? At the very least, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander!
Labels: Bashar al-Assad, Chinese veto, Gaza, Hamas, Operation Pillar of Defense, Russian veto, Syria, Syrian uprising, United Nations Security Council, US veto
Saudi King tells Russian President talks on Syria 'futile'
Saudi King Abdullah has told Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that it is '
futile' to talk with Medvedev's good friend, Bashar al-Assad (Hat Tip:
MFS - The Other News).
Saudi’s King Abdullah told Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on Wednesday that dialogue on Syria was “futile,” the official SPA news agency reported, hinting at the need for action to halt the bloodshed.
Russia should have “coordinated with the Arabs... before using the veto” to block a resolution on Syria in the U.N. Security Council, King Abdullah was quoted as saying.
“But now, dialogue about what is happening in Syria is futile,” the Saudi monarch told Medvedev in a telephone discussion on the escalating bloodshed.
According to the report, the king told Medvedev that Saudi Arabia “will never abandon its religious and moral obligations towards what’s happening.”
The Kremlin released a statement earlier on Wednesday saying the two leaders exchanged views about the situation in the Middle East in light of the events in Syria, but gave no further details.
Don't expect a Russian
mea culpa. That won't happen. But perhaps in a few weeks it will be possible to introduce another UN resolution if the Chinese can also be brought to task.
In the meantime, the civil war in Syria will continue.
Labels: Bashar al-Assad, Dmitry Medvedev, Russian veto, Saudi King Abdullah, Syrian uprising
Why the UN hasn't called a special session on Syria
With all the hand-wringing going on at the United Nations in the aftermath of the Russian and Chinese vetoes of the resolution condemning Syria, you would think that the UN might be looking for another weapon in its arsenal. Yes, it has one. Anne Bayefsky explains
why the UN isn't using it.
Though the Assembly meeting today is full of breast-beating avowals of care for the Syrian people, it is actually not the highest level of concern which the Assembly is empowered to express.
For starters, it is not an "Emergency Special Session."
After Russia and China vetoed a painfully weak Security Council resolution on Syria on February 4, 2012, the General Assembly was entitled to convene an emergency special session under a procedure introduced in 1950 by the United States as a response to Soviet vetoes during the Korean war.
Why hasn’t the General Assembly, therefore, called an emergency special session on Syria? Answer: because it would interfere with the UN’s treatment of its favorite whipping boy – Israel.
There have been only ten emergency sessions of the Assembly in its history.
Five have been directed at Israel alone, and the most recent – the “tenth” emergency session – began in April 1997. The “tenth” session has been “reconvened” fifteen times – that is, kept as a private weapon in the political arsenal of the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. An 11th emergency special session of the General Assembly on Syria would require ending the tenth session on Israel. And the Arab League has its priorities.
The General Assembly never had an emergency special session on genocide in Rwanda, despite 800,000 dead, or on Darfur, Sudan with more than 450,000 dead and millions displaced. So as far as the Assembly is concerned, Bashar al-Assad is just warming up.
In fact, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) is not even counting. In response to a question concerning the numbers of Syrian dead at a press conference on February 10, 2012, spokesperson for the OHCHR Rupert Colville said: “numbers were climbing every day, but issuing a ballpark figure was not appropriate.” Odd, considering that the OHCHR has no problem broadcasting any number of alleged victims manufactured by Palestinians – including worrying about “hundreds of trees” in their fall 2011 “briefing notes.”
Read the whole thing. And when you're done, if any of you believe that the United Nations still has a right to exist, please let me know.
Labels: anti-Israel obsession, Chinese veto, Russian veto, Syrian uprising, United Nations General Assembly, United Nations Security Council
Breaking: Qaradawi issues fatwa against Russia and China; UPDATED WITH VIDEO
Israel Television reports in its nightly news magazine that Qatari-based Muslim Brotherhood leader Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who is considered one of the most important Sunni Sheikhs in the world, has issued a
fatwa calling for a boycott of Russia and China over their vetoes of a UN Security Council resolution on Saturday that would have condemned Bashar al-Assad's regime.
Qaradawi called Russia and China the 'enemies of the Arab people.'
Hmmm.
UPDATE 11:01 PMIsrael Radio reports that Qaradawi made the statement on his weekly television program on al-Jazeera, and that the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan has made similar statements. Qaradawi also said that any money that goes to Syria is used for murdering its civilians.
UPDATE TUESDAY 12:18 AMMEMRI has posted video of Qaradawi's boycott call.
Unfortunately, it's not embeddable, so you'll have to click through to see it here (Hat Tip: Will).
UPDATE TUESDAY 12:50 AMAnd we now have embeddable video, so let's go to the videotape (Hat Tip:
Will).
Labels: Bashar al-Assad, Chinese veto, Muslim Brotherhood, Russian veto, Syrian uprising, Yusuf al-Qaradawi
The devil you know or the devil you don't
On Sunday, the
Jewish Press published this cartoon about Saturday's Russian-Chinese veto of a UN Security Council resolution condemning Bashar al-Assad.
In general, that's probably good advice, and it's likely the thinking that was behind the veto. But
Syria is an exception to that rule.
“We have no reason to hope that Assad stays, nor any reason to support anyone who wants to replace him,” the official said.
“This is not a case of ‘better the devil you know than the one you don’t,’ because the one we know is pretty bad,” he said, referring to Syria’s alliance with Iran, and material, financial, logistical and military help for Hezbollah and Hamas.
But whoever follows Assad could be as bad, and there is no way for Israel to ascertain at this point if the successor would be better or worse, the official added.
One way the situation could get worse, he said, is if Syria slipped into a Somalia-like anarchy, unleashing a violence that – directly or indirectly – could spill over into Israel.
The Russians and Chinese may be sure they want Assad to stay. Here in Israel, we don't really care, so long as they leave us alone.
Labels: Bashar al-Assad, Chinese veto, Russian veto, Syrian uprising
But do the Americans get it?
At least someone at Israel's Foreign Ministry understands the implications of
Saturday's veto by Russia and China of a UN Resolution condemning Bashar al-Assad's regime for slaughtering its own civilians. The question is
do Obama and his State Department get it?
Russia and China’s veto at the UN Security Council blocking a resolution condemning Syrian President Bashar Assad reaffirms Israel’s belief that the UN cannot be relied on to prevent war and make peace, a Foreign Ministry official said on Saturday night.
The vote also reconfirmed for Israel that “old alliances die hard,” he said.
...
“We have no reason to hope that Assad stays, nor any reason to support anyone who wants to replace him,” the official said.
“This is not a case of ‘better the devil you know than the one you don’t,’ because the one we know is pretty bad,” he said, referring to Syria’s alliance with Iran, and material, financial, logistical and military help for Hezbollah and Hamas.
But whoever follows Assad could be as bad, and there is no way for Israel to ascertain at this point if the successor would be better or worse, the official added.
One way the situation could get worse, he said, is if Syria slipped into a Somalia-like anarchy, unleashing a violence that – directly or indirectly – could spill over into Israel.
Regarding the UN vote, Russia has “never been suspected” of doing something proactive for peace and democracy, and is now taking sides with a dictator who is massacring his own people, the official said.
The reason for this position, he said, is that Assad is Russia’s only true ally in the region, someone that – unlike the leaders of Saudi Arabia or Egypt – has remained faithful, allowing the Russians to have a military port of call on the Mediterranean at Tartus, and is a reliable customer for Russian arms.
“Moscow has no one else like Assad in the Middle East,” the official said. He added that the Russians were also sending a message that they will “not be played as anyone’s suckers.”
Russia voted for the no-fly zone in Libya last year, and felt swindled when NATO expanded that and began bombing, he said. “They are not falling for it another time, and are saying to NATO, ‘You cheated us one time too many, now we do not trust you.’” Regarding China, the official said Beijing’s veto was simply reflective of its overall foreign policy: “Don’t do anything about anybody, keep still, let the trade flow, and honor and respect international boundaries.”
And you thought Obama re-set relations with Russia, didn't you? But do the Americans in the State Department and the White House get it? Don't bet on it.
Labels: Bashar al-Assad, Chinese veto, Russian veto, Syrian uprising, United Nations Security Council, US State Department
Russia and China veto resolution calling for Assad to step down
Russia and China have vetoed a UN Security Council resolution that called for Syrian dictator
Bashar al-Assad to step down (Hat Tip:
Memeorandum).
The Russian and Chinese stance came as a blow to U.S. and European efforts to rally behind an Arab League plan that would require Assad to step down, making way for a democratically elected unity government with a leader commading support from both the government and the opposition.
The Security Council vote capped weeks of tumultuous negotiations that pitted the United States, the European Union and the Arab League against Russia, Syria’s remaining protector in the 15-member council. It undercuts a diplomatic push by the Arab League to secure the council’s backing for its plan, which also included provisions requiring Syria to open itself to far greater outside scrutiny, allowing foreign journalists, Arab monitors and U.N. human rights investigators unimpeded access throughout the country.
After the vote, Russia’s U.N. envoy, Vitaly I. Churkin, accused his Western colleagues of undermining the prospects for a deal, saying they had promoted a strategy aimed at “regime change” by backing the opposition’s pursuit of power and feeding “armed methods of struggle.”
The resolution, he said, would have “sent an unbalanced signal” to the key parties in Syria and given the opposition greater scope for extending military gains.
“The Syrian opposition must distance itself from extremist groups,” he said.
Isn't leading from behind great? Now, Obama can't or won't do anything because he refuses to act without the UN's blessing. I'm glad we're finding that out at Syria's expense (given that the other side is the Muslim Brotherhood) and not at Israel's expense.
Labels: Bashar al-Assad, Chinese veto, Russian veto, Syrian uprising, United Nations Security Council
Russia backing nuclear Iran
Earlier on Monday, it was reported that it is unlikely that a new round of sanctions will pass the United Nations Security Council because it would be
vetoed by Russia and China.
"The reality is that a new substantive step forward on sanctions will be very difficult," a senior Western diplomat said on condition of anonymity.
"The last set of sanctions were very substantive, and essentially the next stage would be to go into the oil and gas sector," he said. "If you get into the oil and gas sector, then obviously there will be opposition from China in particular, but also from Russia. More so China."
China depends heavily on oil exports from Iran, the world's fifth biggest crude exporter, to fuel its growing economy.
But while China may be the stronger opponent of sanctions, it is Russia that has gone a step further and is trying to
take the military option off the table.
"This would be a very serious mistake fraught with unpredictable consequences," Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said when asked about reports that Israel planned a military strike against Iran.
Lavrov said there could be no military resolution to the Iranian nuclear problem and said the conflicts in Iran's neighbors, Iraq and Afghanistan, had led to human suffering and high numbers of casualties.
A raid on Iran's nuclear facilities would be likely to provoke Tehran into hugely disruptive retaliatory measures in the Gulf that would sever shipping routes and disrupt the flow of oil and gas to export markets, political analysts believe.
...
"There is no military solution to the Iranian nuclear problem as there is no military solution to any other problem in the modern world," said Lavrov, who has served as foreign minister since 2004.
"This is confirmed to us every day when we see how the problems of the conflicts around Iran are being resolved -- whether Iraq or Afghanistan or what is happening in other countries in the region. Military intervention only leads to many times more deaths and human suffering."
He sounds remarkably like Barack Obama, doesn't he? And that's precisely the problem. Since Obama came to power in the US and 're-set' American relations with Russia, the world has gone back to being bipolar with countries falling under either the American or Russian aegis. That was not the case from the fall of Communism in 1989 until Obama's election in 2008.
That leaves the West with only one way to try to stop Iran: Sanctions imposed by the West without the UN. And that's
most unlikely to work.
"The UN is important because it's the international community," a diplomat told Reuters. "But you're not going to stop Iran's nuclear program with lowest common denominator sanctions by the UN Security Council."
"The EU, the US and others will have to wield the sledgehammer with national sanctions and drag the UN Security Council after them," he said.
Given the
amount of trade that the EU continues to do with Iran under the current sanctions, does anyone really see that happen? Is it any wonder that Israel is talking about acting unilaterally for the first time since 2007?
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Chinese veto, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Russian veto, Sergey Lavrov, United Nations Security Council
Obama's missing Syria policy
You will recall that last week, US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice spoke out forcefully against the Syrian regime after Russia and China
vetoed a resolution condemning the dictatorship. It was the first time I can recall her speaking out
forcefully at the UN against any country other than Israel. But Rice's words were empty rhetoric. The Obama administration continues to
have no Syria policy (Hat Tip:
Instapundit).
We admire Ambassador Rice’s impassioned defense of the Syrian opposition, who have been bravely challenging the Assad regime for over seven months. But surely Washington was not blindsided by Russia and China’s move. Rice’s comment that the veto was a “cheap ruse by those who would rather sell arms to the Syrian regime” does not highlight American morality but only underscores the incoherence of the White House’s Syria policy. The Obama administration, like everyone else, knows that Moscow has been selling the Assad regime arms for decades, and that the wholesale slaughter of peaceful demonstrators is hardly cause for the Russians to ostracize a repeat customer like Damascus. Same with China—does anyone believe that Beijing is eager to have the U.N. censure a member state for human rights abuses and thereby illuminate its own violent repressions? The only surprise in last Tuesday’s voting was that the delegation from Lebanon, a country now virtually governed by Syria’s ally Hezbollah, mustered the courage to abstain.
Given Rice’s tone, it is worth asking why the White House was so heavily invested in, as she put it, a “watered-down text that doesn’t even mention sanctions.” The reason, we must unfortunately conclude, is that the administration’s position is rhetorical and lacks substance. The administration has no plan to accomplish the goal of getting Bashar al-Assad to step down—a goal that the president took more than six months to articulate. Even now there is no sense that Assad’s exit is good not only for those Syrians standing up to this vicious dictator, but for American interests as well—not least because the fall of the Alawite minority regime will represent a major blow to its one ally, Iran.
We congratulate Robert Ford on winning Senate confirmation this week for his appointment as U.S. ambassador to Syria. The physical courage he has shown in supporting the Syrian opposition and representing American interests is commendable. But it also has to be said that Ambassador Ford has reflected the vagaries of the administration’s Syria policy. The Syrian opposition, he says, is upset with American policies regarding Iraq and the Palestinians. Really? Who has bothered to complain about Israeli settlements when they are busy dodging snipers and avoiding the depredations of a security apparatus that uses torture and rape as matters of policy? And if, as Ford says, the conflict is “a Syrian problem and it needs Syrian solutions,” then what is his purpose in Damascus? Maybe it is just to show “the courageous people of Syria,” as Ambassador Rice put it, that America “supports their yearning for liberty and universal human rights.” But that is not a policy.
News out of Syria indicates that there are defections from the military. Perhaps the Syrian opposition should have followed the Libyan model and picked up weapons at the outset. Violence won the Libyan rebels NATO backing, while peaceful demonstrations earned the Syrians the world’s sympathy—tender mercies that they risk forfeiting, explained Ford, should they pick up weapons in self-defense.
Lest the Syrian opposition think the democracies set a precedent when they went after a dictator like Qaddafi, Ford has explained, the Syrians are not going to get a Libya-style NATO intervention. Rice concurred: “This is not about military intervention,” she said last week. “This is not about Libya.” So, what does Washington have to offer the Syrian opposition? “The number one thing that we can do to help them is to get international monitors in there,” said a State Department spokesman. “We need witnesses so that we can hold Assad to account.”
In other words, Libya’s tribes get NATO support when the White House wants to show that it can work in multilateral comity with its European partners who, rightly, see Libyan oil and a potential refugee crisis as vital interests. But a Syrian opposition squared off against a dictator who has set himself against American interests since he came to power more than a decade ago gets a superpower petitioning like an enfeebled NGO.
This administration has no morals. It's all about expediency (and - in the case of the 'Palestinians' - contempt for Jews).
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Chinese veto, Robert Ford, Russian veto, Susan Rice, Syrian regime change
Assad threatens to attack Tel Aviv
Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad is
threatening to attack Tel Aviv in the event of a NATO attack on his government. On Tuesday night, Russia and China vetoed a Security Council condemnation of Assad for murdering his own people.
During a meeting with Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmad Davutoglu Assad allegedly threatened: "If a crazy measure is taken against Damascus, I will need not more than 6 hours to transfer hundreds of rockets and missiles to the Golan Heights to fire them at Tel Aviv."
According to the report, Assad also reiterated that Damascus will call on Hezbollah to launch such an intensive rocket and missile attack on Israel.
"All these events will happen in three hours, and in the following three hours, Iran will attack the US warships in the Persian Gulf and the US and European interests will be targeted simultaneously," Assad said, according to FARS.
Assad's comments came as Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan said on Tuesday he would set out his country's plans for sanctions against Syria after he visits a Syrian refugee camp near the border in the coming days.
The move heralds a further deterioration in previously friendly relations between Ankara and Damascus since the start of Assad's crackdown on protesters.
"Regarding sanctions, we will make an assessment and announce our road map after the visit to Hatay, setting out the steps," Erdogan told reporters, adding he expected to visit the region at the weekend or the start of next week.
Erdogan said last month that Assad would be ousted by his people "sooner or later" and warned that Syria could slide into a sectarian civil war between Alawites and Sunnis.
Two thoughts on this: Assuming that the United States does not restrain Israel in order to keep Arab countries in a coalition against Syria (recall the First Gulf War), how many hours do you think it would take the IAF to wipe out Assad's regime? And second, aren't you glad we didn't listen to all those morons who wanted us to give the Golan Heights to Assad for the sake of 'peace'? Imagine if he was making that threat from the shores of the Kinneret (Sea of Galilee) instead of from 25 miles inland.
Meanwhile, Russia and China
used their vetoes in the Security Council on Tuesday night to prevent a condemnation of Syria.
European members of the Security Council tried to avoid a veto by watering down the language on sanctions three times, but they failed.
The vote was 9-2 with four abstentions - India, South Africa, Brazil and Lebanon.
The resolution demanded that Syria immediately end all violence and ensure human rights. It also called for "an inclusive Syrian-led political process."
Russia's UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin told the council after the vote that his country did not support Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime or the violence but opposed the resolution because it was "based on a philosophy of confrontation," contained "an ultimatum of sanctions," and was against a peaceful settlement of a crisis.
China's Ambassador Li Bandong said his country is concerned about the ongoing violence and wants to see speedy reforms but opposed the resolution because "sanctions, or threat of sanctions, do not help the sitiuation in Syria but rather complicates the situation."
France's UN Ambassador Gerard Araud denounced the veto, saying it "goes against the sense of history that is under way in the region."
"I would like to commend all of those who fight against the bloodthirsty crackdown in Syria," he said.
JPost reports that US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice has finally found something about which to be '
outraged':
US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice said the US is “outraged” that the Security Council “utterly failed to address an urgent moral challenge and a growing threat to regional peace and security.”
Rice said that several of the body’s members had “sought for weeks to weaken and strip bare any text that would have defended the lives of innocent civilians from Assad’s brutality,” and that the veto was exercised on a “vastly watered-down text” that did not even mention sanctions.
The US has repeatedly advocated sanctions as well as an arms embargo on the Assad regime.
In damning, pointed language, Rice said that “the courageous people of Syria can now clearly see who on this Council supports their yearning for liberty and universal human rights-and who does not.”
...
“And during this season of change, the people of the Middle East can now see clearly which nations have chosen to ignore their calls for democracy and instead prop up desperate, cruel dictators,” Rice said.
“Those who oppose this resolution and give cover to a brutal regime will have to answer to the Syrian people-and, indeed, to people across the region who are pursuing the same universal aspirations.”
Rice bitterly noted that the Security Council “has not yet passed even a hortatory resolution to counter the Assad regime's brutal oppression.”
“Let there be no doubt: this is not about military intervention,” Rice said. “This is not about Libya. That is a cheap ruse by those who would rather sell arms to the Syrian regime than stand with the Syrian people.”
Rice said that the “crisis in Syria will stay before the Security Council, and we will not rest until this Council rises to meet its responsibilities.”
UK Foreign Secretary William Hague said he was “disappointed” by Russia and China’s decision to veto the resolution.
“This will be seen in the region as a decision to side with a brutal regime rather than with the people of Syria, and will be a bitter blow to all those Syrians who have implored the international community to take a stand.”
Calling the resolution as drafted “entirely reasonable,” Hague said that it stressed the rejection of violence and that a political transition ought to be led by the Syrians.
The draft resolution, Hague made clear, was explicit that Security Council consideration of sanctions against Syria should not include military action.
“Those who blocked it,” Hague said of the resolution, “will have this action on their conscience.”
I'm not convinced that anyone in the ruling
juntas in Russia or China has a conscience. But how about Rice? I didn't think she had it in her to get emotional about anything except Israel and partying.
Labels: Chinese veto, Russian veto, Syrian sanctions, United Nations Security Council
Obama administration eases up on Syria again
Well what a surprise. The Obama administration has eased up on its criticism of Syria. It's
no longer calling for Assad to go.
But Clinton backed off on Saturday, saying the administration still hopes that Assad's regime will stop the violence and work with protesters to carry out political reforms. On Monday, European Union ministers also called on Assad to implement reforms and made it clear they still hoped he would do so.
The change in tone reflects the continuing debate over whether Syria's ruler is likely to survive the current turmoil, and how best to use the limited diplomatic tools available to pressure him.
For now, a State Department official said, it's unclear whether the administration will ramp up the rhetoric and officially call for Assad's departure.
"Whether we take it farther will depend on events on the ground," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of diplomatic sensitivities. "We need to think through carefully what we say."
Why can't the administration make up its mind? Well, apparently it has, but it's too timid to enforce it.
U.S. officials say that although some administration officials, including Clinton, have pressed for a more forceful policy, others argue that the administration would look weak if Obama called for Assad's departure and nothing happened.
Obama has been demanding that Kadafi give up power in Libya since March, and the U.S. military is backing the North American Treaty Organization's air war against Kadafi's forces. But the Libyan leader remains in power.
How could Obama look any weaker than he does already? I suppose Syria, Iran and Venezuela could invade the United States....
Meanwhile, in yet another indication of how weak Obama appears, Syrian foreign minister Walid Moallem has warned US ambassador Robert Ford and French ambassador Eric Chevalier
not to leave Damascus.
Syria's foreign minister has warned the U.S. and French ambassadors not to travel outside Damascus without permission.
Walid al-Moallem said Wednesday that if the ambassadors defy the orders, Syria will ban all diplomats from leaving the capital.
Earlier this month, the U.S. and French ambassadors traveled to the restive city of Hama, a stronghold of opposition to President Bashar Assad.
The Syrian government slammed the visit and said it was unauthorized. The regime accused the envoys of interfering in Syria's internal affairs.
Former National Security Adviser
Elliott Abrams comments:
I understand the Administration’s desire not to urge people into the streets, lest there be a slaughter that we cannot halt or avert. But no one is suggesting that the president call for a mass uprising. U.S. policy needs only to show consistency and moral clarity.
I shudder to think how a Syrian protester must view the United States when he is risking his life and the secretary of state is still dreaming of “peaceful cooperation” from the government shooting him and his fellow demonstrators dead in the streets day after day. Mrs. Clinton’s remark about Assad’s loss of legitimacy was, we are told, unscripted. “The administration’s policy toward the Syrian autocrat has lately been shaped more by diplomatic improvisation than methodical planning within the White House,” the Washington Post reported.
This may explain why the secretary oscillates between tougher and weaker rhetoric and positions, but it is a terrible indictment of the Obama Administration foreign policy team that it cannot get its act together after thirty months in power. This Administration’s Syria policy has now moved from “improvisation” to incoherence.
Barack
Hussein Obama is unwilling to face down Bashar al-Assad. Instead, he's hiding behind the United Nations, where he can count on Russian and Chinese vetoes to prevent anything from happening. He's turning the United States into a weak laughingstock, which will eventually result in dozens of free countries falling to Islamism and Communism. He calls it 'leading from behind.'
What could go wrong?
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Bashar al-Assad, Chinese veto, Eric Chevalier, Hillary Clinton, Robert Ford, Russian veto, United Nations
Back to the Cold War?
Barack Obama has managed to re-set relations with Russia
right back to the Cold War.
"Russia is against any UN Security Council resolution on Syria," Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich told journalists at a briefing in Moscow.
"We do not believe the Syrian issue is a subject for consideration by the Security Council, let alone the adoption of some kind of resolution," Lukashevich said.
Britain, France, Germany and Portugal have floated a new draft resolution condemning Syria as the United States and its allies seek to raise the pressure on President Bashar Assad's government to end its violent crackdown on protesters.
Lukashevich stopped short of saying Russia would use its veto power as a permanent UN Security Council member to doom any Syria resolution if it comes to a vote.
Some diplomats have said they thought Moscow could be persuaded to abstain, as it did in a March vote on the resolution that authorized military intervention in Libya.
But Lukashevich said that even a discussion in the Security Council could increase tension in Syria, and that any resolution criticizing Damascus would amount to tacit support of "armed extremists" opposing the government.
"This does not fit the role of the United Nations," he said.
China was expected to join Russia in voting against a draft resolution at the 35-nation board of the International Atomic Energy Agency rebuking the Arab state for three years of stonewalling of a probe into a site bombed by Israel in 2007.
What could go wrong?
Labels: Chinese veto, Russian veto, Syria, Syrian nuclear program, Syrian uprising, United Nations Security Council
