The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
© KYODOJapan disappointed with Security Council failure to agree on Syria
TOKYO©2025 GPlusMedia Inc.
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
© KYODO
42 Comments
Login to comment
Aly Rustom
That's why we need to get rid of the stupid veto in the UN. True democracy should not have a veto. As a syrian, I am dismayed that the resolution didnt pass. No one should be able to veto any resolution that has a majority vote in the UN. Not the Russians for the syrian regime, Nor the Americans for Israel. The UN has become impotent and is a joke due to the veto- which is not even distributed properly. 2 countries in Asia and Europe, and the US have the veto. It is distributed unevenly, and should not even exist. No one should be allowed to block a UN resolution if the majority of countries back it up. Nobody.
Aly Rustom
Pavel Felgenhauer -RUSSIAN defence and military analyst
Samir al-Taqi - former Syrian government adviser
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lO5GFd065rY
joyridingonthetitanic
The resolution was doomed from the start as Russia was never going to agree to it!
Secretly, I suspect, the majority of the Security council knew this from the start and that they used it as an exercise in isolation, in the vain attempt to show Russia that the world is against it on this matter. Whether it will work in the long run, who knows but knowing Russia it will do as it likes for as long as it wants. Look at Crimea for example, Condemnation from all sides but Russia ignored them all and carried on regardless.
Aly, I agree the Veto rule needs to be scrapped but also the Security Council itself needs to be expanded as well.
Yubaru
Has? The UN has been impotent from the beginning because of this veto power. This isnt something new, and this use of the veto by Russia not unexpected either. Russia should have lost it's veto when the USSR broke up anyway.
Aly Rustom
Except the analysis of a RUSSIAN defence and military analyst and a former Syrian government adviser...
Alexandre T. Ishii
Japan politicians and diplomats are in the wrong side to condemn Syrian government. Nothing clear what really happened there, and no evidence Assad govt. or his military did it or the Russian did that, could be also the rebels, or false flag, plots behind the scene, etc...Nothing can go by military force or power, unless most of us are warmongers. Diplomats serves the country for the peace not for the war, a completely wrong direction. Very disappointed Japan diplomacy. Abe will meet with Putin to discuss about the Northern Territory this year and I can imagine what will be a real spoiled mild and garbage waste those diplomatic action of this Abe administration.com jp
Aly Rustom
Thanks brother. I don't think the security council needs to be expanded. Scapped is better. Let all countries vote equally. Why have a council overseeing everying? Keep it democratic.
Preaching to the choir mate.
Zed Phillips
Only the truly stupid cannot see this for what it is. The Rebels are losing. This is a last ditch desperate attempt by rebels to gain support from the US against Assad. Without the US the rebels are finished and they know it. Without a UN resolution backing the US raid on sovereign Syrian soil the US openly committed an act of war against Syria and yet no one says a word. Russia is right to stand up against US global aggression.
dcog9065
The veto is a relic from the Cold War when there were clear ideological blocs so was useful in preventing mass war. That age has passed so the veto should be removed as well, otherwise there is no point whatsoever in the UN
Aly Rustom
zichi, as usual, spot on mate!
Dre Hund
If Assad dropped the chemicals, then Russia dropped them. The discussion should be about how Rusia wants to use Syria as a wedge in the future. Is Syria their base as Israel is the U.S. base? Russia is familiar with graveyards as part of their history. Syria is not a productive asset for anyone now. The rhetoric from the U.S. should be about Russia's scheme, and not Assad's. It's a healthy bulwark against anti U.S. propaganda. And it's the old fashioned cold war way.
Louis Amsel
@Alexandre T. Ishii I think it's pretty clear that chemical weapons were used on the civilians, and the usual blame game ensues.
Whoever did it, the blood is on both parties
Hellokitty123
Surely an impartial, independent investigation of the site should take place before condemning anyone in the security council, rather than just rely on hearsay from the people who are fighting against the Syrian Government.
smithinjapan
'Asked if U.S.-Russia relations, which U.S. President Donald Trump said Wednesday “may be at an all-time low,” could inhibit negotiations between Japan and Russia toward concluding a long-delayed bilateral peace treaty, Suga said the relationship between Washington and Moscow has “no direct effect” on the matter.'
Children know politics better than Suga. If he thinks going against Russia will have no direct on negotiations, get ready for Russia to take more and get zero again from Japan, and Japan just bend over and take it (but say it's "regrettable").
Fred Wallace
Ha! So israel can FINALLY be held accountable for its apartheid level treatment of people? When pigs fly mate!!
M3M3M3
You can watch today's proceedings in the security council here:
https://youtu.be/eZkg4XF-tjM
For a good insight into what the problem was, see the Ethiopian ambassador at 1:11:00.
To provide some context, all countries including Russia claim to want an independent investigation. The US insisted on inserting text into the draft resolution that would condemn the use of chemical attacks. This was considered controversial for two reason. First, whether it was a chemical attack is something the investigation itself would try to determine. Second, it was superfluous because other UN resolutions on Syria had already made a general condemnation of the use of chemical weapons.
The US has refused to remove or amend this controversial paragraph and tried to push it to a vote before their airstrike. Everyone knew it would end in a Russian veto and the US probably wanted this as justification for their unilateral strike. Unfortunately, the E10 members presented a compromise draft just a few hours before the US airstrike which derailed the US putting it to a vote. Nikki Haley was reported to be angry at the closed door session where this was presented. The airstrike obviously went ahead anyway, and the veto on the poison pill resolution had to wait until today.
My personal view is that the US is marching us to war, again. On pretences that may turn out not to be entirely false, but certainly haven't been confirmed in any independent investigation. If the US is determined to oust Assad unilaterally regardless of what any investigation says, simply because he is a bad guy, then go ahead and do it. But don't make a mockery of the security council by playing politics or pretend that an investigation is impossible because of the veto or that the security council has failed to do its job. We might have had an investigation if the resolution was drafted in good faith and simply called for an investigation with nothing else shoehorned into it.
Nessie
I guess that means it's up to you, Japan! Japan? You there...?
M3M3M3
@Joeintokyo
To be clear, I don't agree with it either. I just think if they are going to act unilaterally without the approval of the UN, then they should be upfront and honest about it. Not hide behind a failure in the security council that they themselves have engineered. The ambassador from Bolivia (who also voted against) explained what a waste of time it was to put forward a resolution that everyone knew would be vetoed and not even accept the input of the non-permanent members. His comments start at 1:17:32 in the link I posted above. I agree with what he says.
sassarma
The concept of veto is against the spirit of democracy. Unless veto is thrown out of UN, no real peace would dawn on earth. It is shame that they are not able to fight together against terror, Terrorism and terrorists. China for its own interests block naming of terrorists and support Pakistan. But China wants peaceful border. It threatens even Japan. The super powers cannot bully other countries. The UN is paralysed by super power veto
presto345
Russia has painted itself firmly into the corner that supports terrorism and dictators that have no respect whatever for human rights, putting itself on exactly the same line as those terrorists and dictators. It should be clear that it is time the veto right for international bullies must be revoked. I am convinced the Russians are a great people but unfortunately led by treacherous thugs who are fiercely persistent in denying their crimes and their voices becoming louder in proportion to actions they accuse other nations of.
toshiko
JSDF stayed for 5 years to help buildings, streets and whatever with American volunteers and solders despite of blamed that they tortured them for 20 years by its white color workers. Finally Inca decided to pull out because she is not going to be blamed for time JSDF was not there. This Trump attack, it was quick. Did Americans have time to get out? Hope Inca pulled out all JSDF members in time.
Aly Rustom
Because I'm not speaking pro Puten language, which is what you want to hear. As zichi and many military analysts and people around the world have repeatedly said the rebels do not have any fire power from the sky. These weapons were detonated in the sky. That means if it's not the Syrian government it's the Russian government take your pick they're both culpable as far as I'm concerned
ThePBot
Was the UN even supposed to be democratic to begin with?
Aly Rustom
No. Just until the dissolution of the United Nations like the league of Nations before it. No pigs need to fly for you mate
Pbot-that's actually quite a good point
Speed
As long as Russia and China have permanent seats, the UN will never unanimously vote on anything. The UN is impotent and needs to be completely revamped.
Green.Jun
US accused Sadam as having mass destruction weapon and end of the day, he did not have it. So we should not trust US and other countries always. But in this time, there seems evidence of using chemical weapon in Syria but it is not clear that who used it. We are always not sure who did for what
pacint
And the US never used their to benefit Israel, etc
Drop the veto for all members and who check deserves a seat, current permanent seats and rights were assigned after WWII.
Aly Rustom
Absolutely zichi. Right on the money.
One more thing for Joeintokyo: You quoted Theodore Postol-
Well lets take a look at Mr Postol.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Postol
So who is this Maram Susli? Well, lets take a look.
And Finally, Here is a quote by this girl who keeps company with professor Postol:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/17/the-kardashian-look-a-like-trolling-for-assad.html
There's more on this girl. Just read up on the link.
Sorry Joeintokyo, but if your source is Professor Postol you need to come up with more credible sources. The company he keeps is just plain awful.
Fred Wallace
And yet, meals on wheels is becoming something of a relic. With such misplaced priorities, how can anyone expect merica to honestly deal with the quagmire in syria? Money talks at the end of the day!!
theFu
Aly - should it be 1 country, 1 vote? Or should the voting be based on GDP or population? Or for the security council votes, how many troops deployed in the aid of UN missions or how much money provided to those missions?
Aly Rustom
Whichever is OK. I would go for a points system in which 1 million people equals one point if you have less than 1 million people that you get half a point to a quarter of a point depending on your country's population. Or we can just have one point for one country. Whichever is fine. My main point is that we need to get rid of the Veto and the security council in general.
Strangerland
That's a difficult one. If you go by population, China and India pretty much always win. But if you go by one-point one-country, you end up with a situation like the electoral college in the US.
Speed
The electoral college is based on population. The bigger the population, the more electoral seats the state has. Your statement here is converse to that.
Strangerland
Kind of. But it's not a direct proportion, some states with tiny populations have a disproportionate number of electoral college votes.
So you're right in that I'm partly wrong, but the point I was trying to make was that a one-country-one-vote system would give some small countries a disproportionately large say.
theFu
The electoral college is designed to prevent concentrated populations from overruling large areas with fewer people. It is meant to include places where the world moves a little slower in the decisions for a country - a wait and see - method. There is good and bad about it. Just depends on where you happen to live whether you see sharing the power as a good thing or a bad thing.
As a reminder:
Bolivia (2018) Egypt (2017) Ethiopia (2018) Italy (2018) Japan (2017) Kazakhstan (2018) Senegal (2017) Sweden (2018) Ukraine (2017) Uruguay (2017)https://www.un.org/en/sc/members/
I do notice that everyone ignored the "who's paying" suggestions. There's the funding for the UN. Japan and China are very high. Russia is not, relatively speaking. https://factly.in/united-nations-budget-contributions-by-member-countries/ Because of the data source, they show India's contribution as compared to other BRIC countries.
Must admit, I didn't expect to see the top-10 list as it was. It was helpful to see.