world

Russia and China again veto Syria resolution at U.N.

32 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2012 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

32 Comments
Login to comment

"The 11-2 vote"

Majority rules! Baby Assad is history! No wait, this was just a Useless Nations vote, the two vetoes rule!

2 ( +2 / -0 )

my question is if they don't like what is offered, why can't russia and china so something constructive and offer up with a plan that they and other nations can accept instead just vetoing everything.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

It should be called the UNN. (The Useless United Nations).

0 ( +2 / -2 )

It should be called the UNN. (The Useless United Nations).

Lol! Fail.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

UNN is exactly what it is. Japan and the USA are the major contributors to a group of nations that give a slap on the face to these countries rather than a thank you. Why does Russia veto? If Assad and Syria fall, Russia loses its only warm water port in the Med as well one of its biggest buyers of arms. If the UNN wanted to do something important, it would be asking what will happen to the chemical weapons Assad has. They probably are from his cousin Saddam Hussein who moved them just before George II illegally declared war.. China also has an economic loss in Syria, but a bigger loss the masses in NK follow the example.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Why is anybody surprised. Russia and China have clearly said that foreign intervention in Syrian domestic affairs is not an option.

They keep trying these votes every two weeks and it's the exact same outcome each time. Isn't the definition of insanity trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

It's noteworthy that Pakistan and South Africa abstained this time. They seem to be changing their stance.

Can anybody explain why China is vetoing intervention?

The resolution is clearly biased. It basically demands that the Syrian army and police stand down and allow the rebels to run rampant with AK47s in hand.

Perhaps if Mr. Annan is so disappointed he should redraft the resolution and ask the rebels to stand down as well. Peace means that both sides must stop shooting, not just one.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

It seems that the UN would never make any strong resolutions because UN Council members are not good, therefore they would never be able to unite about it. The UN Council member should be changed or added more countries.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

noriyosan73, did you catch Stranger_in_a_Strange_Land's comment? It should be UUN not UNN. LOL! I agree with your comments. There is a lot of good that the UN does, but they have a very restrictive voting policy. I think they should change it, so that if a country is not interested in participating in a resolution, they can be excluded from it. So, in this case, the 11 nations on the security council that voted yes, should go ahead with increasing the pressure on President Bashar Assad’s government, and the 2 nations that voted against it, should stand at the sidelines and not do anything.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It hate this BS too, but it's always about protecting their business allies...

If not, why hasn't the US sought sanctions against the human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia???

Money and business dictate how nations vote of UN resolutions...

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

could eventually allow the use of force to end the conflict, and threaten non-military sanctions against the Syrian regime

I'm much confused. So does the resolution allow non-military sanctions AND use of force? Any experts on the issue? Enlightenment, please!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is pure self-preservation on the part of Russia and China. A UN assembly vote authorizing military action against a government that is violently putting down an uprising clearly sets a precedent that outside entities can intervene on thuggish, brutish governments. Russia and China have feared this scenario for years. You can count on nothing but resistance from these two governments in regards to everything involving Syria.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@samwatters A far worse precedent already set is the UUN being OK with a sovereign nation being invaded and exploited without any repercussions to the aggressor. Heaven forbid if you are in a country that has resources they want.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is the worst we had in years.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

"A far worse precedent already set is the UUN being OK with a sovereign nation being invaded and exploited without any repercussions to the aggressor. Heaven forbid if you are in a country that has resources they want."

@Starke. I agree with you 100% but that's not the topic of this story, is it?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Because both China and Russia were having higher morale standard than any other countries in the UNSC, their veto was essential to stop further bloodshed in middleeast! The plot of overthrown Assad was a conspiracy to dominate the stragetic location and the attack on Iran that will terminate oil supply to the world by a few oil companies! And of course the Saudis Wannabes want their ideologies to stem on others' soil!

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

gainst a government that is violently putting down an uprising clearly sets a precedent that outside entities can intervene on thuggish, brutish governments.

In reference to a thuggish government violently putting down an uprising are you referring to the USA and they way riot squads stomped down on peaceful OWS protestors?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

"uprising are you referring to the USA and they way riot squads stomped down on peaceful OWS protestors?"

Indeed, we all remember the shelling of Wall Street. The tanks and the helicopters and the snipers. The bodies of innocent families piled-up, the dead journalists trying to get the news out.....and then as the Obama regime gradually lost control, the massacres at Starbucks and MacDonalds.

But it all turned out to be a lie, as the OWS protesters were actually Touraeg mercenaries, slipping over the Mexican border every night to ferment violence in the USA.

And let's not forget. This almost nearly happened in Canada as well.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I can understand a country wanting to hold onto it's assets but the writing is on the wall. Assad can't even hold his own capitol, several ranking individuals have defected, and his inner circle has been targeted. This all started when he decided to use artillery and troops to crush a democracy movement in an attempt to prevent what has happened in other middle eastern and north african nations from happening to him but it backfired on a massive scale.

Assad will lose, thanks to Russian and China the path will be long and bloody but he'll lose all the same.

Perhaps if Mr. Annan is so disappointed he should redraft the resolution and ask the rebels to stand down as well. Peace means that both sides must stop shooting, not just one.

I believe that's what the ceasefire agreement was for. Which the Syrian government violated almost immediatly and then preceeded to further violate with the use of heavy weapons and assault helicopters in populated areas.

their veto was essential to stop further bloodshed in middleeast!

Last I checked there's still bloodshed...so how's that working out?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I believe that's what the ceasefire agreement was for

The Ceasefire agreement was openly disregarded by the rebels, that was even reported by Western Media.

Moreover, since the rebels are a ragtag group of often competing interests with no chain of command there's no way to ask or demand that they follow the ceasefire.

I don't think suicide bombers put much credence in ceasefire agreements anyways. The Syrians aren't fighting an organized uniform resistance movement. They're fighting extremists and mercenaries who totally disregard UN resolutions and the Geneva convention, and basic morality for that matter.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

" They're fighting extremists and mercenaries who totally disregard UN resolutions and the Geneva convention"

Yes, they seem to following Assad's example in that department.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@fds why can't we all just get along? because there's nothing to gain and something to lose for them. That's a bit how reality works mostly. @crazyjoe yea, looks like it did really turn into a bunch of overpaid people in expensive suits and ties paid for with taxmoney of the growing unemployed population in the west. They act very enlightened and use real big words but when push comes to shove they are toothless and powerless. I think they just like to hear themselves talk.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

One of the point that all of you guys has forgotton to see the situation of Syria and Iran. Iran is an oil producer who refused to use US dollars as trading currency when selling oil! The Iranians trade with all kind of monetary including gold,Chinese yuan, Russian rubbles etc. except US dollars! The US dollars was the cornerstone of world oil trading, that was known as the 'petro dollars' ! the petro dollars was a key grip of US dominates the world's economy! The syrian is an ally of Iran and they are moving at the same direction like Iran to drop US dollars as trading currency thats why they were marked to regime chamge! just nlike Libya under col. Gaddaniff demanding to use gold as trading currency that lead to his demise! You wont see regieme change over North Korea, a much more dangerous country than Iran and Syria because North Korea has no oil! Syria was scapegoated was this cause instead of brutality from the Assad regieme!

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Because both China and Russia were having higher morale standard than any other countries in the UNSC, their veto was essential to stop further bloodshed in middleeast!

just-a-buggy -- hogwash. These are two immoral governments who owe their existence principly through being military might and are totalitarian states, and they are going to support Assad to the end, because he is the last bastion of tat kindof state in the Middle East. Or have you the "Arab Spring"? There is nothing moral about that. Not whe they are sellig arms to Assad so he can kill mor of his own citizens. And Iran, like Syria, is among their last friends there.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Why not just offer Syria a $20 billion line of credit?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Ceasefire agreement was openly disregarded by the rebels, that was even reported by Western Media.

Which totally justify's the use of government heavy weapons on populated areas. Yeah, that makes sense.

I don't think suicide bombers put much credence in ceasefire agreements anyways. The Syrians aren't fighting an organized uniform resistance movement.

You're right, it is unorganized. Thats what happens when you open fire on what started as peaceful demonstrations, they fall apart and then they start getting madder and madder until it goes from a democracy movement to a full fledged civil war. The Syrian government thought they could stop a peaceful uprising, and they did, it sure isn't peaceful anymore.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Maybe UNN is also right. United Nations Never. LOL. OWS was full of spoiled, lazy and useless people. They fortunately live in a country where they can openly protest. Try that in Syria, NK, China or Iran. The only people allowed to NOT work during the day to attend protest are those who support the government or die.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If people wanted to do something about Syria, then they would have done it a long time ago already. Russia and China actually offer good excuse for them to do nothing real - they just have to make same resolution again and again, so it would be vetoed by Russia/China. Now they can say - well we cannot do anything because of bad bad Russian veto. They know exactly what changes to resolutions need to be made to pass - Russia told them many times already - just call for both powers to stop(and do not command Assad to step down, as it would be saying him to commit suicide, just formulate it little more diplomatic).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ancalagonzz zJul. 21, 2012 - 05:03AM JST. Russia and China actually offer good excuse for them to do nothing real - they just have to make same resolution again and again, so it would be vetoed by Russia/China. Now they can say - well we cannot do anything because of bad bad Russian veto.

Why exactly do we expect Russia to act differently than it has on Syria? Can we not see that Syria is a ally of Russia for over 40 years? For decades a strong ruler has governed both countries, effectively denying citizens a say so in their government. If Russia helps fix this in Syria, it might have to fix it next at home. Why would Putin want to do that at when Syria has become a diversion at home where he needs to play up Russia's strength in the world? Better to stick with the old script and keep on raiding the offices of political opponents or drumming up bogus charges against businessmen. Forget Russia then. When the ground begins to shake below your feet, you stick with your friends.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

it basically comes down to Putin, Assad, and the handful of leaders in Chna making sure their jobs are safe.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

to herefornow

These are two immoral governments

And what about US&UK governments ? They have attacked Serbia Iraq Libya ? And they have killed hudge amount of inhabitants

who owe their existence principly through being military might and are totalitarian states,

One more time WHO have attacked Iraq ? Russia ? China ?

and they are going to support Assad to the end, because he is the last bastion of tat kindof state in the Middle East

And freedom - loving US&UK going to support al Qaeda.....

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

to TheQuestion

Which totally justify's the use of government heavy weapons on populated areas. Yeah, that makes sense.

US army also use heavy weapons on populatedd areas - in neighbouring Iraq .... any justifications ?

Thats what happens when you open fire on what started as peaceful demonstrations, they fall apart and then they start getting madder and madder until it goes from a democracy movement to a full fledged civil war.

Very very quick ! from peaceful demonstrations to well equiped terrorists ...

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@sfjp330 Russia doesnt have to act differently. They would vote for the resolution if the text is right - because resolution itself doesnt mean anything. Resolution isnt going to make war stop. Its just words. To archive anything somebody needs to act. Western countries arent going to go there militarily and financial sanctions coulndt bother Assad less atm, he is fighting to survive. Russia isnt going to protect him militarily neither. So saying that it protects him is just an excuse for not doing anything yourself.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites