Bloomberg: Putin Clings to Mideast Sway in UN Snub of Assad Ouster Call
Henry Meyer
Russia won’t back the U.S. and its Arab allies in a United Nations resolution to oust Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad as it seeks to defend its most important lever in the Middle East, said researchers from Moscow to London.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will lead a diplomatic push in the UN Security Council today to sanction Syria, which hosts Russia’s only military base outside the former Soviet Union and is a buyer of Russian weapons. Russia is willing to use its Security Council veto to block the resolution, which calls on Assad to transfer powers to his deputy, a senior foreign ministry official said today.
More than 5,000 people have been killed in the Syrian uprising, according to the UN. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin wants to return to the presidency in March elections and last week accused the U.S. of needing “vassals” rather than allies. He opposed President Dmitry Medvedev’s decision to refrain from vetoing the UN resolution that paved the way for military action in Libya.
“The Russians aren’t likely to back down, even if it’s going to get very uncomfortable for them to continue backing Syria,” said Thomas Gomart, director of the Russian Center at the French Institute of Foreign Relation in Paris. “If they surrender on this issue, their whole parade in the Middle East would crumble.”
‘Not a Friend’
Failure to secure UN approval for the departure of Assad may bolster his regime, prolonging a standoff as the U.S. and Europe step up sanctions to pressure Syrian ally Iran to give up its suspected nuclear weapons program.
Russia argues that the UN-sanctioned bombing of Libya by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was abused to bring about regime change and that the U.S. and western European governments are trying to repeat that scenario in Syria.
“We are not a friend, we are not an ally of President Assad,” Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said in an interview with Australian Broadcasting Corp. television today in Sydney. “We never said President Assad remaining in power is the solution to the crisis. What we did say is it is up to the Syrians themselves to decide how to run the country.”
The West is putting pressure on Syria because the country refuses to break off its alliance with Iran and not for repressing the opposition, Russian Security Council head Nikolai Patrushev said Jan. 12.
‘Heightened Instability’
“Russia appears concerned about heightened instability in the area at large, the prospect of further empowering Islamists, and the West’s typically cavalier attempts to push its agenda under the guise of noble moral values,” Peter Harling, director for Egypt, Syria and Lebanon at the Brussels-based International Crisis Group, said in e-mailed comments on Jan. 29.
Utterly Wrong: U.S. Will Veto The UN Resolution Condemning Settlements
Anyone who thought that the United States has learned anything from the various revolutions upturning the Arab world has another think coming. We didn’t.
On Thursday, as the Egyptian revolution was culminating with the collapse of the Mubarak regime, the Obama administration announced that it intends to veto a United Nations Security Council resolution, sponsored by 122 nations, condemning Israeli settlement expansion.
This is from AFP’s report on what Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg told the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
“We have made very clear that we do not think the Security Council is the right place to engage on these issues,” Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg told the House of Representatives’ Foreign Affairs Committee.
“We have had some success, at least for the moment, in not having that arise there. And we will continue to employ the tools that we have to make sure that continues to not happen,” said Steinberg.
There is so much wrong with Steinberg’s statement that it is hard to know where to start.
First is the obvious. Opposition to Israeli settlements is perhaps the only issue on which the entire Arab and Muslim world is united. Iraqis and Afghanis, Syrians and Egyptians, Indonesians and Pakistanis don’t agree on much, but they do agree on that. They also agree that the U.S. policy on settlements demonstrates flagrant disregard for human rights in the Muslim world (at least when Israel is the human rights violator).
Accordingly, a U.S. decision to support the condemnation of settlements would send a clear message to the Arab and Muslim world that we understand what is happening in the Middle East and that we share at least some of its peoples’ concerns.
Assad, the leader of Syria has spent the night shelling a major Syrian city leaving roughly 237 dead, and 60 missing. All unconfirmed numbers which could increase as more bodies are pulled from the rubble
The UN drafted a resolution asking for Assad to step down.
It was voted upon by the Security Council today.
13 voted in favour with no abstentions. Russia and China vetoed it, crushing the draft.
Why?
Russia has a military base in Syria and also makes billions of dollars in the arms trade there.
Russia would have agreed to the draft if the wording had been changed, so that it appeared less like the Security Council would be taking sides in an impending civil war, and that the UN encouraged a regime change. Yet the word change would not obtain the desired results of Assad removing himself as leader. Thus the stalemate.
Russia is acting in self interest clearly, and they would also argue in “self preservation”.
And by realist principles, I would agree. But as a liberal institutionalist, I know that there is another way. As a human being, THERE IS ANOTHER WAY.
So we must ask ourselves, is this the cost of sovereignty? Is this the price that we must pay, these hundreds of lives who were fighting for rights that you and I take for granted everyday?
This is the problem with these institutions. There must be a better way to get things done and to get them done NOW so that we don’t need to grieve these innocent lives, with the full knowledge that we may have been able to save them.
But when five often opposing core countries have veto powers, what can we do? The powerlessness of it all makes me shake and want to puke.
This is why I do what I do. This is why I study what I study, so that when I get out of here I WILL do something to change all of this.
Russia and China veto UN resolution on Syria
guardian.co.uk
an estimated 3,000 syrian civilians have been killed by the syrian government since these two dumbasses vetoed the last UN resolution on syria back in october. over 200 were killed just yesterday. many, many more have been injured and tortured and forced to suffer at the hands of their government. why is russia so insistent on being faithful to syria? oil probably is not the answer. perhaps it is trying to hold onto some of the power/ties it gained during its quest to attain unipolar superpower status during the cold war? i’m not sure, but the fact is that, since that era, russia has been and remains syria’s largest overseas arms supplier. sales to syria make up 10% of the revenue russia brings in from arms sales. and, it has reportedly continued arms shipments in the past few weeks, which probably directly enabled the government to murder 250+ syrians yesterday. and what the hell, china? well, i’m not surprised. i don’t think anyone was expecting much from you in the first place.
this was a pivotal moment in the human rights crisis in syria—some major [baby] steps could have been taken to end the violence and put assad in his place if the resolution passed. and even that wouldn’t have changed the fact that once again, action would have been taken after thousands were murdered. but nope, opportunity was once again crushed.
.what do we do now?
“THE SECRETARY-GENERAL REMARKS TO THE SECURITY COUNCIL ON LIBYA New York, 26 February 2011 Madame President, Distinguished Members of the Council, Excellencies, Let me express my appreciation to the Security Council for its work today. I welcome the resolution you have just adopted unanimously. While it cannot, by itself, end the violence and the repression, it is a vital step, a clear expression of the will of a united community of nations. The actions taken by the regime in Libya are clear cut violations of all norms governing international behaviour and serious transgressions of international human rights and humanitarian law. They are unacceptable. It is of great importance that the Council in response has reached the consensus and is determined to uphold its responsibilities for the maintenance of international peace and security. When I addressed this Council yesterday, I noted that fundamental issues of peace and stability are at stake across the Arab world, and that our collective challenge is how to provide real protection and halt the ongoing violence. I urged you to consider all options for action. You have now done so, in a wide-ranging resolution. The text sends a strong message that gross violations of basic human rights will not be tolerated, and that those responsible for grave crimes will be held accountable. I hope the message is heard, and heeded, by the regime in Libya. I hope it will also bring hope and relief to those still at risk. The sanctions you have imposed are a necessary step to speed the transition to a new system of governance that will have the consent and participation of the people. For my part, I will continue to monitor the situation closely and remain in close touch with world and regional leaders to ensure their support for swift and concrete international action. I would like to take this opportunity to express my solidarity with the people of Libya as they brave the bloodshed and as they cope with possible shortages of food and medical supplies and other humanitarian impacts. As the Libyan people take their destiny into their hands, as is their right, I hope that the new future for which they yearn, peaceful, prosperous and democratic, will soon be theirs. Excellencies, I commend the Security Council for its decisive action today. In the days ahead, we will look for similarly decisive steps from the UN General Assembly and the international community as a whole. Today’s measures are tough. In the coming days, if needed even bolder action may become necessary. Thank you. ”
—United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s remarks to the Security Council on LibyaGermany takes up chairmanship of the UN Security Council
dw-world.deGermany has taken over the rotating chairmanship of the UN Security Council. After abstaining from the March vote on military action in Libya, Berlin denies the abstention has weakened Germany’s position in the UN.
Syria: the Rule of Law vs. the Rule of Power in the Security Councilcil?
Since early 2011, Syria has been rocked by pro-democracy protests engendered by domestic problems and the toppling of autocratic leaders in Tunisia and Egypt. The Syrian government’s response to these protests has been violent. European countries and the US have advocated for a UN Security Council resolution condemning Syria’s human rights violations. However, Brazil, India and South Africa (3 of the 10 Elected Members) have threatened to vote against any such resolution. The UK, France and the US (3 of the Council’s 5 permanent members, often referred to as “the P3”) have condemned the emergent powers for acting in their own self-interest. Such a claim, however, ignores the P3’s own biased use of international law as a framework to further geo-strategic interests.
Security Council removing mandate for Libya military action
news.blogs.cnn.comThe U.N. Security Council adopted a resolution Thursday removing its mandate for military intervention, effectively ending the NATO mission in Libya, as of October 31.
Last week, senior NATO officials agreed to a preliminary end date of October 31 for the alliance’s seven-month Libya mission.
The Security Council in March passed a resolution mandating the protection of Libya’s civilian population as military forces loyal to Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi advanced on a rebel stronghold in eastern Libya. Within days of the Security Council’s decision, NATO forces were engaged in action by air and sea.
The operation relied on three main prongs - implementing a no-fly zone, enforcing an arms embargo and taking action to protect civilians and civilian areas under threat of attack.
Since March 31, some 9,634 strike sorties, where targets are identified or hit, are among 26,000 sorties to have been conducted, NATO said Friday.
Libyan situation necessitates special session on response
- YES the UN Security Council will meet on Gaddafi, Libya source
