Russia, China use double veto to block UN draft on Syria

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
The rebellion clearly has sectarian connotations to it. "Islamists" (read fundoos) are salivating at the prospect of turning Syria into a Wahabi like fundamentalist state. The "cause" of democracy is now in the shadow. Dangerous signs and times.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,799
Likes
48,278
Country flag
Why India backed Syria vote | Firstpost

Why India backed Syria vote

The veto by Russia and China of a resolution in the UN Security Council that called upon Syrian President Bashar Assad to step down in the face of the persisting movement against his regime is not based on an objective assessment of the ground situation in Syria.

Rather, it is based on subjective apprehensions of the implications for the present leaderships in Russia and China in the event that street movements in the Arab countries succeed with external support.

The action of the Western powers in pressing for a vote on the resolution, which enjoyed the expected support of the Arab League and the surprise support of India and Pakistan, despite the near-certainty of a Russian-Chinese veto was motivated by two factors.

India did well in coming to terms with the reality and in supporting the resolution. It keeps India on the side of the Syrian people fighting against a repressive regime. AP
The first factor was the need to keep the anti-Assad movement in Syria alive despite the brutal suppression by the regime by conveying to it a message of international solidarity.

The second factor was the desire to convey a message of hope to dissident elements in Russia who oppose Vladimir Putin and the dissident elements in China who oppose the Communist Party of China that they too could one day benefit from similar international solidarity if they kept their movements against the governments in Moscow and Beijing alive.

The domestic situation in Russia is showing signs of turbulence in the face of allegations that call into question the fairness and legality of the recent elections to the Parliament. In China, Tibetan and Uighur opposition to the policies of the Chinese government has been gathering strength and assuming a violent form. Moreover, economic difficulties are leading to instances of defiance of governmental and party authority even from the majority Han elements in the coastal areas.

It would be premature to talk of a united anti-regime movement in Russia and China, but there are definitely reports of the emergence of multiple pockets of dissidence against both the regimes. It is important for the West to ensure that these dissident pockets and scattered protest movements do not lose hope in the face of the suppression by the regimes.

The West views the ground situation in Syria from the immediate perspective of bringing into power a new regime without a messy military intervention as one saw in Iraq and Libya and from the medium and long-term perspective of encouraging the growth of dissidence in Russia and China.

The determined veto of Russia and China on Syria is an indication of their fear that regime change through international solidarity with domestic protest movements could one day endanger their own regimes.

The problem is that the Assad regime cannot be saved. It is only a question of time before it falls due to the protest movement.The isolation of Russia and China and the widespread criticism of their veto would convey oxygen to the dissident movements in Russia and China too.

India did well in coming to terms with the reality and in supporting the resolution. It keeps India on the side of the Syrian people fighting against a repressive regime. So long as external military intervention is not involved, there is no reason why India should remain neutral.

Pakistan's support for the resolution despite Chinese opposition to it is significant. It is a welcome initiative by the civilian government in Islamabad not to put its eggs in the Chinese basket in the face of the popular anti-regime movements across the region.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
Interestingly, India changed sides and voted in favor of this resolution.
India had worked to get previous resolutions trashed, specially during its month old presidency over UNSC last year.
However, despite repeated calls the Syrian government has proven deaf to the international voices including the Indian one.
With continued violence by the State, it was increasingly difficult to shield the current regime against resolutions.


Regards,
Virendra
This is to show solidarity with the mainly Sunni Arab world, especially since India has decided to continue oil trade with Shia Iran. A balancing act, that also shows that India will not always go against the West, especially after India abstained on Libya.
 

asianobserve

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
12,846
Likes
8,556
Country flag
Let alone them...even the west the "bearers of freedom, democracy and human rights" didn't utter a single word when saudi army landed in bahrain and smashed the civilian protestors.

All of this is geopolitics and nothing to do with democracy.

Nobody is toeing anybody's line. It's what you call strategic convergence. I see our national interest, our neighbors and the US largely in convergence, and even China if they only stop rocking our ASEAN boat. We are mindful of the fact that we are reaping the most benefits under the current geopolitical setup, the largely stabilising pax Americana on one hand and the economically stimulating march of China on the other hand. I wouldn't want to shake that up. Besides, we don't have delusions of grandeur... Haven't you noticed that the ASEAN region is one region where member countries don't try to dominate each other? We are equals in our region and almost singularly fixed on one very important pursuit, uplifting the lives of our people. Unlike you, we don't see ourselves (or to be more accurate, we don't care) as future "masters" of our region on par or potentially more powerful than the US in the future...
 

ejazr

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
4,523
Likes
1,388
One has to also see the numbers killed by the Yemenis, Gaddafi, Mubarak, and a host of other Sunni leaders to include the Sudan satraps.
Well Saleh (of Yemen), Gaddafi and Mubarak all of them eventually had to step down amid widspread criticism. None of them hold any power in their respective countries.

I think the stomach to bear continued atrocites by Arab dictators is at an end, and just like Mubarak Gaddfi and Saleh had to step down under popular uprisings, other dictators who are unable to respond or bribe their people will have to do the same.
 

ejazr

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
4,523
Likes
1,388
The Syria questions is tough. Unlike Libya, the Syrian regime has been a very close friend of the Indians. It was one of the founders of the secular Arab nationalist movements along with Egypt and Iraq all of whom had close ties with India until the Cold war took the turn for the worse. Maybe an abstention would have been the best course of action but then it has also to balance its relationship with US/Israel/GCC countries as well as popular Western and Arab public opinion. Its a tought spot and Syria doesn't have any strategic value like Iran does either for India.

Raja Mohan has an interesting article on India's decision to side with the FOR vote.

In Middle East power tussle, India tilts towards Arabs - Indian Express
In the end, India had to jump off the Middle East fence. It came down on Saturday night at the United Nations Security Council debate on Syria by casting its lot with the Gulf Arab regimes, where India's national interests are heavily concentrated.

After months of ambivalence about the escalating violence in Syria and a prolonged effort to appear even handed between Bashar al Assad regime and the opposition to it, India on Saturday voted for United Nations Security Council resolution that backed on Arab League plan for political change in Damascus.

By any measure of India's interests, Delhi could not have voted against a resolution that was sponsored by all six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council — Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

As a collective the GCC is host to more than 5 million Indian workers, a major source of hard currency remittances, the principal provider of oil and an important destination for India's exports. Among the other Arab and Muslim states sponsoring the resolution were Libya, Morocco, Jordan and Turkey. India could have gone against this formidable coalition in the Middle East only at great cost to itself.

While India was with the majority of 13 in the Council, the double veto by Russia and China prevented the Council from approving the resolution.

India rarely finds itself in the multilateral forums on the Western side against its Eastern partners, Moscow and Beijing. Last March, India voted with Russia and China in opposing a UNSC resolution authorising the use of force against Libya's Gaddafi regime.

The inevitable regime change did happen in Libya, and India found itself isolated as China quickly adapted to the changed situation. Having learnt a lesson, India was determined not to repeat the mistake again. To be sure, India had the option of staying on the fence, by abstaining on the UNSC resolution on Syria. India has often resorted to abstention on the many difficult issues in the Middle East that had to contend with in its return to the Security Council after a gap of nearly two decades.

This time though India judged that tilting to one side was better than sitting on the fence. That judgement was rooted in Delhi's decision to look beyond the traditional framing of the issues in terms of defending 'third world sovereignty' against 'Western intervention'.

India's vote on Saturday night does not mean Delhi has accepted the Western discourse on Syria as supporting human rights and democracy against an oppressive regime.

Syria today is not about a morality play, either the Eastern or Western kind. It is about rapidly evolving power play in a region of vital importance to India.

For Delhi, Libya was a painful reminder last year that the Middle East has moved beyond the old slogans. The political legitimacy for the Western intervention in Libya did not come from the UNSC but the Arab League, which backed the ouster of the Gaddafi regime.

India, which was trapped in an outdated discourse in dealing with the Libyan crisis, has now adapted to the new circumstances in Syria. If the Arab League saw Gaddafi as a mere nuisance, it views for the Arab League, it now views Assad with absolute hostility.

While even the United States and Israel have often sought to engage the Assad regime in search of a peace deal in the Middle East, the contradiction between the leading Arab states, especially those in the Gulf, and Syria, the principal ally of Iran, has become irreconcilable. In the raw power struggle unfolding between the Sunni Arab states and Iran, Syria is the battleground. Delhi had to take sides sooner than later. Once that moment had arrived, tilting towards the Arab mainstream presented itself as the only viable alternative.

With Russia and China blocking the resolution on Syria, great power rivalry has become an added dimension to the regional power play in the Middle East. The stage is now set for a prolonged confrontation between the Syrian government, emboldened by the Russian and Chinese support, and the opposition forces backed by the Arab League.

As more blood flows in Syria and the conflict acquires a regional and global dimension, Indian diplomacy in the Middle East has its tasks cut out. Protecting India's interests in the Middle East amidst the current turbulence there and insulating the subcontinent from it will demand much skill from Delhi.

The writer is a senior fellow at the Centre for Policy Research, Delh
 

Galaxy

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
7,086
Likes
3,934
Country flag
Another bad decision by India. Assad is pro-India and we should have supported him.

What we have to do with Sunni-Shia (Alawite) tussle ?

Yes, Assad is on killing spree, But it's going on for last 45 years. There are many such countries in Middle-east where such things are happening or happened. We have to see our own strategic interest. If we did to make Arab world happy, Then also it's mistake. Iran, Syria are more reliable than Wahhabi whose aim is to spread Islamic terrorism everywhere.

U.N. may change the regime and install democracy. But then Shias will be butchered merciless in civil war by 74% Sunnis led by Wahhabi. Like that happened in Iraq once U.S. came but sunni were thrown out from power and even country.
 
Last edited:

amoy

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Messages
5,982
Likes
1,849
Putting 3 pieces of news side by side :thumb:

Syrian patriarch says Christians feel betrayed by West « Persecution News


Lavrov visiting Syria
[

BEIRUT (AP) Thousands of Syrians waving Russian flags cheered Russia's foreign minister as he arrived in Damascus Tuesday for talks with embattled President Bashar Assad on the country's escalating violence.

Sergey Lavrov's visit comes days after Syrian allies Russia and China vetoed a Western- and Arab-backed resolution at the United Nations that would have condemned the Assad regime's crackdown on dissent and calling on him to transfer some of his powers to his deputy. The Syrian government had rejected the Arab plan as intervention in Syria's internal affairs.

(omitted)

"I am here to thank Russia for its stand in the face of the world conspiracy against Syria," said Manya Abbad, 45, as she waited for Lavrov's convoy Tuesday. "I wish the Arabs adopted similar stances."
Bahrain police break up opposition protest
Manama: Anti-government protesters clashed with Bahraini police in Manama on Thursday, a rare protest in the capital as majority Shi'ite Muslims try to sustain pressure for more reforms ahead of the February 14 anniversary of a pro-democracy uprising.

Bahrain, led by the Sunni Muslim Al Khalifa family, has been in turmoil since an Arab Spring protest movement that erupted last year followed by a government crackdown. Clashes have continued in districts populated by Shi'ites but have worsened in recent weeks as the anniversary approaches.

(omitted)
Sunni-ruled Gulf states like Saudi Arabia are uneasy that political reforms in Bahrain would not only raise questions about a lack of democracy in their own countries, but may also empower the Shi'ite majority in Bahrain and other Gulf states.

That may embolden non-Arab Shi'ite giant Iran across the Gulf from Bahrain, an issue of particular concern to the United States, whose Fifth Fleet is based in Manama.
 

amoy

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Messages
5,982
Likes
1,849
http://moroccoworldnews.com/2012/02...israel-fears-arms-transfer-to-hezbollah/26498

February 9, 2012

China said on Thursday that a Syrian opposition delegation had visited the country this week and met a vice foreign minister, the first contact reported by Beijingin the wake of its veto in the U.N. of a draft resolution on the country.

The delegation from the Syrian National Coordination Body for Democratic Change, lead by its deputy general coordinator Hassan Mana, made a four-day trip to China, leaving on Thursday,
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top