India Backs UN's Syria Resolution, Russia, China Veto It

[pmaitra]

^^

I am having a hard time believing that the Assad regime is doing nothing to placate the anger of the people.

 

[thakur_ritesh]

TR, you didnt get my point. I did not say we should back off where China is or not do business with dicatators. I have said we have to be hypocritical where are interests are served. Dictators in one place, democracy in another.

exactly the point i have in mind. oh man, i should have got that in the first place

^^

Yusuf,

You are pragmatic. This is fine. Just remember the slippery slope. If we support rogue regimes that ill treat their people, the people will know, and will hate us. This is what has happened in many countries whose rogue regimes were propped up by the US. Personally though, I'd still go with your being hypocritical approach. It makes sense.

mate,

india has not provided overt support as do countires like russia and china who then have to face the backlash.

it is being done in a very subtle manner with no grand gestures, and as such we always make statements on not going hard on the protesters, though i agree it happens a little too late in the day but still a fair deal.

 

[Yusuf]

^^

Yusuf,

You are pragmatic. This is fine. Just remember the slippery slope. If we support rogue regimes that ill treat their people, the people will know, and will hate us. This is what has happened in many countries whose rogue regimes were propped up by the US. Personally though, I'd still go with your being hypocritical approach. It makes sense.

We are already isnt it when we support the ME kingdoms? We just played with words about "encouraging" peace and call for better rights blah blah. But why do we mess up in other places? We have to have a policy in place about every region in the world that can serve our interests.

 

[Armand2REP]

^^

I am having a hard time believing that the Assad regime is doing nothing to placate the anger of the people.

He does, he kills the people. No people, no anger to placate.

 

[Yusuf]

mate,

india has not provided overt support as do countires like russia and china who then have to face the backlash.

it is being done in a very subtle manner with no grand gestures, and as such we always make statements on not going hard on the protesters, though i agree it happens a little too late in the day but still a fair deal.

As far as this vote goes, let us look at different perspectives.

1) PoV of the west: We did not back them. They will continue to say India does not support them when they need it and on the other hand we expect their support in other matters.

2) PoV of the Regime: We did not support them either and come out strongly against a resolution that would probably lead to the over throw of the regime.

3)PoV of the people in Syria: You did not vote for the resolution that could have given us our freedom from a tyrant.

Though at the outset, abstaining looks like an easy way out, but it does not help the image of a country claiming to be a rising "big" power. Big powers dont chose the easy way out but stand by what they believe in. They form a policy one way or the other. in the end we become like "chobi ka kutta na ghar ka na ghat ka".

 

[Yusuf]

And TR, Iran is a supporter of Syrian regime because a Shia is the ruler and they are an "asset" for Iran in propping the Hezbollah. The day Assad goes, Syria will not be useful for Iran.

 

[pmaitra]

He does, he kills the people. No people, no anger to placate.

I am not saying Assad is fault-less. If he was, people would not be protesting.

My concern is that NATO is selective about whom to protect and whom not. NATO did nothing in Bahrain, even when the protesters were unarmed, yet did everything for the armed rebels in Libya.

Every country and bloc has its own strategic interests. I don't mind if NATO says that they are strong and they can do whatsoever they please. I have a problem if they keep masquerading as protectors of democracy and civilians worldwide.

 

[thakur_ritesh]

As far as this vote goes, let us look at different perspectives.

1) PoV of the west: We did not back them. They will continue to say India does not support them when they need it and on the other hand we expect their support in other matters.

2) PoV of the Regime: We did not support them either and come out strongly against a resolution that would probably lead to the over throw of the regime.

3)PoV of the people in Syria: You did not vote for the resolution that could have given us our freedom from a tyrant.

Though at the outset, abstaining looks like an easy way out, but it does not help the image of a country claiming to be a rising "big" power. Big powers dont chose the easy way out but stand by what they believe in. They form a policy one way or the other. in the end we become like "chobi ka kutta na ghar ka na ghat ka".

Mate,

Diplomacy is an ongoing process, and diplomats are assigned the job to do the above stuff very articulately.

1. When we deal with iran, Myanmar the west gets offended but that doesn't mean we stop that. Message here could also be interpreted, and put across as one that we support the west but then we have interests in Syria and we cant antagonize those so we cant go full throttle and we never voted against them so we are not against the west anyway. Yes it will be a tough jog for indian ambassadors and their teams in the western capitals but that is precisely what they are paid for.
2. The vice-versa of the above will be put across. Two points further. One – we didn't let any such resolution pass when India was chairing the UNSC, that shows firm commitment towards the regime. Two - PM will visit iran, the gesture for both iran and Syria are grand there
3. People of Syria figure in when they take over the governance of that state, for them India has asked the regime to talk with the protesters and no heavy handedness to be used on them.

Yusuf, India is no big power for now. Lets get realistic. How many times would the chinese make all such grand gestures in the past, and imagine if they had not been in the UNSC as permanent member would they then have taken those stands in the past.

What India requires is a quiet rise, what we require is a strong economy, what we require is a strong regional armed forces which has safe guard our interests in the high seas for now. Now is not the time for showing the world where and what we stand for, its too early for us to be doing that. Let us for no concentrate on more immediate needs rather than try and be an international cop, and be regarded as a bully by some, we as such have many problems to look after internally.

 

[Yusuf]

With China on our tail, we will either have to show balls ourselves, or party those who have. We are not helping ourselves in staying passive.

 

[pmaitra]

^^

We are already doing that in South China Sea. India still has territory to cover before it becomes a global superpower. Right now, it even struggles to keep Sri Lanka in check while they parry with Pakistan. Let's be realistic mate!

 

[thakur_ritesh]

With China on our tail, we will either have to show balls ourselves, or party those who have. We are not helping ourselves in staying passive.

mate,

we cant be in a confrontational mode with the chinese everywhere.

we will have to talk trade with them and bring the the balance there.

we have converging interests in the WTO.

we have converging interests on the green house emission gases.

we need to take them head on in the SCS, and on the issue of pakistan, play vietnam against them. but everything has a place for it self. we cant club everything together and form a policy, it has to be issue based, and in that where exactly our interests stand.

 

[pmaitra]

Some videos on Russo-Chinese veto

Some videos on Russo-Chinese veto

<Some graphic content>

 

[Yusuf]

mate,

we cant be in a confrontational mode with the chinese everywhere.

we will have to talk trade with them and bring the the balance there.

we have converging interests in the WTO.

we have converging interests on the green house emission gases.

we need to take them head on in the SCS, and on the issue of pakistan, play vietnam against them. but everything has a place for it self. we cant club everything together and form a policy, it has to be issue based, and in that where exactly our interests stand.

We are not confronting China everywhere are we? Diplomatic cat and mouse is a given in any era of geo politics. We are trying to endure out interest. If we had voted against Syria, it would not be seen as confronting China.


Yes it has to be issue based approach no doubt. That's why i said adopt the hypocritical approach just like the west. Any big power is a hypocrite and does things that suits it. The US and Soviets do business, US and China are doing business but are still sworn enemies.

As they say in Gujarati, you have to be a "meetho chawal" (sweet rice) which means sweet talker.

PM, you and I both know that it's not because of lack of capability that we don't put SL and Pak in place but lack of political will.

 

[Ray]

India and allies shake UN power pillars

New York, Oct. 5: India, Brazil and South Africa (Ibsa), the world's emerging pole of Third World democracies, yesterday broke the vice-like grip of the big powers on the UN Security Council, even if temporarily.

The chain of events also prompted the first-ever walkout in the UN's history by a Council member — the United States of America — even as the West failed to get a hard line resolution on Syria passed by the 15-member body.......

India, Brazil and South Africa, along with Lebanon, abstained. India's permanent representative to the UN, Hardeep Singh Puri, regretted that the resolution, which died on the Council floor when it attracted a double veto from Russia and China, did not address a variety of New Delhi's concerns.

"It does not condemn the violence perpetrated by the Syrian Opposition. Nor does it place any responsibility on the Opposition to abjure violence and engage with the Syrian authorities for redressal of their grievances through a peaceful political process"¦. The resolution under the Council's consideration does not accommodate our concern about threat of sanctions," Puri told the Council in an explanation of India's vote.......

When India assumed presidency of the Security Council in August, Puri managed to reconcile differences within the Council for a while and in a show of unity issued a "presidential statement" which appeared to remove an imminent threat of war in Syria that the western powers were itching for.

Simultaneously, an Ibsa delegation which included Dilip Sinha, additional secretary for international organisations in the ministry of external affairs, visited Damascus and extracted a personal commitment from President Assad that he would initiate political reforms.......

The walkout by the US delegation was the first by any country in the history of the Security Council. During the early phases of the Cold War, the Soviet Union used to boycott Security Council proceedings to hide its isolation, but never walked out.

During the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, Kigali was on the Security Council, but it, too, never walked out. Like the Soviets, they simply stayed away from the Council when it discussed the genocide.

Rice could have exercised her right to reply to the Syrians instead of walking out, but some Council members were of the view that the US did not really have any answers to the charge that having vetoed resolutions on Israel, Washington was hardly in a position to criticise Ibsa abstentions or the Sino-Russian veto.
India and allies shake UN power pillars

India flexing her muscle!

 

[Rage]

Major Dvpt. in the world of Diplomatic affairs: India grows spine, US stages walkout

Major Development in the world of Diplomatic affairs: India grows a spine, US stages walkout - first in the history of the UNSC.


Are we beginning to see the beginnings of US diplomatic isolation?


Ibsa (India, Brazil and South Africa) shake UN power pillars

By K.P. Nayar | The Telegraph - Calcutta – 3 hours ago.

New York, Oct. 5: India, Brazil and South Africa (Ibsa), the world's emerging pole of Third World democracies, yesterday broke the vice-like grip of the big powers on the UN Security Council, even if temporarily.

The chain of events also prompted the first-ever walkout in the UN's history by a Council member ' the United States of America ' even as the West failed to get a hard line resolution on Syria passed by the 15-member body.

A day of dramatic developments at the Security Council's famous horse-shoe table was preceded by hours of intense backroom consultations during which Europeans cajoled Ibsa ambassadors to vote for what would have been the first resolution against the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad since protests against his rule began in March.

India, Brazil and South Africa, along with Lebanon, abstained. India's permanent representative to the UN, Hardeep Singh Puri, regretted that the resolution, which died on the Council floor when it attracted a double veto from Russia and China, did not address a variety of New Delhi's concerns.

"It does not condemn the violence perpetrated by the Syrian Opposition. Nor does it place any responsibility on the Opposition to abjure violence and engage with the Syrian authorities for redressal of their grievances through a peaceful political process"¦. The resolution under the Council's consideration does not accommodate our concern about threat of sanctions," Puri told the Council in an explanation of India's vote.

The resolution has been in the making for five months with no meeting ground between the western powers which are seeking Iraq-Libya-style regime change in Damascus and others like Russia, China and the Ibsa countries advocating moderation.

When India assumed presidency of the Security Council in August, Puri managed to reconcile differences within the Council for a while and in a show of unity issued a "presidential statement" which appeared to remove an imminent threat of war in Syria that the western powers were itching for.

Simultaneously, an Ibsa delegation which included Dilip Sinha, additional secretary for international organisations in the ministry of external affairs, visited Damascus and extracted a personal commitment from President Assad that he would initiate political reforms.

Yesterday's resolution represented a fresh attempt by the Europeans and the US to sneakily obtain Security Council approval to go along the road to replace the Assad government using the same tactics they employed in Libya.

Russia and China have been vigilant against repeating the mistake they made earlier this year in the name of unity in the Security Council by agreeing on a Libya resolution which was subsequently misused by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi. The Ibsa countries were also on their guard against the western scheme.

The western strategy this time was to get the Ibsa countries to support the resolution co-sponsored by France, Germany, Portugal and Britain. The co-sponsors repeatedly watered down the text of their draft in the hope that Ibsa's support would be forthcoming.

An earlier European draft called for an arms embargo and similar measures, but a watered down version went as far as to remove any direct references to "sanctions". However, the final text of the resolution said the Security Council would review within 30 days how far Damascus had implemented UN demands. It would then "consider its options, including measures under Article 41 of the Charter of the United Nations".

The Ibsa countries objected to any reference to Article 41 which would have allowed the West to later use non-military means against Syria, including economic and diplomatic sanctions. As in the case of the Libya resolution, there were fears on the Council floor that a smokescreen for further action by misusing a provision in the resolution to consider "other options" against Syria was being created by its passage.

The western hope was that if the Ibsa countries could be persuaded to support their final draft, then Russia and China ' which exercised their veto yesterday ' could be completely isolated in the Security Council or even shamed into at least abstaining in the name of unity within the Council. That would have enabled the passage of the resolution.

Yesterday's vote saw two permanent members of the Council co-sponsoring a resolution and two others vetoing it while yet another of the big powers staged a walkout.

In recent years, the Big Five have almost always voted as a bloc ' except on Israel ' and have controlled the Council, reflecting its archaic structure created following World War II.

For Ibsa countries and other like-minded UN members, this has been an unacceptable predicament where the big powers pre-determine the way the world is ordered and then get the Security Council to rubber stamp their prescriptions. But New Delhi or Brasilia has been helpless in the matter.

Yesterday's rare division among the five permanent members was a small victory for Ibsa, which stood together and took a common decision to abstain. They decided not to vote against the resolution along with Russia and China because India, Brazil and South Africa, all democracies, did not want to be seen as condoning Assad's crackdown against a movement for political change.

They also felt that the government in Damascus had not moved fast enough on the promises Assad made to the Ibsa delegation to initiate political reforms and abjure violence against demonstrators.

The US delegation, led by its permanent representative, Susan Rice, walked out when her Syrian counterpart accused Washington of being a "party to genocide" by Israel and yet using its veto 50 times to protect Tel Aviv.

There was subdued amusement at the horse-shoe table when the British permanent representative, Mark Lyall Grant, continued to attend the Council proceedings for a while and then followed the Americans. Britain has often been accused of being America's poodle.

The walkout by the US delegation was the first by any country in the history of the Security Council. During the early phases of the Cold War, the Soviet Union used to boycott Security Council proceedings to hide its isolation, but never walked out.

During the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, Kigali was on the Security Council, but it, too, never walked out. Like the Soviets, they simply stayed away from the Council when it discussed the genocide.

Rice could have exercised her right to reply to the Syrians instead of walking out, but some Council members were of the view that the US did not really have any answers to the charge that having vetoed resolutions on Israel, Washington was hardly in a position to criticise Ibsa abstentions or the Sino-Russian veto.


India and allies shake UN power pillars - Yahoo!

 

[thakur_ritesh]

Yusuf,

Voting against or for Syria has nothing to do with china, it was in our interest not to, I agree it has to do with political will and if these chaps had it in them, I have every reason to believe the vote would have been against the resolution.

Does India at this delicate time when we have redefined our relationship with the US got in itself to take on the US on matters like this, no, then why confront a country that you want to make use of in times to come, all over the place and in a lot of contexts.

If you are suggesting that India should have voted in favor of the resolution to please the west then there should have been something of interest to us on offer to take on the ire of iran (they are very important in afpak context, energy needs, access to CAR), Syria (energy needs, important muslim country as an ally) and Russia (recall how Russia in subtle manner reacted post the vote against iran, one of the prime reasons on why we lost the tajik airbase, the price hike of defence projects started right after), something as dramatic as the nuke deal could have cut the ice for sure, then of course the regime of syria wouldn't have measured up.

The most important point that gets made here is if the US thinks India could be another UK, japan or Pakistan for them, then none of that is happening. This is precisely what one labels an independent foreign policy, which most of us are very proud of.

If you have observed china in the UNSC, just see how they cut the deals with the US after very hard bargains, let the message pass, if the things are going to be of contrary interest to India and the west wants us to pursue that, there better good deals in bargain that stands to benefit us many times more, then I would have no issues at all, India can vote for or against any.

We, where we are right now need to play all sides but in a very subtle manner and from where I am seeing, we are just doing that.

 

[Galaxy]

[h=1]BRICS' power seen in 'double veto' of U.N. Syria text[/h]BRICS' power seen in 'double veto' of U.N. Syria text | Reuters

 

[asianobserve]

BRICS or no bricks, they will in the end see the futility of propping up their friend in Damascus...

 

[niceguy2011]

^^

We are already doing that in South China Sea. India still has territory to cover before it becomes a global superpower. Right now, it even struggles to keep Sri Lanka in check while they parry with Pakistan. Let's be realistic mate!

Doing what? talking?
Realistic mate.LOL

 

[JayATL]

Syria: Death Toll Rises To 2,900 According To UN

Syria: Death Toll Rises To 2,900 According To UN