The UK ambassador to the UN called it 'inexcusable and indefensible' and 'they have turned their back on the people of Syria in their darkest hour' as Russia and China have vetoed for the third time a Western-backed UN resolution threatening further sanctions against President Bashar al Assad's government.
The crux of the problem is that the Western powers want to include including the threat of non-military sanctions under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter.
Russia contested the use of Chapter 7, with the country's US Ambassador Vitaly Churkin arguing that the wording opened a path to 'external military involvement in Syria'.
The US ambassador to the UN Susan Rice said any talk of military intervention was 'paranoid if not disingenuous' although they would rather the resolution failed than remove the sentence that Russia and China object to.
Who can blame them because the West has a recent history of stretching UN Resolutions to fit their own military purposes. It wasn't that long ago that the Americans and the Brits were trying their hardest, and failing, to manipulate the wording of Resolution 1441 to justify attacking Iraq and the more recent episode in Libya when a Resolution regarding an no-fly zone somehow turned into the West acting as the air force of the Libyan insurgents.
So they have said loud and clear that they will block any resolution that does not include language explicitly ruling out some kind of military intervention but the West won't agree to it and that should make you wonder why are they so adamant that the use of force should be included?
If the West are so keen to help the people of Syria in their darkest hour and are not hell bent on reigning bombs down on Syria, then remove the line that is so offensive to the Russians and Chinese and get on with the business of helping them.
The alternative is to keep it in, keep having it thrown back at you and make yourselves look like you are only interested if you can bring along your bombers to the party.
Been there, done that, and watched you kill millions.
3 comments:
"I do find it amusing that a brit is so worried about freedom and fairness and all considering the uk conquered, slaughtered, enslaved, and robbed most of the world."
Erm... Why?
Do you find it equally 'amusing' that Donald Woods was an anti-apartheid campaigner, bearing in mind he was a white South African?
If you go too far down this road of thinking "you're this nationality so you can only have these sorts of opinions" then you'll start to remind me of a certain brain-dead Australian who we know and love :)
cheezy,
i do seem to recall many generic comments (and not just from Dingdong) about america and americans, conservatives and neocons, etc... lot's of categorization... agreed?
don't hold me accountalbe for the deeds of my predecessors and i'll refrain from doing the same...
q
ps - obvioulsy i'm not talking about you. you are very careful in your phrasology
Fair enough, Q, I guess you're just amending your game to suit the playing conditions (to use a tortuous golfing analogy)....
Post a Comment