Russia and China Veto the UN’s Syrian Resolution
 |
October 5, 2011 TheFreshOutlook  |
Russia and China face criticism from America and Europe after vetoing a UN Security Council bid to resolve Syrian violence.
The two Security Council powers have halted UN plans to impose sanctions on Syria if its military regime was not stopped.
After another 11 people were shot dead by security forces on Tuesday in Syria, America and the European sponsors of the UN bid have heavily criticised Russia and China’s double veto which halted plans to impose sanctions on President Bashar al-Assad’s military regime.
The UN Security Council, which voted late, last night, had proposed to implement plans of sanctions on Syria if the president’s military clampdown on protestors, which has killed an estimated 2,700 people, was not stopped.
The resolution proposed the authorisation for media and human rights investigators to enter the country, for an end to all violence, as well as respecting civilians’ human rights and freedom.
The document also gave the clause that if left unheeded after 30 days, the security council would “consider its options, including measures under article 41 of the charter of the United Nations”, which would authorise the possible implementation of economic and diplomatic sanctions as well as other non-military measures.
Despite many redrafts of the resolution in an attempt to avoid any opposition, including removing the use of the word ‘sanction’, Russia and China stuck fast and vetoed the plans late last night, whilst India, South Africa, Brazil and Lebanon abstained.
In the first double veto by Russia and China since 2008, when planned sanctions against Zimbabwe were also rejected, tensions between members of the UN Security Council ran high over an issue which from the outset has left the council split.
Mark Lyall Grant, the UN ambassador for Britain, commented that the veto “will be a great disappointment to the people of Syria and the wider region that some members of this council could not show their support for their struggle for basic human rights”.
He added: “By blocking this resolution, the onus is now on those countries to step up their efforts and persuade the Syrian government to end the violence and pursue genuine reform.”
The American ambassador, Susan Rice, referred to the opposition’s decision as a “cheap ruse by those who would rather sell arms to the Syrian regime than stand with the Syrian people.”
She added: “The United States is outraged that this council has utterly failed to address an urgent moral challenge and a growing threat to regional peace and security.”
Despite claims from the resolution’s supporters, Vitaly Churkin, Russia’s UN ambassador, later explained to the council that the opposition of the resolution was due to it being “based on a philosophy of confrontation”, as well as containing an “ultimatum of sanctions”, rather than Russia being in support of either the president’s regime or the current violence against Syrian protestors.
He also highlighted that dissociation between “extremists” and the Syrian opposition had also not been called for.
Whilst the spokesman for the Chinese foreign ministry, Ma Zhaoxu, commented on the decision in a statement: “Some countries submitted a draft resolution to blindly impose pressure and even threatened sanctions against Syria. This would not help to ease the situation.”
The supporters of the bid were also heavily criticised for “the prejudice in certain western capitals against our country” by the Syrian UN ambassador, Bashar Ja’afari, who included in his closing speech a reference that American’s involvement could even be considered a party to “genocide”.
With the UN Security Council firmly split, a resolution to the Syrian violence from the current military regime still remains far from decided.
By Laura Beard
[Image courtesy of caseyhelbling]
