Russia & China Block Condemnation of Syria as 200 Baathists Resign

For those who keep asking why there should be an international intervention in Libya but not in Syria, here is one answer: Russia and China have blocked an attempt to have the United Nations Security Council from making any statement at all about the political repression in Syria, which has left an estimated 350-450 persons dead, most of them protesters rather than police or troops.

Moreover, Lebanon also opposed having a statement made, and no Arab country approached the UNSC to do something about Syria.

Russia argued that the situation in Syria is purely domestic and does not threaten international order.

France did lead a charge to get the UNSC to take a strong stand against the use of military means to repress dissent in Syria, but it was blocked. I don’t see how this disparity in the treatment of the two countries can be laid at the feet of “Western hypcrisy.” Surely if anything it is “Eurasian hypocrisy,” insofar as Russia and China declined to stop the condemnation of Libya or the call for a no-fly zone, but they have stopped so much as a slap on the wrist for Syria.

Of course, as bad as the situation in Syria is, it isn’t so far comparable to Libya, where the loss of life is in the thousands, not hundreds, and 30 tanks were lined up to fire on non-combatant crowds demonstrating in downtown Zawiya and Misrata.

The Baath regime’s crackdown in Deraa has in any case provoked the resignations of 200 members of the ruling Baath Party, most of them living in or near Deraa. Resigning from the authoritarian ruling party in protest was unheard of until this week.

This Aljazeera English report says that soldiers, armor and snipers are now everywhere in the southern city of Deraa, which has been invaded. There have also been defections from the officer corps to the dissenters, as in Deraa.

The regime sent troops into the restive suburb of Damascus, Douma, and opened fire on protesters, according to video shown in this Aljazeera English report:

Aljazeera English shows video that seems to show Syrian troops using live fire on protesters elsewhere, as well:

10 Responses

  1. Rather than “Eurasian hypocrisy”, it just might be a logical reaction to the Western misuse of the SC resolution on Libya. And if one wanted to point to “Western hypocrisy” all you’d have to do is look at Bahrain.

    • Yeah, that’s it: the alleged misuse of the Libya resolution. Were it not for that, Russia and China would be pushing each other out of the way to support a resolution against Syria. Really, it’s probably killing them that they had to oppose this – since supporting it would have been so completely in line with those government’s past behavior – but whattygonna do? Those meanies in Paris and Washington all but forced them to oppose it.

    • Agree completely with DB.

      The SC Resolutions regarding Iraq never ever contained the “all necessary means” language traditionally required to permit any state to use force against another state. Bush went ahead with his conquest anyway.

      I thought China and Russia had learned from this that you cannot open the door even a crack or the USA will immediately begin to move ahead with its “regime change” march.

      I guess not. Fool me once.

      So now, in support of “protecting civilians” in Libya the USA/UK/France are marching ahead with regime change through force.

      Sort of a “fool me twice” moment for China and Russia.

      To which they properly respond, “never again.”

      Again, one simply cannot open the door to force by any measure if the USA is involved in any way whatsoever.

      Full stop.

      • Bush was also the most erudite of the recent American Presidents, having attended two “Ivy League” universities. He is also the one creditted with the statement that “no democratic country ever invaded another”. We can only conclude that tha US government of the time was not democratic.

  2. To block even a statement by the UN seems like the act of a cartel or underworld that’s up to something not the actions of people and nations actually interested in keeping people safe. People need to speak up if they want better government and the use of weapons of war on citizens is outrageous. Perhaps this is a China and Russia thing to do but I sure hope it never becomes a tactic used in the West. With the rise of private corporate armies the distinctions are blurred.

    • “…the use of weapons of war on citizens is outrageous. Perhaps this is a China and Russia thing to do but I sure hope it never becomes a tactic used in the West..”
      No Dale this is not a China Russia thing: the US and its allies have been using weapons against civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen and, indeed, Libya all through the past week. We do not need to go further into history than that. Suffice it to say that few countries have been more prone to use weapons of war against civilians than the US, UK, France, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Italy.

  3. “This Aljazeera English report says that soldiers, armor and snipers are now everywhere in the southern city of Deraa, which has been invaded. There have also been defections from the officer corps to the dissenters, as in Deraa.”

    Instead of ‘as in Deraa’ do you mean ‘as in Libya’ or something like that? Your meaning’s not quite clear.

  4. Entrusting the UN Security Council with the authority to determine the legitimacy of international humanitarian interventions is the worst possible system of world government, except for all the others.

    The only notable development here is that Muammar Khadaffy managed to screw up badly enough that he didn’t have a single world power willing to protect him. That’s pretty impressive.

    • This isn’t a system of world government. It is the UN. And the USA has consistently argued that the UN does not have the right to impose, for example anti-Jim Crow or fair labour laws, on member states. You might not have noticed but the US has been exempting Israel from anything smacking of international censure or comment for years.

      What justifies Security Council interference is a threat to international peace and security.

      The positions taken by China and Russia are entirely correct. If you want a world government, by which I suspect you mean a US government of the world, you will have to sign up nations to a new agreement.
      The truth is that what is happening in Syria is only international in impact in that the US government and its Saudi allies are knee deep in sponsoring just the sort of salafist opposition which is calculated to divide and disorient the protests of the democrats and socialists.
      This is what happened in Libya as well, where US interference and NATO aggression has given Gadaffi’s regime a legitimacy that it had almost lost.

  5. It works both ways. On many occasions, Israel has acted in ways that clearly warranted UN condemnation only to have it vetoed by the US. What else is new? Ethics? Morality? These are characteristics to be found occasionally in the exceptional individual, never in national governments. Money and power are all that matter.

Comments are closed.