Russia and China Oppose West-backed Resolution on Syria

Source: The Hindu
Atul Aneja

Amid high drama at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), Russia and China have spiritedly opposed a European-Arab draft that seeks to topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad as the first step towards the establishment of democracy in the troubled Arab nation.

Citing the principle of sovereignty and advocating a peaceful internal dialogue, Russian Ambassador to the U.N. Vitaly Churkin said during an animated debate on Tuesday that there were alternative ways to end the bloodshed in Syria other than by the eviction of Mr. Assad by foreign powers through the U.N. route.

Questioning the legality of the proposed resolution, Mr. Churkin said the UNSC did not have the mandate to interfere in the domestic affairs of a sovereign state. “The Council cannot prescribe ready recipes for the outcome of domestic political processes. It is not in the [U.N.] Charter”. Mr. Churkin warned that the U.N.'s intrusion into the internal affairs of a country would set a dangerous precedent. “Then you will start telling what king needs to resign and what Prime Minister needs to step down. This is not the business of the Security Council.”

Observers say the Russians are apprehensive that if validated, the principle of U.N. interventionism in internal conflicts can be used to target them if the domestic situation in Russia deteriorates for some reason.

Manipulation of the UN Security Council in support of the US-NATO Military Agenda

Source: Global Research
Carla Stea
 

United Nations Security Council decisions are portrayed as “the will of the international community,” and Security Council action in support of a national agenda confers moral authority upon that agenda. For this reason it is crucial to understand the tactics by which UN Security Council independence is frequently usurped, and the methods of coercion, intimidation and bribery used to extort approval from reluctant members of the Security Council, or from those members adamantly opposed to a particular course of action.

Twenty-two years ago, as a result of the Untied Nations Security Council adoption of Resolution 678, which authorized the use of “all necessary means” to end the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and “approved” the launch of the first United Nations supported Persian Gulf War, former United States Attorney General, Ramsey Clark, who had witnessed the devastating consequences of that war’s saturation bombing of Baghdad, stated that “The United Nations, which was created “to prevent the scourge of war,” has become an instrument of war.”

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Security Council has been in danger of becoming a political battering ram used for the purpose of “legitimizing” the neo-imperial adventures, and the reassertion of Western dominance over former colonial territories in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East . Since 1991, the United Nations Security Council has often been referred to as “an arm of the Pentagon,” or “an annex of the US State Department.”

In 1990, only two countries in the United Nations Security Council opposed the passage of Resolution 678, and when Yemen cast one of these votes, the U.S. Ambassador brazenly threatened him: “That will be the most expensive vote you ever cast,” and the U.S. immediately cut off 70 million dollars in aid to Yemen .

Several months prior to the vote, on September 25, 1990, Mr. Abu Hassan, Foreign Minister of Malaysia stated before the Security Council:

“We cannot but feel perturbed over the headlong rush, moving from one resolution to another in a period of seven weeks. The question may be asked whether enough time is given for each resolution to take effect. Are we moving at this speed to make sanctions effective, or are we readying ourselves early for a situation where we will conclude that sanctions are not effective and that other measures must therefore be taken? Malaysia will not accept the latter course being applied. We do not accept that war is inevitable….Malaysia believes our sense of uneasiness is shared by many outside the Council and that the council should take stock of where it is going. Malaysia , as a principle, is averse to the involvement of the armed forces of major powers in any region…As a non-aligned member and coming from a region which has been a casualty of the battles and wars fought by armies of major powers, we fear the consequences of a long term presence of military forces of major powers.”

Building a Pretext to Wage War on Syria: Hidden Agenda Behind UN Security Council Resolution

Source: Global Research.ca
Ronda Hauben 

I – Introduction 

On Tuesday, October 4, the UN Security Council announced it would take up a draft resolution on Syria. This meeting was to be an instance, when the lessons some Security Council members had drawn from the experience with the resolutions on Libya could be reflected in their action on a draft resolution against Syria.

Several weeks earlier, journalists had been told that there were two different draft resolutions about Syria tabled at the Security Council.

One draft resolution on Syria had been proposed by Russia and China. Russia and China said their resolution had been designed to encourage a peaceful process to help the Syrian government deal both with its stated desire for reforms and with the extremist violence against the Syrian government that was making such reform difficult.

The other draft resolution was tabled by four of the European members of the Security Council - France, UK, Germany and Portugal. (1) This draft condemned the actions of the Syrian government. It did not oppose foreign intervention into Syria’s domestic affairs. The European draft called on all states to deny the Syrian government arms, but made no such call to deny weapons to the armed opposition.

The European draft framed the problem as the Syrian government, similar to how Resolution 1973 framed the problem in Libya as being due to the government guided by Muammar Gaddafi.