For the 3rd time, Russia and China used their veto to stop a Western-supported UN Security Council resolution on Syria.
They correctly understood that this proposed resolution was not a way to peace in Syria, but a devious step towards foreign military intervention and regime change to suit foreign imperialist powers, not the Syrian people.
In my opinion, they acted correctly. They were tricked over Libya, but hopefully they will stand firm over Syria and Iran. We should support Russia and China on this, despite the scurrilous campaign against them by corrupted politicians and mass media from the West/Gulf states, which have their own agendas.
They correctly understood that this proposed resolution was not a way to peace in Syria, but a devious step towards foreign military intervention and regime change to suit foreign imperialist powers, not the Syrian people.
In my opinion, they acted correctly. They were tricked over Libya, but hopefully they will stand firm over Syria and Iran. We should support Russia and China on this, despite the scurrilous campaign against them by corrupted politicians and mass media from the West/Gulf states, which have their own agendas.
The protests by the US and Britain and others about this responsible use of the Russian and Chinese veto is pure hypocrisy.
Since 1970 the U.S. has used its veto 79 times, with more than 40 related to issues in the Middle East. The majority have been resolutions that have criticized the Israeli government.
It used its last Israeli veto to block a resolution that would correctly term Israeli settlement activity in Palestinian territory "illegal" and demand a halt to all such actions.
From 1984 until Feb 2011, the number of vetoes used have been:
China, two;
France, three;
Russia/USSR, four;
United Kingdom, 10;
and the United States, 43.
U.S. Vetoes of UN Resolutions Critical of Israel - (1972-2011):
U.S. Vetoes of UN Resolutions Critical of Israel - (1972-2011):
For a clear understanding of why Russia used its veto power, click here:
"...You know,
humanitarian intervention unfortunately only sounds humane, but
the fact of the matter is that any military intervention for
whatever reason is inevitably going to cause more bloodshed. And
we know those greatest humanists in the world – US and UK –
intervened in Iraq, for instance, citing all sorts of noble
pretexts, in that particular case – non-existent weapons of mass
destruction... There is much more geopolitics
in their policy in Syria than humanism..."
- Bruce.
No comments:
Post a Comment