Skip to main content

View Diary: Tweets from Homs, Syria. (118 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Do you understand why Russia and China (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greenbird, jpmassar, PatriciaVa, Funkygal

    vetoed the U.N. resolution?  

    •  not really. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jpmassar, allergywoman

      fill me in.

      Addington's perpwalk is the trailhead of accountability for this wound to our national psyche. (But go ahead and arrest Rumsfeld, too.)

      by greenbird on Sat Feb 11, 2012 at 09:15:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  No. (4+ / 0-)

      Do you.  I've read something about Russian arms sales to Syria and China protecting its investments or something, but I haven't followed the UN resolution diplomacy closely.

      Do you have the straight dope?

      •  Because they don't want to give a green lite (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jpmassar, PatriciaVa, Funkygal, Sean X

        for regime change, again, and because they wanted the identification and removal of outside interference from Syria.  This has been an engineered quasi civil war with a large number of players and for the U.S. NATO is all about regime change, a step closer to Iran, and fucking with Russia and China.  This is not what the MSM is telling everyone, much more complicated than another evil regime quelling protestors with violence.

      •  What about Bahrain? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jpmassar, BigAlinWashSt

        How did the US react when Saudi Arabia sent its military to Bahrain, to assist in the slaughter of hundreds of innocents.

        Should the US immediately assist the resistance movement in Saudi Arabia?

        Or are some tyrants more equal than others.

        And if some of you are so concerned about the slaughter in Syria, did you also support the liberation of Iraq?

        Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project. http://www1.hamiltonproject.org/es/hamilton/hamilton_hp.htm

        by PatriciaVa on Sat Feb 11, 2012 at 10:22:02 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Hmmmm.... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      highacidity, Sean X, Lawrence, greenbird

      Could it be the oil concessions both get from the Assad regime, as well as a significant portion of the Russian Federation's total arms sales come by way of Syria?

      From Amnesty International:

      Russia and China, two of five permanent members with veto powers, have blunted the teeth of the Security Council all but quashing its ability to end the violence. These permanent members of the Security Council have hidden behind the traditional stance of not interfering with the affairs of another state.

      Interestingly, what hasn’t been mentioned by the Russian or Chinese authorities is their major oil concessions in Syria. And that Russia relies on Syria for ten percent of its total arms sales.

      Also....
      Amnesty International considered the Russian and Chinese governments’ double veto as “completely irresponsible” and a “shockingly callous betrayal of the people of Syria.”
    •  Yes. Don't agree but I understand (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jpmassar

      International law has norms that often conflict with each other.  As someone posted, there is an emerging "norm" of the duty to protect.  Any emerging norm is sort of like an international law in the making.  As more governments and international bodies adopt it as practice or by treaty, it goes from being an emerging norm to international "law."

      A conflicting norm that is more firmly established is the obligation of governments not to interfere in the internal affairs of other states and respect the sovereignty of other governments.

      You might think that this is a crappy norm designed to prevent interference with dictatorship, but it's actually a well respected norm, particularly in the third world.

      That's because the third world has suffered neo colonial intervention, and super power sponsored coups.

      In other words, where we see the unambiguous need for intervention, others see a slippery slope between humanitarian intervention and interventions like  the overthrow of Salvador Allende.

      Russia and China have historically put more emphasis on the duty to respect sovereignty and not interfere in the internal affairs of other states.

      Fortunately, their adherence to this norm is not iron clad, and they approved the intervention in Libya -- although they wouldn't vote for intervention, they wouldn't veto it either.

      If the situation in Syria deteriorates, they may change their vote.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site