Why Russia and China vetoed the United Nations resolution condemning the Syrian regime crackdown on protesters has been made very clear. Russia said the document was simply “unacceptable” because it contained a one-sided condemnation of the Assad regime and the prospect of sanctions, which could lead to foreign military intervention in Syria.
Citing NATO’s ongoing military operation in Libya as an example of “abuse” of UN Security Council decisions, Moscow said it would strongly oppose any attempts to overthrow “undesirable regimes” under the guise of a UN mandate.
In talking with sources in Russia about this situation, they fear the U.S. will use the resolution as a pretext to launch military operations in Syria, which could lead to the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians in Syria.
U.S. officials on Wednesday criticized the Chinese and Russians for, in their words “killing” the resolution, saying the two nations “were on the wrong side of history.” The State Department said, “All countries have to take responsibility for their votes on the Council and consequences they may have.”
The draft resolution, put forward by France with Britain, Germany and Portugal, was supported by 9 out of 15 Security Council member states during a UN vote late on Tuesday.
Four other United Nation members – “Brazil, India, South Africa and Lebanon”- all abstained.
It is unclear why these countries did that, except they must have had some serious reservation about where the U.N resolution was leading.
While the protestors in Syria condemn the vetoes by Russia and China, they should think very hard about the consequences if the U.N resolution had passed and what that may entail for the entire country should the United States and NATO use that as mechanism to act unilaterally to impose a “no fly zone” and begin bombing targets in Syria.
The consequences of that will be disastrous for everyone involved.
The motives of the United States should be questioned in why they are sponsoring this resolution in the first place.
What is their end goal? Is it regime change?
Syria has been, and still is, a special target of the United States since at least 2001. See YouTube video regarding “the Plan” by the US military to target certain government around the world for regime change. You will note that there are five Muslim countries named in this so called “plan”, Syria is specifically one of them mentioned by former U.S. Army General Wesley Clark in the video clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXS3vW47mOE.
Furthermore, there needs to be certain guarantees that the United States will not act military in this situation. So far, the United States has refused to do that.
This could be one very good reason India, Brazil, South Africa and Lebanon all abstained from voting in favor of the resolution.
The untold story here is why these other countries “abstained from voting” and did not vote in favor of the U.N. resolution themselves, if it was the “right thing” to do. I, for one would be very curious to know.
Furthermore, self-determination and regime change is something the Syrian people need to do themselves.
The Syrian people do not need the United States military coming in and imposing itself in favor of one side or another.
Once the dogs of war are unleashed by the United States in conjunction with its NATO allies, they will proceed to rip Syria into shred and kill many innocent people in the process.
At some point, it is up to the Syrian people to determine the fate of their own country.
They are the ones who have to make the choice. Not the United States, not the United Nations… Certainly not Russia and China, which are currently being blamed for the situation in Syria right now – unjustly so, in my opinion.
To the protestors I would remind them that it is not Russian and Chinese military troops shooting people in the streets in Syria. It is Syrians shooting other Syrians, which makes it a Syrian problem. Would you not agree?
Watch out what you wish for in terms of support from the United States – they have their own agenda they are following right now. I am afraid it has little or nothing to do with your aspirations for freedom and democracy…