Pussy Riot and the Russo-Chinese vote for murder in Syria

Bird Dog's picture

While the stated reason for the UN veto was to prevent civil war in Syria, the practical result is that the Assad regime perceived the lack of a Security Council resolution as a license to crack skulls. Marc Lynch explains why the Russian-Chinese veto was unwise. Currently, the skull-cracking is the most intense in Homs, and Juan Cole outlines how the operation could very well be a crime against humanity. More here. The Iranian regime will assist in the oppression. Unlike with Libya, don't expect the U.S. to get involved, at least directly, although Obama is weighing options. An assist to the Syrian rebels is a possibility, but any action should be taken with caution since there are Sunnis who are as dictatorial as Assad. More here.

Anne Applebaum notes Russia's hypocrisy. So do the modern-day Sex Pistols, i.e., Pussy Riot. God love 'em.

 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

What is the actual UN

(#274576)

What is the actual UN resolution in question here?


I thought it woul be interesting to see what it actually says an check each of the links. Nothing there. Is it too secret for reasons of international security? Too long an boring to peruse?


Why are all the writers avoing the text of the resolution?

You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh

God love 'em indeed

(#274464)
stinerman's picture

Also (channeling my inner Guerriste)...

 

Not

My

Problem

The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas

I don´t see this as hypocritical

(#274455)

I don´t see this as hypocritical on the part of the Russians or Chinese. The Russian Foreign minister, Lavrov states:


 


"We are either going to adopt an absolutely unrealistic provision expecting that the government of Syria would withdraw from the cities and towns exactly at the time when the armed groups are taking over the quarters of those cities and towns."


 


The Russians and Chinese would never withdraw their security forces from an area within their nation where an insurrection is taking place, and it is silly to expect any different from them with respect to Syria, a nation they see as an ally and valued customer. Where is the hypocracy? I think we can take these words at face value. Russia and China would be hypocritical if they adopted one policy for Syria, and another for Bahrain. But it is the US which seeks to protect protestors in one nation and the government in the other.


 

You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh

Touche!

(#274466)
mmghosh's picture

[quote]one policy for Syria, and another for Bahrain[/quote]

 

The response from the US Administration to the Bahraini issue was disappointing.

Oh please

(#274414)
HankP's picture

Syria has been attacking protesters for months, there's no evidence that the UN resolution would make any difference either way. Also, quoting Ha'aretz to prove that Iran is involved? Weak.

 

Syria is a brutal dictatorship, always has been and always will be. That's what dictatorships do. Unless there's a direct threat to the US or evidence that it could swell to involve other nations in the area US military intervention would be a mistake.

I blame it all on the Internet

I meant until they're overthrown

(#274452)
HankP's picture

examples like the USSR are few and far between.

I blame it all on the Internet

The UN resolution was sensible

(#274431)
Bird Dog's picture

And it's no coincidence that the violence escalated in Homs right after the veto.

As for the Quds in Syria, it ain't just Haaretz saying it (link). This shouldn't be news. The Iranians regime has been supporting the Syrian regime for a while, including direct financial support of Hezbollah.

 

 

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

The cite leads to a Turkish newspaper

(#274433)
HankP's picture

and Turkey and Syria don't exactly have good relations. So I'll remain skeptical about claims of direct military assistance.

 

Violence has ebbed and flowed for months. I have a hard time seeing how a toothless UN resolution makes more of a difference than the situation on the ground. The only thing that would exert pressure would be serious sanctions and a trade embargo or arming the opposition. I'm not seeing the upside for Obama to go out on a limb here as the GOP has ripped him about Libya, first that he did too little and then that he did too much. Similarly they've criticized him for supporting the Egyptian uprising. It didn't get any traction, but he may not want to hand them an issue in an election year.

 

As far as Russia and China are concerned, Russia has a major naval base in Syria and China does > $2 billion in annual trade. Unless they get some guarantees they're not going to agree to anything.

I blame it all on the Internet

Fine

(#274440)
Bird Dog's picture

If you want to uncritically believe the Iranian regime when they tell you that the captured Iranians are "engineers" and that Quds personnel are not in Syria, your business.

 

"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

--Barack Obama, January 2009

After the lies of the last few decades

(#274453)
HankP's picture

I'm very skeptical of press reports, as anyone should be. The more a press report lines up with ones beliefs, the more skeptical one should be. Remember babies being ripped from ventilators?

I blame it all on the Internet