Russia Reiterates: UN Syria Resolution Will Be Vetoed
Rules Out Abstaining in Any Case Where Military Option Isn't Explicitly Removed
Though the declaration still failed to put an end to hours of speeches, Russia has reiterated today that it intends to veto the anti-Syria resolution being pushed by the Arab League at the United Nations Security Council.
Russia has been fairly clear about this since before the resolution was even proposed, saying it would reject the vague draft over concerns that NATO or the Arab League would use the mention of unspecified “consequences” as an excuse to launch a military invasion.
After a day of long-winded speeches condemning Syria and Russia yesterday, mostly insisting that an invasion wasn’t even being considered, Russia’s ambassador Vitaly Churkin made the position clear again, saying any Syria resolution not explicitly ruling out military intervention would be vetoed. And despite the claims that Russia is merely being paranoid, there appears to be no interest in putting such assurances in writing.
Despite the resolution being dead on arrival, French FM Alain Juppe expressed hope that a deal could be reached with Russia that would allow the resolution to pass next week. He insisted the speeches by NATO members were “grounds for positive thinking.”
Last 5 posts by Jason Ditz
- Centrifuge Glitch Fuels Latest Iran Scare Stories - May 25th, 2012
- Iraq MPs Push Return to Saddam-Era Conscription Laws - May 25th, 2012
- US Negotiator on Iran to 'Reaffirm Our Unshakeable Commitment to Israel' - May 25th, 2012
- UN: Syria Bombings Likely by 'Established Terrorist Groups' - May 25th, 2012
- Military to Avoid Embarrassing Pictures by Banning Photography - May 25th, 2012
Wolfgang9
February 1st, 2012 at 11:37 pm
Russia has obviously learned the lesson from the NATO bombings and killings in Libya.
I just hope the have the spine to persist. Yesterday, "Der Spiegel" reported that Lawrow
did not answer a call from Hillbillary even though she obviously tried for 24 hours to
reach him:-)
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,8127…
(IMO it's funny that the US Secretary if State obviously complained about this in public and not just swallowed that quietly.)
tomofsnj
February 2nd, 2012 at 5:22 am
Libya was a no fly resolution which lead to boots on the ground. I see no reason why Russia would support something that improves the position of Israel who wants to join NATO. It is clear that NATO is circling Russia which can only be for no good. The United Nation had nothing to say about the brutal Israel operation caste lead in Gaza. The United Nation actually was a cheer leader during the NATO invasion of Libya to steal the gold of Libya. Why would anyone think that the United Nation anything but a division of NATO. NATO is just the old colonial powers and they do not have a very good record of anything but death and exploitation.
Ali
February 2nd, 2012 at 5:23 am
Isn't war, what Jason Ditz was hoping for all along? Perhaps the Arab Sheikhs and France and UK should have him deliver a speech against Syria at the UN. That would definitely be "positive thinking".
Thomas L. Knapp
February 2nd, 2012 at 7:30 am
"Isn't war, what Jason Ditz was hoping for all along?"
In your imagination, probably. In the real world, no.
Bianca
February 2nd, 2012 at 9:25 am
No, I do not think that is the case. But I do not entirely blame you for having your doubts. By accident or design, the articles tend to follow — to an extent — the official narrative on issues. In Libya, it was a foregone conclusion that things were "bad" in Libya, so it was just the matter of means being discussed. Similarly, the official narrative of Syria being "brutalized" by the regime, has never been put into question. Following other media that is by far more open minded about events, it becomes clear that NOBODY, even Antiwar is sufficiently free to examine facts for what they are. However, Jason Dietz is consistently anti-intervention, and thus — consistent where it matters the most.
Nikolas
February 2nd, 2012 at 11:11 am
Not just Libya just remember illegal bombing of Serbia ( UK legal advice was that bombing is indeed illegal and UN coourt refused to get involve).They armed and bombed tha same way Serbia but that time didn't ask UN approval since Russia would veto..so why bother ?
Fashist at work aftre 50 years !
Ali
February 2nd, 2012 at 11:57 am
I don't imagine that kind of thing.
Ali
February 2nd, 2012 at 12:46 pm
Syria's ambassador to the UN, in his address before the UNSC had nothing but strong condemnation of the relentless campaign of lies and falsehoods by Al-Jazeerah and Al-Arabiya against Syria. What was conclusively proved though, was that he was not aware of new.antiwar.com and its Jason Ditz. As relentless as the propaganda campaign was and is against Syria, even Al-Jazeerah and Al-Arabiya would find themselves exercised in spewing Salafi extremism against Syria. But not Jaso Ditz. He would quote activists from a report in an obscure newspaper from an even more obscure Pacific Island. In the process Jason Ditz gave new meaning the "activist" as source of news. He would even aver that the security forces that the Syrian government says were killed by the terrorists were in actuality defectors from the army killed en mass by the Syrian government.
You can do yourself a favor and search the news.antiwar.com reports on Syria by Jason Ditz in the last six months. If you do that do read the comments as well. There were extreme dismay by the was Jason Ditz was reporting Syria and in particular his fixation on the idea that Salafi terrorist constitute popular uprising. Everybody gave up, finally. For the last couple of months Jason Ditz reports on Syria have not induced any comments on news.antiwar.com.
That was half the picture. The other half is the rest of antiwar.co, where total lack of anything on Syria runs wild. When it comes to Syria, there is no peeping through the key hole, no reading between the lines, no investigative articles, and not even the most cursory research of whys and hows. It is American exceptionalism, all over again. It is just the other side of it, that is.
Wolfgang9
February 2nd, 2012 at 2:24 pm
Yes, I agree, that was illegal and I'm very ashamed that the red-green German government was participating in that crime. Now, Schroder makes Millions as an adviser to Putin, what an irony of history. I wonder if the two ever touch that subject?
W
John
February 2nd, 2012 at 3:44 pm
Russia continuously vetoes solutions, and never proposes anything that can bring peace. Meanwhile blood flows in Syria.
thedissenter
February 2nd, 2012 at 5:57 pm
It's a sad day when I find myself rooting for Russia because it's the lesser of two evils. Man, we're so screwed!
Nathan
February 2nd, 2012 at 6:17 pm
These Arab League members as well as NATO and its boss are shamelessly hypocrites. The Arab League, aka anti-revolution club, are themselves authoritarian regimes than need to be replaced with democracies. They have no moral authority to condemn Syria for killing the non-Syrian thugs who are armed by the hypocrites named above.
As for NATO’s boss, we have witnessed that its police has so far arrested 6000 members of OWS, plus 5 killed and an unknown numbers injured. And those demonstrators were not even armed as the ones in Syria.
Can anyone define the word hutzpah?
Nathan
February 2nd, 2012 at 6:30 pm
At the beginning Al-Jazeera used to be credible, but soon lost it to its owner, Amir of Qatar.
Al Arabia was Saudi financed and established as an opposite to Al-Jazeera. What a waste of money! If Saudis had waited a bit longer they would have seen the real face of A-jazeera.
Both news agencies are liars and agents of corrupt powers.