In fact it could safely be said that the entire civilized world is disgusted at China’s and Russia’s veto of the call for Syria’s President Assad’s resignation at the UN Security Council, but it was the US Ambassador who so undiplomatically yet so correctly expressed that disgust.
Russia and China vetoed a UN Security Council resolution on Saturday calling for Syrian President Bashar Assad to resign, prompting the US delegate to react with “disgust” that the permanent council members had thwarted international action to stop 11 months of violence.
“The United States is disgusted that a couple of members of this council continue to prevent us from fulfilling our sole purpose,” US Ambassador Susan Rice said.
“For months, this council has been held hostage by a couple of members” that have been “delaying and stripping bare any text to force Assad to stop his actions,” she said The vetoes were “even more shameful” given that Russia has continued to sell weapons to Damascus, Rice said. In language far more aggressive than Washington had yet employed, she called the vetoes “unforgivable” and said “any further blood that flows will be on their hands.”
Shortly before the Security Council vote, US President Barack Obama denounced the “unspeakable assault” on Homs, demanded that Assad leave power immediately and called for UN action against his “relentless brutality.”
“Yesterday, the Syrian government murdered hundreds of Syrian citizens, including women and children, in Homs through shelling and other indiscriminate violence, and Syrian forces continue to prevent hundreds of injured civilians from seeking medical help,” Obama said.
“Any government that brutalizes and massacres its people does not deserve to govern.”
The veto was highly unpopular across the Arab world, demonstrating a rare solidarity with the West. Muslims in Jordan have been getting in on the blame game and have demanded a boycott of Russian and Chinese goods in protest at the untenable veto.
Jordanian Islamists on Sunday called on Muslims and Arabs to boycott Russian and Chinese products after the two countries vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Syria’s regime over bloodshed.
“By vetoing the resolution, Russia and China have shown that they are taking part in the killing of Syrian people,” Hammam Said, the leader of the powerful Muslim Brotherhood, said on the group’s website.
“All Muslims and Arabs should boycott Russian and Chinese products in order to support the Syrian people, who demand freedom and dignity. The vetoes were against all Arabs and Muslims.”
Said described the crackdown, which rights groups say has killed more than 6,000 people since democracy protests broke out in March last year, as “almost the worst in recent history.”
Even Turkey’s irritable Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu condemned the veto :
Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu, an increasingly influential player in the Middle East, said that “Russia and China did not vote based on the existing realities, but more reflexive attitude against [the] West.”
“The veto power should not be used from this perspective,” Davutoğlu said. In vetoing a “very soft resolution – which type of message are we giving to the Syrian people or in the region?,” he asked.
Tunisia’s prime minister meanwhile said that cutting ties with the Syrian regime is the “least that we can do.”
The Arab world is largely against Assad’s regime and wants him out of power immediately. Protestors in Turkey tried to storm the Syrian Embassy in Istanbul while Tunisia plans to expel the Syrian Ambassador and end its recognition of the Assad regime.
All this brings us to the question of why did Russia and China veto the UN Security Council vote? Arutz Sheva addresses this issue and explains:
If the Western countries believed that an Arab initiative would escape a Chinese and Russian veto they were mistaken. Arab opinion had helped change a Chinese and Russian red light to a flashing yellow in Libya, allowing for the successful intervention that deposed the regime of Moammar Qaddafi. Part of the Russian and Chinese attitude today is based on their feeling that they were outmaneuvered in Libya and do not want to allow this to happen again in Syria, but there is far more behind their veto.
The following reasons can explain the positions taken by Moscow and Beijing in what is rapidly becoming a civil war in Syria:
Stability— Both the Russian and Chinese governments have stressed the stability factor to legitimize their authoritarian rule
Muslim extremism-Both regimes fear Muslim extremism and its ability to infect the Muslim population within their countries.
“Noninterference“-In their bid to win friends and secure economic advantages, both Russia and China have broadcast a policy of noninterference.
Read it all. It’s an interesting thesis and makes as much sense as any other hypothesis in this crazy diplomatic dance that makes victims of the innocent.