Updated on
Summary The West says UN failure is a great sadness. Russia says regime change is not an option.
France says the Russia-China veto of a draft resolution on Syria is sad day for this council, a sad day for all Syrians, and a sad day for democracy.Russia and China vetoed Saturday a U.N. resolution that backed an Arab plan calling on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to quit, stalling global efforts to end his bloody crackdown on unrest after hundreds were reported killed in the city of Homs.The high-level diplomatic setback came after world leaders and Syrian opposition activists accused Assads forces of a massacre in a sustained shelling of Homs, the bloodiest episode in 11 months of upheaval in the pivotal Arab country.Russia and China joined in a double veto to bar a Western and Arab-driven resolution at the U.N. Security Council endorsing the Arab League plan for Assad to hand power to a deputy to make way for a transition toward democracy.The other 13 council members voted for the resolution that would have said the council fully supports the League plan aimed at stopping Syrias bloodshed, whose sectarian overtones threaten stability in the wider Middle East region.Mohammed Loulichki, the U.N. ambassador of Morocco, the sole Arab member of the 15-nation council, voiced his great regret and disappointment at the Russian-Chinese veto.French Ambassador Gerard Araud said: It is a sad day for this council, a sad day for all Syrians, and a sad day for democracy. Araud added, China and Russia were complicit in the policy of repression carried out by the Damascus regime.U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice blamed Russia and China of selling out the Syrian people to shield a craven tyrant.U.K. Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant detailed the efforts of the council to achieve an agreement. Some council members argued that the resolution imposed regime change. It said no such thing. But in an attempt to reach consensus we provided further assurances in the text. The same minority argued that the text could somehow be used to authorize military intervention. It did no such thing. It was a chapter 6 resolution. But in an attempt to reach consensus, we provided further assurances in the text.The same minority argued the very modest language expressing concern about weapons was somehow tantamount to an arms embargo. It wasnt, but we took it out. They said the mere mention of the existence of Arab League sanctions was tantamount to United Nations sanctions. It was not, but we took it out in an effort to reach consensus. Mr. President, the facts speak for themselves. There was nothing in this text that should have triggered a veto. We removed every possible excuse, said the British Ambassador.He added, The reality is that Russia and China have today taken a choice to turn their backs on the Arab world and to support tyranny rather than the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people. They have failed in their responsibility as permanent members of the Security Council.Russia complained that the draft resolution was an improper and biased attempt at regime change in Syria, which is Moscows sole remaining sphere of influence in the Middle East and an important destination for Russian arms exports.Russias Ambassador Vitaly Churkin laid blame on the West for undermining the chance for a political resolution by calling for a regime change, pushing the opposition towards power, and not stopping provocation and feeding armed methods of struggle.China maintains that under the current circumstances to put undue emphasis on pressuring the Syrian government, prejudge the result of the dialogue, or impose any solution will not help resolve the Syrian issue, said Chinas Ambassador Li Baodong.Syrias U.N. Ambassador Bashar Jaafari denied there was a massacre in the Syrian city of Homs and blamed the media for misleading information.Is there a sensible person who would believe that a given government would commit massacres in a given city on a day when the Security Council is scheduled to hold a meeting to examine the situation in that country? Would any entity put itself in such a position?The U.S. warned that the risk of more bloodshed and civil war in Syria had risen after the collapse of the U.N. resolution.
Featured
