The New Worker
The Weekly paper of the New Communist Party of Britain
Week commencing 8th October 2011
IMPERIALIST plans to again use the United Nations as a smokescreen for more aggression were stopped in their tracks this week when Russia and People’s China vetoed a western motion at the UN Security Council.
The European sponsored resolution strongly condemned “the continued grave and systematic human rights violations by the Syrian authorities” and threatened punitive measures against the Syrian government, which is battling against Muslim Brotherhood terror gangs that are being less than covertly supported by the United States, Turkey and the rest of the Nato pack.
The double veto provoked an angry response from the US representative, Susan Rice, who repeated the call for “tough targeted sanctions” against Syria and denounced the veto as a “cheap ruse by those who would rather sell arms to the Syrian regime than stand with the Syrian people”. She then walked out, along with the British envoy, when the Syrian ambassador attacked Israel.
The resolution had been tabled by Britain, France, Germany and Portugal. It was backed to the hilt by the Americans and their client states on the Security Council: Bosnia, Colombia, Gabon and Nigeria. Four non-aligned countries, Brazil, India, Lebanon, and South Africa abstained and the motion fell with the double veto from Russia and China.
The European bloc had earlier rejected a Russian alternative which would have condemned opposition violence as well as that of the government and calls for dialogue to end the crisis. They then claimed they had tempered their draft to meet Kremlin objections. They dropped a direct demand for sanctions but replaced it with a call “targeted measures” if the Syrian government didn’t do as it was told. Had it gone through it undoubtedly would have paved the way for another Libya-style Nato intervention.
The Kremlin’s UN envoy, Vitaly Churkin, told the Council that Russia opposed the resolution because it was based on “a philosophy of confrontation” that contained “an ultimatum of sanctions.” He complained that the resolution did not call on the Syrian opposition to disassociate itself from “extremists” and enter into dialogue. China’s ambassador, Li Bandong, said his country was against the resolution because “sanctions, or threat of sanctions, do not help the situation in Syria but rather complicate the situation.”
Syrian Ambassador Bashar Ja’afari, the last to speak, did not name the countries supporting the defeated draft, but it was clear who he meant.
“Certain states are leading the international campaign to intervene in Syria under the pretext of human rights and protection of civilians. These countries continue to reject the existence of these terrorist groups in Syria, for reasons that are known to all,” he said.
“Moreover, these states continue to protect and sponsor the leaders of these terrorist groups who they host in their capitals.”
Without naming the United States, Ja’afari said it had used its veto 50 times since 1945 to protect Israel and deny the Palestinians their rights.
Therefore, he said, it could be considered a party to “genocide, as this language is tantamount to turning a blind eye and supporting the Israeli massacres in occupied Arab lands”.
At this point the American and British representatives stormed out missing Ja’afari’s conclusion.
“Prestige is more important than might. The sponsors of this draft resolution lost their prestige and now they have resorted to might and power for they lost the respect of the majority of member states of this organisation,” he warned.
“In this conduct, they are undermining international legality and they are leading the whole world into a new colonial era and military adventures that are bound and doomed to failure,”.