It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Russia opposes UN action on Syria

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 01:18 PM
link   
Russian officials have stated that they will veto any security resolutions imposing sanctions against Syria. They claim that there are flaws in the investigations into the Hariri assassination and they want for Syria to cooperate more in the inquiry to bring to light any missing information. Lebanon has cooperated fully with UN recommendations, arresting four generals with ties to Syria.
 



news.bbc.co.uk
Moscow says it will block any UN effort to impose sanctions on Damascus over its alleged role in the assassination of former Lebanese leader Rafik Hariri.

The UN Security Council is considering a plan - drafted by France, the US and UK - to threaten Syria with sanctions.

Russia, a long-term ally of Syria and a permanent Security Council member, has the power to veto any draft resolution.

Syria has rejected a UN report that accuses it of plotting Hariri's death and blocking an investigation into it.

Its ambassador to the UN said the team led by German investigator Detlev Mehlis was guilty of bias and some countries were fanning "the flames of hatred against Syria".


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


This latest development in the buildup to conflict with Syria only emphasizes the divisions building within the UN. Russia's veto vote on the security council is not going to go away, and if they do indeed block a US proposed resolution on Syria, it could jeopardize relations on the council. It is no surprise that Lebanon is cooperating, as they are a new government and probably wish to keep their "good standing" with the US and EU. Further, their long-standing conflicts with Syria and certainly fueling their actions. As for Russia, they have stood as loose allies with Syria and will continue to demand a fair investigation. They seem very skeptical about the assassination findings, perhaps rightly so. For the US to just simply announce that Syria's government was responsible certainly planted that assumption into the public discourse, regardless of its truth. It would not be beyond the US administration to manufacture the evidence or draw hasty conclusions so as to justify impending action against Syria. Overall, it looks like Syria is next on the "regime change" list, and if so, it could create some serious friction with Russia

[edit on 26-10-2005 by RogerKint]




posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 02:18 PM
link   
It's not surprising that Russia has threatened to veto any sanctions. It's not surprising that Syria is thwarting attempts to investigate these charges, either. This also illustrates the ineffectiveness of the UN. What good are they if 99% of members can agree to a course of action, only to be stopped by a single member? That is a serious design flaw.

I say, impose the sanctions anyway. Let Russia cry foul and let the house of the UN crumble down into rubble as a result of the conflict. Then rebuild it in a new , overseas location (Baghdad?) with something that works.



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 03:19 PM
link   
It makes perfect sense for Russia to take this kind of stance. Afterall, there aren't too many nations still buying their outdated junk weapons, and what wise and caring leader would allow the arms industry of his nation to lose a good customer like Syria? Watching Syria fall off the map only to reemerge as a "peaceful democracy" would suck for the Russian military export business. The US would be ticked off too if the UN was gonna sanction one of our good customers like say, hmmmm, Isreal. No way in hell we'd go for that.

I honestly believe that the Russian's are looking for conscessions on another issue more than they are standing up for Syria. Watch, In few days someone is gonna call for a summit on this issue and the Russian's will be there looking for some major trade deal or the withdraw of US forces from the nations north of Afghanistan, then they'll go along with sanctions on Syria. It's a big game. It's also a shame.



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Uhh ok, mabye you want to do the maths...
Veto= permenant security council membership, only 5 of permenant members..
You want to complain about "infectiveness" go complain to the allies of the country, the UN is simply a membership.
Would you complain if the UN members propsed a draft against america but we veto'd it?



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Uhh ok, mabye you want to do the maths...
Veto= permenant security council membership, only 5 of permenant members..
You want to complain about "infectiveness" go complain to the allies of the country, the UN is simply a membership.


A problem with my math? It's not precise, I just used 99% to make a point.


Would you complain if the UN members propsed a draft against america but we veto'd it?

Of course not!


Whatever. The UN is a joke, no matter what you call it.



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 05:18 PM
link   
UN= out dated which no one takes a toss about (even the big players who seem to find the rules they try to inforce on other nations nothing to them)

what is it about russia having outdated rubbish?
they are one of the leading nations in air craft projects and so on
and with more money invested they could easily match the US


back to the topic

this isnt supprizing since Russia is a long-term ally of Syria



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 07:22 PM
link   
This would be justice for this to get vetod after all the actions against Israel that the U.S. has vetod. Maybe the U.S. will think twice before running to defend Israel every single time no matter how bad the act is.



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 04:20 AM
link   
Thats hardly a point Jso, its more like a generalisation.
BTW, Before you start insulting the UN, you might want to work on your own countries flaws like geography before critising the UN. Atleast they know the difference between england and the US suposed strongest ally..



UN= out dated which no one takes a toss about (even the big players who seem to find the rules they try to inforce on other nations nothing to them)

Really?
So why does the UK still provide over 100 men and women each year?
Why does the UK still behave under UN laws?

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 09:52 AM
link   
If we do it to Syria and veto the Russian veto can we do it to Israel and veto to American veto?



new topics

top topics



 
7

log in

join