It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
GENEVA, Nov. 22 -- Although this past week saw U.N. agencies and high officials rushing to intervene the moment Israel began to defend its civilian population from hundreds of Hamas rocket attacks, letters published by UN Watch show that the same U.N. actors repeatedly turned a blind eye while Israel pleaded for action.
Russian ambaasador Vitaly Churkin, who for nearly two years now has blocked any U.N. Security Council action to stop the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad from murdering more than 30,000 of his own people, lashed out this week at "procrastination on Gaza."
In reality, it has been the procrastination, indifference and inaction of Russia and its Security Council allies that gave Hamas the green light to bomb Israeli civilians, finally prompting Israel's belated response................
Hypocrisy exposed: U.N. ignored Israel's repeated pleas to act against Hamas rockets, then rushed to stop Israel's self-defense
Russia has used its prerogative more times than any other permanent member. Moscow has blocked resolutions 127 times since the UN was formed. Of those vetoes, 93 pertained to entire resolutions and 29 were objections to specific paragraphs or amendments.
The vast majority of those vetoes were undertaken before 1991, when Russia was part of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). The USSR exercised its veto 119 times from 1946 to 1991.
The use of the veto by Andrei Gromyko, the Soviet foreign minister at the height of the Cold War with the West between 1957 and 1985, was so common that he was known at the UN as "Mr Nyet".
Between 1946 and 1968, the USSR exercised its veto 80 times, compared to three times by the UK, twice by France and zero by the US.
Moscow's last two vetoes have been on resolutions relating to Syria. Churkin argued that the resolutions, the first of which was vetoed on October 5, have put the UN in a position of taking sides in an internal matter and discouraging a resolution based on political dialogue.
Originally posted by DarknStormy
reply to post by xuenchen
Good. Why should the UN comply with a state that doesn't give a toss about UN resolutions or international law?
Originally posted by xuenchen
what about the people getting killed and injured on all sides ?
especially the ones that have nothing to do with the political rivalries.