Why did Russia block the UN resolution on Syria?

Everybody is really mad at Russia for doing this right now, but I've noticed that nobody ever cared to tell us just why Russia vetoed this. That's really weird. Does anybody know what the official explanation is?

I think all official statements have just been the usual "Syria needs more time, there needs to be dialogue between the rebels and the government to construct a smooth transition to a democratic Syria, blah blah blah..." Reading between the lines, I would say that Russia is concerned that the rebels are far too entrenched in the hands of the US and would thus establish another US ally in the Middle East. Traditionally Russia has supported the Assad government and may still believe it can surviving this insurrection. I don't think Russia has particulalry good ties with the rebels as shown by the rebels refusal to allow the Russians to act as a broker between them and the Assad government. There is also the fact that the Assad regime is an ally of Iran. If its fall weakens Iran to the extent that it too collapses and sees regime change then it could also result in a pro-Western government in the Middle East.

Exactly what gRed said. Russia has no interest in seeing the entire Middle East transformed into a series of pro-Western Islamist regimes. Some fear that this revolutionary wave will spread to the southern republics of the former Soviet Union, as well. Much of the official rhetoric of the state media in Russia about Syria notes that foreign intelligence services are thoroughly involved in fomenting the revolution. They point to the fact that from virtually the beginning, police and army casualties have been reported alongside protester casualties. This means that a) the protesters are not peaceful and unarmed and b) potentially that there are snipers firing at both sides attempting to further destabilize the regime. The media also cites Syrian government footage and reports of Western and Israeli weapons found in the hands of the rebels. These things are conspicuously absent from Western reporting on the subject, and so everyone is mad at Russia 'for propping up a dictator'. It's funny how in international affairs, this is a sign of a full circle turn. Once again the US is allied with radical Islam against nationalism and progressivism in the Middle East, and once again everyone calls Russia the undemocratic bad guy. It's too bad the country had to lose so much in the last 20 years before understanding that there was no place for the country in the 'common European home', and that friendship with the United States could last only as long as Russia gave up its positions internationally.

According to Juan COle, "Russia opposes any UN resolution setting the stage for foreign intervention or “regime change.” Syria was a client state of the old Soviet Union, and is still valued as a client by Russian PM Vladimir Putin, who hopes to return to the presidency next month. Putin wants to look strong by supporting an ally against the West. Moreover, Russia sells military equipment to Syria, and has a naval base on the Mediterranean in that country. It is Russia’s only Mediterannean base, and Putin doesn’t want to lose it. Further, Russia and China had their fingers burned by not opposing the resolution on Libya last year this time, which called for a no-fly zone but which was used by NATO and elements of the Arab League to justify regime change. Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, dubbed the BRICS bloc, oppose the idea of American and Western intervention in the domestic affairs of other countries (lest that principle give the West an opening to intervene in the BRICS!)."

Mabool wrote:

Everybody is really mad at Russia for doing this right now, but I've noticed that nobody ever cared to tell us just why Russia vetoed this. That's really weird. Does anybody know what the official explanation is?

What do you mean when you say "everybody is mad" at Russia? Who is this "everybody"?

I must say this raises a very interesting question regarding Syria. I mean, the prospect of a democratic movement within the country should be something to be suported, right? The thing is, Western imperialism will inevitably support this movement and attempt to open up the potential labour markets Syria has to offer after any revolution that may occur. What would be preferable: political democracy but economic imperialism or political dictatorship with economic safeguarding?

Quote:

What would be preferable: political democracy but economic imperialism or political dictatorship with economic safeguarding?

There can not be any "political democracy" in a country run by imperialist puppets.We only have to take a look at Syria's neighbour to see what this "democracy" looks like.And Syria has the potential to become even worse than Iraq,since it has several ethnic/religious groups which could very likely come into conflict.Not that the Islamists are known for their respect of even bourgeois democratic standards anyway.

Loz wrote:

There can not be any "political democracy" in a country run by imperialist puppets.We only have to take a look at Syria's neighbour to see what this "democracy" looks like.And Syria has the potential to become even worse than Iraq,since it has several ethnic/religious groups which could very likely come into conflict.Not that the Islamists are known for their respect of even bourgeois democratic standards anyway.

Agree 100%. Also, not to drag this into another Libya-style discussion, but I think that the Syrian regime has many progressive aspects worth supporting, including the country's secularism and a good women's rights record, in addition to social services and elements of market socialism.

Khlib has it nailed. We can't forget Tartus and the plans to renovate said naval base. I am also slightly fearful of an Islamist faction deciding to overturn the separation of church and state, also taking the Assad style chest thumping at Israel to the level of actual conflict. I don't want either of those things. I guess this dude might also be onto something when he claims sectarian violence is very likely to become the motive for most of the fighting in Syria.
I guess Russia doesn't want the blood of a post-revolutionary cult's vicious reprisals on its hands - as we now see in Libya.

Quote:

There can not be any "political democracy" in a country run by imperialist puppets.

So you're saying it's impossible for Syria to have genuine multi-party democracy and a society governed by the rule of law?

Quote:

Agree 100%. Also, not to drag this into another Libya-style discussion, but I think that the Syrian regime has many progressive aspects worth supporting, including the country's secularism and a good women's rights record, in addition to social services and elements of market socialism.

I agree, I'm just wondering why we can't add multi-party democracy and the rule of law to that mix.


Basically, can Syria not do a Myanmar? They seem to be reforming in terms of political rights and legal processes but without any internal rebellion to act as a catalyst.

They might still do that.

As for the resolution, I think it was considered an opportunity to pave the way for further foreign intervention. Something that is plainly against the interests of China and Russia. Last year, they abstained from voting for or against the resolution that allowed for the "no-fly zone" over Libya, and look what happened. They're not going to let that happen a second time with a country like Syria, especially considering how devastating a power vacuum in that country would be to the stability in the rest of the region. It would effectively mean that the US, EU, Israel and Turkey can enforce regime change right on Iran's doorstep (and by extension, Russia's and China's doorstep) unopposed.

What I don't entirely understand is how either side of the international discussion is going to help matters along much. It appears as though competition between the US and allies on one hand, and Russia and China on the other, is going to increase the prospect of a prolonged and bloody civil war. Any solution seems to be far off.

Well, Russia offered her good offices. Started invited both parties to a conference in Moscow. Assad accepted, but I don't know if the "rebels" did.
That's the most anyone has done to stop the conflict.

Quote:

So you're saying it's impossible for Syria to have genuine multi-party democracy and a society governed by the rule of law?

Certainly not if these rebels come to power, a la Libya.

Quote:

I agree, I'm just wondering why we can't add multi-party democracy and the rule of law to that mix.

I don't see why we shouldn't,but that's for the Syrian people to struggle for.The NATO-puppet Rebels certainly wouldn't bring neither democracy nor,especially,the rule of law.

Quote:

Basically, can Syria not do a Myanmar? They seem to be reforming in terms of political rights and legal processes but without any internal rebellion to act as a catalyst.

I don't know much about Myanmar/Burma,but didn't the government recently sign a ceasefire with Karen people and some other rebel forces?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_conflict_in_Burma

If Syria were to fall then that would complicate the situation with Iran, and Sergei Lavrov has said this explicitly that all of this turmoil is going to spread into Russia and they do not want that. I get the impression from reading RT, Novosti, and Pravda that many in Russia were not impressed with the decision to not pull the veto on Libya, and the Russian government felt some pressure at home. Iran was indifferent on the whole Libya scenario as far as I can tell, but Syria is much more important geopolitically and in avoiding a war with Iran coming to a settlement in Syria is key.

Lets not forget what Gen. Wesley Clark laid out a few years back in 2007 of the countries the US planned to invade, and its all played out just that way. Interestingly, they never invaded Sudan, but with the actions they did take against the country, bombing it, dividing it, funding militias, and of course the wonderful PR campaign stamped with Clooney's face on it, they as well have. They are ready to jump into Syria at a moment's notice. When push comes to shove, and the UN won't back Obama and Israel's plan to intervene in Syria, it will be interesting to see how they react. Bush of course had no qualms on circumventing the UN, but will Obama be able to pull it off? Russia is banking on it apparently, and hopefully a double veto can buy them time at the very least.

But, we can be somewhat optimistic that whatever America does plan to do in Syria or Iran it will really only be tenuous. The provisional governments in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya are hanging on by threads, and I really don't see a bright future for South Sudan. For this I find the insight of Michael Scheuer quite compelling here. Being a former CIA operative his opinion is that America no longer is winning wars, and this is true, but he neglects to mention America's declining power vis-a-vis BRIC countries and other adversaries. In any event, I think this whole double veto is just delaying the inevitable, which is going to be some sort of intensification of military action.

Loz wrote:

I don't know much about Myanmar/Burma,but didn't the government recently sign a ceasefire with Karen people and some other rebel forces?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_conflict_in_Burma

He's probably referring to these; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011–2012_Burmese_political_reforms , which as far as I know were motivated by a long-time international pressure rather than a certain conflict.

On the topic, I wasn't that surprised to see Russia veto the UN resolution, but to see China alongside them was rather interesting if you ask me. Russia is a long-time ally to the Baath regime, and them and the Iranian government are the only trustworthy allies they have left in Middle-East. It would also be really ignorant for them to abstain again after what happened in Libya. What's up with PRC though.

Quote:

Certainly not if these rebels come to power, a la Libya.

Are there any rebels you would support coming to power in Libya other than communists?

Quote:

I don't see why we shouldn't,but that's for the Syrian people to struggle for.The NATO-puppet Rebels certainly wouldn't bring neither democracy nor,especially,the rule of law.

The NATO puppet rebels did in South Korea (eventually).

Quote:

I don't know much about Myanmar/Burma,but didn't the government recently sign a ceasefire with Karen people and some other rebel forces?

Those wars have been going on for years. It's not as if the rebels (who are secessionist I think) gained ground and forced the government to the negotiating table. I think Myanmar is doing it because it realises that bourgeois democracy and the rule of law are better for economic development.

Not directly related to the veto, but still a very clear article by Joseph Massad: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinio ... 91274.html

Quote:

Are there any rebels you would support coming to power in Libya other than communists?

I don't know,most likely not,however i do know that i don't want these Syrian Rebels coming to power.

Quote:

The NATO puppet rebels did in South Korea (eventually).

Yes,but these were completely different circumstances and conditions so on.One doesn't have to look father from Syria's neighbor to see what future awaits it if the Rebels take over.

Quote:

Those wars have been going on for years. It's not as if the rebels (who are secessionist I think) gained ground and forced the government to the negotiating table. I think Myanmar is doing it because it realises that bourgeois democracy and the rule of law are better for economic development.

I don't know,maybe you're right,i just thought that there might have been some connection.

Quote:

I don't know,most likely not,however i do know that i don't want these Syrian Rebels coming to power.

Why not? Their demands don't sound too unreasonable to me (lifting the emergency law, democratic reforms). I would say the main thing to be concerned about is Islamism within their ranks but I'm not sure I can see much of that. What in particular is worrying you?

Quote:

Yes,but these were completely different circumstances and conditions so on.One doesn't have to look father from Syria's neighbor to see what future awaits it if the Rebels take over.

But then you can argue that Syria is not Libya or Iraq.

Baiscally, all I'm saying is bourgeois representative democracy and the rule of law are better than the one-party rule of the Assad regime. I can't see how anybody could think otherwise. But how do Marxists support this if they condemn any uprising which appears to want to achieve this?

Quote:

Why not? Their demands don't sound too unreasonable to me (lifting the emergency law, democratic reforms). I would say the main thing to be concerned about is Islamism within their ranks but I'm not sure I can see much of that. What in particular is worrying you?

What's worrying me is that they are the expositure and servants of imperialism.I think that's pretty clear.

Quote:

But then you can argue that Syria is not Libya or Iraq.

But the events in Syria are just following a well-known pattern,the geopolitical "arrangement" of the world is different (imperialism doesn't need a strong and independent Syria, which i conclude,among other things, from the fact that Iraq,the first bulwark against Iran was practically brought to ruin),Syria is not S.Korea with its homogenous population et cetera et cetera.

Quote:

Baiscally, all I'm saying is bourgeois representative democracy and the rule of law are better than the one-party rule of the Assad regime. I can't see how anybody could think otherwise. But how do Marxists support this if they condemn any uprising which appears to want to achieve this?

After so many similiar "interventions" in the past,i cannot believe in such "democracy" imposed by NATO and its puppets.Look at Libya for example.The "NTC" was praised as freedom fighters and so on,which turned a relatively normal country into a warlord-bandit paradise.