De ryska och kinesiska kommentarerna till den "västerländska" upprördheten över att Ryssland och Kina la sitt veto i säkerhetsrådet förefaller mig vara realpolitiskt förnuftiga:
http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20120...china_syria_un
Citat:
"---The People's Daily, China's top party newspaper, also defended the veto, and suggested that Chinese distrust of Western intervention lay behind it.
"Currently, the situation in Syria is extremely complex. Simplistically supporting one side and suppressing the other might seem a helpful way of turning things around, but in fact it would be sowing fresh seeds of disaster," the newspaper, which echoes government thinking, said in the commentary.
The author of the commentary used the pen name "Zhong Sheng", which can mean "voice of China" and is often used to give the government's position on foreign policy.
The People's Daily spelled out broader Chinese concerns about U.S.-backed action in the Arab world and beyond, citing the campaign in Libya. In March, China abstained from a Security Council vote that authorized NATO intervention in Libya.
The resolution became the basis for the NATO air campaign that led to the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi, despite misgivings from Beijing and Moscow about the expanded campaign, which they said went beyond the resolution.
"Libya offers a negative case study. NATO abused the Security Council resolution about establishing a no-fly zone, and directly provided firepower assistance to one side," said the People's Daily.
"The calamities of Iraq and Afghanistan should be ample to wipe clear the world's eyes. Forceful prevention of a humanitarian disaster sounds filled with a sense of justice and responsibility," the paper said.
"But are not the unstoppable attacks and explosions over a decade after regime change a humanitarian disaster?"
Guo, the Beijing-based researcher, who is an expert on the Middle East, said the Libya experience probably still stung Chinese officials, who also worry about possible Western or Israeli military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities.
"If the Libya model was applied to Syria, then it could be applied again and again, so China and Russia were more resolute this time," said Guo."
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Mid...#axzz1ljQ7dks3
Citat:
"---"Some comments from the West on the UN Security Council vote, I would say, are indecent and bordering on hysteria," Lavrov told reporters in Moscow after a meeting with Bahraini counterpart Sheikh Khalid bin Ahmed al-Khalifa.
"Such hysterical comments are aimed at suppressing what is actually happening and what has happened," said Lavrov.
"It reminds me of the proverb: 'he who gets angry is rarely right'," he added.
Lavrov reaffirmed Russia's position that the resolution was wrong to blame Assad's regime alone for the violence and said the text should have also taken aim at the opposition.
"In Syria there is more than one source of violence. There are several there," he said.---"
Pepe Escobar skriver i Asia Times:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NB07Ak02.html
Citat:
"---Russia, vocally - and China, silently - had been adamant for weeks; forget about a UN resolution for regime change in Syria, or worse yet, opening the doors for a Libya-style NATO humanitarian bombing.
Russia has its own geopolitical reasons to consider Syria a red line; Syria hosts Russia's only naval base in the Mediterranean, in the port of Tartus; and Syria buys Russian weapons. But in fact all the five BRICS - plus the overwhelmingly majority of the developing world - are in synch; forget about regime change-enabling UN resolutions, promoted by the usual suspect Western trio US-Britain-France and - the summit of hypocrisy - devised by the "democratic" House of Saud and Qatar.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will be in Damascus this Tuesday to meet with President Bashar al-Assad and discuss a serious plan to try to end the bloodshed. Lavrov has calmly explained the reasons for the Russian veto.
He had sent Russian amendments to the draft resolution directly to Clinton; "The rationality and objectivity of these amendments should not cause anyone's doubt." But to no avail; the resolution remained "unilateral" - demanding nothing from Syrian anti-government armed groups. Lavrov stressed, "No president with self-respect, no matter how treated, will agree to surrender inhabited localities to armed extremists without resistance." Imagine if Homs was in Texas.
Still, the SNC now holds Moscow and Beijing "responsible for the escalating acts of killing and genocide", and facilitators of a "license to kill". Lavrov is imperturbable; "We have repeatedly said that we are not protecting Assad but
international law. The prerogative of the UN Security Council does not envision interference in internal processes."---"
