After
Failed UN
Syria Vote,
Rice Cites
IBSA
Solidarity, Of
Motive &
Ban Dodges
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
October 4 --
After the
Syria
resolution was
double vetoed
by
Russia and
China, with
Lebanon and
India, Brazil
and South
Africa
(IBSA)
abstaining, US
Ambassador
Susan Rice
said "this is
not
about Libya,"
adding that
for some it
was about
selling
weapons
to the Assad
government.
When
Rice came to
take
questions,
Inner City
Press asked
her about the
IBSA
abstentions,
for example
Brazil: was
she saying
Brazil wants
to sell
weapons to
Syria?
Or could it be
that the way
the Libya
resolutions
were
implemented
resulted in
these three
abstentions on
Syria?
Rice
opined that
India, Brazil
and South
Africa were
trying to
"maintain
solidarity."
But the
question
remains, did
the way the
NATO
allies
implemented
the Security
Council's
Libya
resolutions
make the
IBSA members
more bent on
maintaining
solidarity?
When
the
Council's four
European
members came
to take
questions,
Inner City
Press asked
them if their
actions,
particularly
the
airdropping
despite a UN
arms embargo
of weapons
into Libya by
France, led to
IBSA
skepticism or
solidarity.
The
UK's Mark
Lyall Grant is
the one
who answered,
only to say
that he
wouldn't speak
for other
countries'
motives. But
he'd just
finished
saying that
their motives
WEREN'T
Libya.
Araud,
who did
not answer the
question about
his country's
arms-drops
into Libya,
did say that
Russia and
China has
"vetoed the
Arab Spring."
Russia's
Vitaly
Churkin called
Araud's a
"cute little
phrase.. but
one a serious
one," saying
that the Arab
Spring should
not lead to
civil war.
Churkin cited
not only Libya
but before
that Cote
d'Ivoire,
where it
was decided
"in a European
capital" --
that would be
Paris
-- to take
action as soon
as an
electoral
winner was
declared.
Churkin
casting veto
Oct 4, 2011,
Cote d'Ivoire
not shown
Given
UN
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon's
role, in
letting his
Department of
Peacekeeping
Operations
under
Frenchman
Alain LeRoy,
since replaced
by fellow
French Herve
Ladsous,
operate with
the French
Force Licorne
to literally
oust Laurent
Gbagbo from
power, and
more recently
in
saying Assad
"lost all
humanity,"
Inner City
Press asked
Churkin about
Ban.
Churkin
cited only
Lyall Grant's
quote of Ban,
that "enough
is enough,"
and
said that he
agreed. In
fact, Syrian
Ambassador
Bashar
Ja'afari in
answering
Inner City
Press'
question also
said, "enough
is
enough," while
dodging about
Ban and his
comment.
Afterward
some
surmised that
this dodging
is because
they still
have to deal
with
Ban Ki-moon,
or that he has
little power
-- like "a
checkout
girl with a
Bomb Iran
t-shirt," as
one wag put
it. But this
is
why the UN is
not reformed
and there's
little
accountability.
Watch
this site.
Footnote:
while
there was talk
of a similar
double veto on
Myanmar, Inner
City
Press was
reminded of
the vote on
sanctions on
Zimbabwe on
July 11,
2008:
double veto by
China and
Russia (then
as now under
Churkin),
abstention by
Indonesia, and
no votes by
South Africa
(under then
Ambassador
Dumisani
Kumalo),
Vietnam and,
ironically,
Libya.
That day, UK
Ambassador
John Sawers
was fuming.
Two days
later, Ban
Ki-moon
trashed
Zimbabwe's
Ambassador for
(candidly)
calling his
Department of
Political
Affairs under
Lynn Pascoe
biased, click
here for that.
Where did that
go? Will this
one work out
any different?
We'll see.
From
the
US Mission's
transcript:
Inner
City
Press:
Ambassador
Rice, in the
chamber you
said, this is
not
about Libya,
it's about
countries that
want to sell
weapons to
Syria.
And I guess
what I wonder
is, is the
countries, say
the IBSA
countries,
countries like
Brazil and
others, do you
think that
what
happened on
Libya, that a
resolution was
passed, and
then NATO
bombed-from
the point of
view of those
countries,
things went
further
than they
authorized-do
you really
think it had
no impact on
this? Or
do you think
all of those
countries are
selling
weapons?
Ambassador
Rice:
I think this
is an excuse.
I think the
vast majority
of
countries,
even today on
the Council
that were not
able to vote
in
favor of this
text, know
that this was
a resolution
that, in
substance, was
unobjectionable.
And their
decisions to
vote as they
did may have
had a lot less
to do with the
text than it
did with some
effort to
maintain
solidarity
among a
certain group
of countries.
So
I think Libya
has been beat
to death,
overused, and
misused as an
excuse for
countries not
to take up
their
responsibilities
with
respect to
Syria.