Like Tree109Likes

China and Russia veto UN resolution

Closed Thread
Page 1 of 12 1 2 3 4 9 ... LastLast
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    7,517

    China and Russia veto UN resolution

    Gives Assad a licence to kill? or a new invitation for dialogue?

    I think it's clear that Russia and China are not going to give the US and NATO a UN mandate to do what they did in Libya last year, and perhaps rightly so. But at the same time, 300 were apparently killed in the Syrian city of Homs by an artillery barrage. Is it still the time for dialogue?
    dear giant likes this.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    6,076

    China and Russia, the friends of dictators the world over.

    It probably didn't help when John McCain promised a China Arab Spring was coming! The last thing the Chinese government wants is self-determination for any people.


  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    49

    I think you gotta see the big picture. My guess is that russia and china would not want to endorse having outside interference in domestic affairs. Domestic issues should be resolved internally than by external enforcers. Should one day the US president decides to have a dictatorship, does that mean that UN should interfere and provide security forces? I reckon the US army and senators should fight against that themselves. Should we allow external interferences, how free are we as a nation? Do not forget, the UN security council is primarily an alliance of western powers, with the psudo leader USA. I reckon russia and china are right in this choice. Should they allow it, where is the true essence of a nation's self governance? Think about it.


  4. #4

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    7,517
    Quote Originally Posted by almmla:
    I think you gotta see the big picture. My guess is that russia and china would not want to endorse having outside interference in domestic affairs. Domestic issues should be resolved internally than by external enforcers. Should one day the US president decides to have a dictatorship, does that mean that UN should interfere and provide security forces? I reckon the US army and senators should fight against that themselves. Should we allow external interferences, how free are we as a nation? Do not forget, the UN security council is primarily an alliance of western powers, with the psudo leader USA. I reckon russia and china are right in this choice. Should they allow it, where is the true essence of a nation's self governance? Think about it.
    So a dictatorship should be allowed to kill people in its country, and nobody should do anything because we don't want "outside interference in domestic affairs"? Is that still ok for 100 dead people? 1000? 1 million?

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Central
    Posts
    725
    The Plan -- according to U.S. General Wesley Clark (Ret.) - YouTube

    Afghanista, Iraq, Egypt, Lybia, Syria and then Iran (Sudan has already been split in half and Somalia is already in civil war.)

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,369

    Who to trust more -- a power block of flawed but generally well-intentioned Western democracies or Russia + China?

    I'll go with the Western democracies pretty much every time.

    Compare the allies of both sides in our local neighborhood. Japan, Korea, Taiwan, etc. are all democracies. Flawed though they may be, they're relatively liberal and free. Who are China's and Russia's pals? North Korea ... Burma (though fortunately this seems to be changing) ... Pakistan (increasingly) ... Do people generally want to live in China and Russia? Nope, they're struggling to get out. The same goes for their allies. How many South Koreans, for example, are risking their lives to escape to North Korea?

    Also, the idea that the current Syrian dictatorship represents self-governance is ridiculous. That regime is trying to prevent real self-governance and China and Russia are trying to stop the free parts of the world from helping the Syrian people to get rid of their rotten government and have a shot at democracy.


  7. #7

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    493

    Pffft, it's got nothing to do with democracy/freedom and everything to do with politics... They're trying to protect their interest. The US had no qualms working with Saddam or Noriega when it suited them and invade/remove them when it didn't... They're all playing games using smaller countries and their people as pawns.

    Western democracies are great at protecting and treating their own people well but not so much when it comes to others... The US for example refuses to participate and is often openly hostile to the International Criminal Court. I guess it's hard to throw rocks when you live in a glass house.


  8. #8

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,369
    Quote Originally Posted by Swannie:
    Pffft, it's got nothing to do with democracy/freedom and everything to do with politics... They're trying to protect their interest. The US had no qualms working with Saddam or Noriega when it suited them and invade/remove them when it didn't... They're all playing games using smaller countries and their people as pawns.

    Western democracies are great at protecting and treating their own people well but not so much when it comes to others... The US for example refuses to participate and is often openly hostile to the International Criminal Court. I guess it's hard to throw rocks when you live in a glass house.
    Western govts aren't run by angels but the big picture, long-term results speak for themselves. Allies of the West may be dictatorships to start with but eventually tend to become democracies. During the period that they're dictatorships, every incident of suppression, every protest where lives are lost, etc. results in Western nations' politically conscious citizens raking their governments over the coals for being associated with those dictators.

    Thirty-plus years ago, people were justifiably complaining about the US supporting dictatorships in S. Korea and Taiwan. Those countries are free now.

    You mentioned Saddam (who was used to try to keep a lid on Iran) and Noreaga (who was used to try to keep Communism at bay in Latin America). Neither is in power any longer. Who removed them from power? Who helped to try to establish democratic governments in those dictators' wakes?

    Meanwhile, the Kim dynasty enjoys the wholehearted support of the PRC regime.

    Russia and the PRC are big on non-interference, except when they want to meddle. If only China had kept their hands off Korea, for example, the entire peninsula might be a thriving democracy right now.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HK
    Posts
    14,624
    Quote Originally Posted by drumbrake:
    So a dictatorship should be allowed to kill people in its country, and nobody should do anything because we don't want "outside interference in domestic affairs"? Is that still ok for 100 dead people? 1000? 1 million?
    A democracy (the US) was 'allowed' to kill people in a country based on false proof so...

    But overall agree w ur point above.
    luckycat and shenwen like this.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    368
    Quote Originally Posted by Swannie:
    Pffft, it's got nothing to do with democracy/freedom and everything to do with politics...
    You are right it is not about democracy and freedom for China and Russia. The chinese communist party and Putin don't want anybody interfering when its their turn to suppress their own people.
    bookblogger likes this.

Closed Thread
Page 1 of 12 1 2 3 4 9 ... LastLast