Russia vows to veto UN resolution for international criminal court to look into allegations against

[pampango]

Syrian government and opposition

Russia has said it will veto a UN resolution to refer the Syrian conflict to the international criminal court (ICC) if it comes to a vote in the security council, after nearly 60 countries announced their support for the measure. Moscow's position, announced on Tuesday by Gennady Gatilov, the deputy foreign minster, is consistent with previous moves to protect Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president, from international censure in more than three years of a war that has cost 160,000 lives and displaced millions of people.

"This engagement will raise the political price tag for Russia or China should they decide to obstruct justice for Syria through casting a veto," Dicker said. "Referral to the ICC is the best means to bring justice to those who have suffered and signal that the space for impunity for those crimes is shrinking."

France first circulated the proposal last month after briefing the security council on photographic evidence, provided by a defector, of mass killings of detainees by the Syrian government. It calls for the ICC to be given a mandate over crimes against humanity and war crimes committed in Syria. The draft resolution deliberately does not target one side.

The draft resolution takes note of reports by an independent commission appointed by the UN Human Rights Council to investigate violations in Syria. In its latest report last September, the commission said there had been at least eight massacres perpetrated by Assad's government and its supporters and one by rebels in the previous year and a half. A confidential list of suspected criminals is being produced by the commission and kept by the UN high commissioner for human rights, Navi Pillay.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/20/russia-veto-un-resolution-syria

There have been abuses on both sides. The guilty should be prosecuted.

[geek tragedy]

1. Will our resident rt.com-quoting Putinistas defend this or

show up to comment at all?

Putin is an imperialist, bigoted pig.

[stevenleser]

2. They will throw the wishes of 60 of the worlds countries under the bus if one of them is the US and

Russia is against it.

[geek tragedy]

4. it always amazes me that we have foreign nationalists

who come here, as if.

[former9thward]

33. As the U.S.has done at the UN with vetoes of anti-Israel resolutions.

No matter how many countries supported it.

[malaise]

41. Shhhhhhhhhhhhh

One more thing - when will we have the war crimes posse on trial for Iraq?

[stevenleser]

43. No shushing needed. That person missed the point. Are you defending one and not the other? nt

[stevenleser]

42. No one here has defended that. This is the difference. We're talking about DUers defending it.

Are you defending one and not the other?

[bemildred]

3. That Dicker fellow sounds like a moron.

You won't get shit done unless you keep Russia and China on board, and that won't happen when you babble on about "price tags" for them. Does he know what those words imply in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute?

[geek tragedy]

6. That presumes that getting Russia and China on board with human

rights accountability is attainable. Mr. Dicker rightfully realizes that China and especially Russia will never support such measures, so the only question is whether they get exposed for their enabling of Assad's abuses or allowed to do so with no accountability of their own.

No different than forcing someone in the US Senate to mount an actual filibuster rather than killing a bill because there is not unanimous consent.

[bemildred]

8. It's just a fact. The details are in the story:

1.) Only a UNSC resolution can get Syria before the ICC.
2.) Only with Russia and China's consent can such a resolution get past the UNSC.
3.) Therefore pissing off China or Russia is guaranteed to protect Syria and Assad.

[geek tragedy]

10. Again, it depends on whether one's goal is to tilt at that windmill

or to introduce public accountability for Assad's accomplice in Moscow.

Putin is guaranteed to protect Assad no matter what, any attempts at persuading him to do the right thing are wasted. Better to expose him for what he is, not that it's a matter of any secrecy.

[bemildred]

17. Prancing around like you hold some position of moral superiority won't get you far,

no matter how it strokes your ego. Putin is a pragmatist, and he will protect Assad as long as that works for Putin.

[geek tragedy]

18. human rights advocacy is very often about naming and shaming

not trying to persuade the unpersuadeable.

Putin is a pragmatist, and he will protect Assad as long as that works for Putin.

The rational approach to this would then be to move things such that it is no longer perceived to be in his interest to support Assad, just like undercutting Israel's support in the US political establishment is critical to getting a sane, productive Israel/Palestine policy out of our own government.

Pooty poot has invested a lot of time and money into propaganda outlets trying to put a veneer of respectability on Russia's international image. That's the only pressure point human rights activists have on him. lord knows the butcher of Chechnya isn't going to be swayed by calls to do the right thing

[bemildred]

19. But you have to have some credibility to do that. We don't.

It is fatuous to think that Putin will changed his mind about Assad because of our empty threats and name-calling. Do you think that would work the other way? (Hint: it doesn't.)

[geek tragedy]

20. This article is not about threats and name-calling. It's about a vote

on whether the ICC should investigate the myriad war crimes in Syria, including the use of poison gas on civilians.

When it vetoes Israel/Palestine resolutions, the US gets exposed as a protector of Israel and enabler of the occupation--and pays the price for doing so, so should Russia get exposed as a protector and enabler of the Baath party's abuses in Syria, and it should similarly pay the price.

The major powers should be held accountable when they abuse their privileged status at the UN.

[bemildred]

21. Which is, as you and the OP admit, purely for PR purposes, i.e. propaganda.

To assert our moral superiority, which as I pointed out, we don't actually have.

If Putin advanced such a motion against us at the UN, do you think we would say: "Oh, maybe we should do what Putin wants?" I don't think so.

[geek tragedy]

22. sorry, that is an erroneous, binary, extremely US-centric misinterpretation of events.

There are 60 nations behind this.

The author of the resolution is France. The main coordinator is Switzerland.

Per the Swiss ambassador's letter:

I am writing to you on behalf of the following 58 States: Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria,
Belgium, Botswana, Bulgaria, Cape Verde, Chile, Cook Islands, Costa Rica, Cote d'lvoire, Croatia,
Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Hungary,
Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Maldives, Malta,
Marshall Islands, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Paraguay,
Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Samoa,
Seychelles, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tunisia,
United Kingdom, Uruguay, and my own country, Switzerland.

They are not doing this to boost help the United States assert its moral authority. They, unlike both the US and Russia, support the ICC and its mission, France having ratified the Rome treaty in 2000 and Switzerland in 2001.

Indeed, the idea that the French are interested in helping the US assert its moral superiority is one that would be treated as comedy on the streets of Paris.

Note that the United States is not a signatory to that letter.

Not everything is about the United States, and not every problem in the world is comprised of the lint in the US's navel.

Also note that both sides in that conflict have committed atrocities, and the ICC would (and SHOULD) have jurisdiction over perps on both sides.

If you want people who are interested in asserting their moral authority, look for those who constantly call for the ICC to prosecute what happened in Iraq when the US and UK were involved, but have little interest in seeing one for Syria.

[bemildred]

23. And you keep trying to assert we hold the moral high ground, don't you? nt

[geek tragedy]

24. who is 'we?' This resolution isn't supported by my government. nt

[bemildred]

25. The 60 nations you mentioned, who else would it be? nt

[geek tragedy]

26. I am not a citizen of one of those 60 countries.

As to why Costa Rica and Botswana and Norway and Germany and Ghana signed that letter, presumably it's because they think war crimes should be prosecuted but you would have to ask them.

[bemildred]

27. Good for you.

I'm just saying they aren't any better than anybody else, all of them, and you too.

[geek tragedy]

28. well, let's just scrap all international human rights law then.

I don't think this is about anyone's national ego.

[bemildred]

29. Might as well. Everybody ignores them and uses them for propaganda.

Just look at Syria.

And it fucking well is about everybodies national ego.

[geek tragedy]

32. international standards exist to constrain the strong.

it takes more work with states like the US and Russia, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be tried.

Plenty of people on all sides in Syria that should go on trial.

And, truth be told, they don't just get ignored. The US, Russia, China etc all go to great lengths and expense to hide their crimes and polish the turd that is their image.

Russia Today wouldn't exist if Putin felt he could just ignore such concerns.

[bemildred]

38. International standards exist to befuddle the weak.

All governments use propaganda. All governments are more-or-less shameless, especially the ones who think much of themselves.

It has been understood since WWII, if not before, that industrial war does not pay, hence the movement to other methods: propaganda, low-level conflict, de-stabilization, subversion, economic attacks, etc. Authority is not as easy to grab as it once was, the peasants are often well-armed, or they can find your enemies and arm themselves that way. Look at Syria. Look at any proxy war.

I assume Putin understands this quite well. Anyone who came up through the KGB as he did when he did has to be astute in certain ways, and one thing I can say from observing what he has done in the last year, is I think he is too.

[okaawhatever]

30. We have all kinds of moral superiority when it comes to Russia and China. Our records in totality

speak for themselves.

[bemildred]

31. Our record certainly does speak for itself. nt

[geek tragedy]

35. records should speak for themselves. nt

[bemildred]

39. It does. nt

[okaawhatever]

36. Your point? And are you even a US citizen? nt

[bemildred]

40. Born and raised here, and very well educated too. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

5. The US and Israel refuse to recognize the ICC. nt.

[geek tragedy]

7. Which is relevant to France's resolution, how? nt

[Warren Stupidity]

9. It is relevant to the hypocritical poutrage here over Russia.

Russia is acting the way we do: unilaterally with disdain towards the international organizations we routinely act with disdain towards. Oh my. It is almost as if we, having set a precedent, are now reaping the blowback.

Let me know when we recognize the authority of the ICC, then I'll demand Russia do the same.

[geek tragedy]

11. Ah, so it's bad when the US does it but not objectionable when Russia does

It's a rather convenient mindset that refuses to criticize anyone but the US and Israel so long as the US is imperfect.

Not sure why the US's shameful behavior is a defense for Russia's.

[Warren Stupidity]

13. No, I didn't say that, I said we fucked up by dissing international treaty obligations,

not recognizing the ICC, treating the UN as an irrelevant annoyance, and acting unilaterally when and wherever we feel like it. Now we are seeing other nations doing the same thing. Our outrage is hypocritical.

[geek tragedy]

14. France is sponsoring the resolution, not the US.

The US government isn't even quoted in that article.

Human rights is not a parochial, US vs the world concern.

[Warren Stupidity]

15. Your outrage is hypocritical.

Our government's feigned outrage is hypocritical.

I am not justifying anything other than we ought to clean our own house first.

[geek tragedy]

16. Sorry, I don't share your navel-gazing, US-centric view of the planet.

Last edited Tue May 20, 2014, 01:40 PM - Edit history (1)

Also, I understand what "hypocritical" means, for your information when someone criticizes their own government and a foreign government for doing something, that isn't hypocrisy.

Criticizing one's own government but refusing to criticize anyone else for doing the same thing, that is hypocrisy.

P.S. The US isn't publicly backing this resolution.

[okaawhatever]

34. We haen't ratified the Rome Treaty so we aren't members of the ICC and haven't "f'ed up or dissed"

anything. The Obama admin cooperates with the ICC, but Bush didn't and since the ICC was formed in 2002 there isn't a long history there. China hasn't ratified it either.

[pampango]

12. As do Syria and Russia. Quite an illustrious group there which we are a member of.

It includes such paradises as Zimbabwe, Kyrgyzstan, Yemen and Haiti among 30 some others.

Apparently 3 countries have recently agreed to ICC jurisdiction: Ivory Coast in 2003, Palestine in 2009 and Ukraine just this April.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_parties_to_the_Rome_Statute_of_the_International_Criminal_Court

[Jefferson23]

37. The ICC may very well get Assad one day...fingers crossed. n/t