UN shenanigans on Syria

[bemildred]

"Viscous nasty business" ... "aggressive pressure ... by US diplomats", "ferocious pressure on weaker non-permanent members", the "type of pressure [that] is very, very difficult for weaker countries ... to resist.''

That's how a former British diplomat at the United Nations, Carne Ross, described last September's UN showdown over the Palestinian Authority's bid for recognition for statehood. [1] "This is how power works." he said.

He might have added "money", for route to the UN Security Council in the case of Syria this week has been one of bullying, bribery, unprecedented procedural violations at the Arab League, along with media manipulation and significant distortions of reality.

At stake in this diplomatic battle of "historic importance" is the campaign led by the United States, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom and France to secure a UN mandate for external interference in Syria with the aim of deposing President Bashar al-Assad and his regime.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NB03Ak03.html

[tabatha]

1. That is just wrong.

Susan Rice has repeated over and over again that the US does not want military action.

atimes.com is not a good source.

[bemildred]

2. I think the Administration wants to avoid war.

I think the US government as a whole is divided on the subject, and some parties are free-lancing their own views around and trying to stir something up. It is a grave mistake to think that the US government operates as some sort of unified entity. Far from it.

I quite agree that you need to take these pieces with a grain of salt.

[davidpdx]

3. I agree with Rice about the vetos

But she really should be complaining about BOTH Russia and China. Those two are the ones who veto resolutions on every situation having to do with despot countries like Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc. I'm disturbed nothing is being done to help the Syrians, but I am worried about the Iran/Israel standoff. If things go wrong there, it could severely affect our election.