Russia Blasts UN Rights Council Resolution on Syria, Defends Arms Sales

Russia and China continue to obstruct and criticize international attempts to address the situation in Syria. On Friday, Russian diplomats criticized a UN Human Rights Council resolution on Syria as an open appeal to military intervention.

The UN rights body resolution passed by a 37-4 margin, with China, Russia, Cuba and Ecuador voting against and six other countries abstaining. Russia’s envoy at the Geneva based body said the resolution was a one sided, politicized attempt to exacerbate the conflict. 

“We are particularly concerned at a number of provisions in the draft which could be interpreted as an open appeal to interfere in Syria’s internal affairs allowing for military actions including military intervention.” Ambassador Valery Loschinin told Council members after the vote.

Loschinin argued the resolution placed full blame on the Syrian government, while ignoring serious crimes carried out by armed anti-government protesters.

But UN Human Rights Chief Navi Pillay warned that failure to stop the Assad government’s “ruthless repression” could drive Syria into full out civil war. 

“The international community needs to take urgent and effective measures to protect the Syrian people.”she told Rights Council members. 

On Monday, a UNHRC mandated investigation concluded Syrian security forces had committed crimes against humanity against the country’s civilian population since anti-government protests broke out back in March. The report says the scale and patterns of attack indicates Assad government officials authorized or had knowledge of security force operations. 

Pillay says over 4 000 people have been killed since March, and more than 14 000 remain detained for their alleged role in the uprising. 

The UN rights chief also renewed her earlier calls for the Security Council to refer the Syrian situation to the International Criminal Court. 

But Russia’s Ambassador says his country does not consider the Assad government’s actions to be war crimes. 

 “We believe that there are no basis for calling Damascus’s activities crimes against humanity . In any event, this goes beyond the mandate of the Council.” 

 Loschinin said the Council mandated report on Syria was flawed, mainly because investigators weren’t allowed into the country to verify the situation first hand and instead had to rely on witness testimonies. 

In a statement this afternoon, American Ambassador Susan Rice welcomed the resolution  as part of the “ever expanding chorus of condemnation of the Asad regime’s brutality.”

 Rice said she was pleased all seven of the Rights Council’s Arab members had supported the resolution and that the Obama administration would continue to lead efforts to assist the Syrian people.

However it seems unlikely those efforts will result in Security Council sanctions Syrian opposition groups and Western governments have been calling for.

In October, Russia vetoed a European and US backed Security Council resolution on Syria, arguing Western powers would use it to justify military intervention.  

At the time, US Ambassador Susan Rice said the argument about preventing military intervention was:”a cheap ruse by those who would rather sell arms to the Syrian regime than stand with the Syrian people.”

Last week, the League of Arab States announced it had suspend Syrian from the organization and imposed its own set of sanctions against the Assad government.

In a press conference today marking Russia’s Presidency of the Security Council for the month of December, Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said his government believes the Arab League’s recent actions are counter-productive. 

 “Its very disconcerting that it may damage the opportunity for the Arab League to play a mediating role and a pacifying role in the Syrian situation.”

Churkin also defended Russia’s weapons sales to Syria, arguing that Russia was a minor player in the international arms market compared to some other states and that all transactions were “guided by international norms, rules and laws.” 

“With Syria in particular we have arrangements which would not allow those weapons to be used by those who are not suppose to have them.” Churkin said. “You look at the region and you see reports that this particular country has signed for 120 billion dollars! Lets see things in perspective. If you go ahead and supply 120 Billion dollars of weapons to the region, why should you be worrying  about somebody supplying a few million dollars worth of military hardware?”

NATO's UN Mandate in Libya To Expire Monday

The United Nations Security Council today agreed to lift its mandate authorizing military action in Libya, ending the UN-backed NATO mission to the country on October 31 2011.

The decision comes after Libya’s rebel forces declared liberation late last week and are currently in the process of forming a transitional government. Yesterday, Libya’s representative at the UN Ibrahim Dabbashi said his country supported the October 31 end date, but asked Council members to wait until his government had finished evaluating Libya’s security situation before making a final decision.

The extent to which the international community and Western countries will help Libya deal with security concerns after more than eight months of civil strife remains unclear. British Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant confirmed that his government was in talks about providing security assistance to Libya’s National Transitional Council, but said the forms that assistance might take had yet to be determined.

The Security Council passed resolution 1973 in March after Col. Gaddafi promised large scale military action against towns and villages that had fallen in the hands of anti-government protesters. The resolution allowed for airstrikes to protect civilian populations under the threat of attack, but held provisions against the deployment of foreign troops on the ground.

But NATO’s implementation of the resolution has been criticized by Council members like Russia and South Africa, who say it exceeded its protection of civilian mandate by arming rebels and aiming to overthrow the Gaddafi regime.

Earlier this month, Russia used its veto to block a resolution condemning Syrian government violence against civilians, arguing that the Libyan resolution had raised important concerns about the implementation and interpretation of Council actions.

Russia’s UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin today welcomed the decision to end NATO’s mandate, but said the Council had to learn from its mistakes in Libya if it wanted member states to work closely together in the future.

“We believe that numerous violations of resolution 1973 have taken place in the course of the past few months, we have repeatedly discussed that in the Security Council,” he told reporters outside the Council. “We’ve had a number of grievances we continue to have them in terms of the effectiveness and legality of the work of the Security Council.”

US Ambassador Susan Rice defended NATO’s interpretation of the UN mandate and dismissed any link between the Syrian and Libyan situations.

“The effort to use Libya as an excuse not to act in other contexts is not a fair one or an accurate one. It was very clear, as we discussed and negotiated resolution 1973 what the authorization of the use of force to protect civilians would entail.” she said “Undoubtedly as this unfolded and occurred over the course of some months, there were those that found increasingly uncomfortable what it was they had agreed to. But to suggest somehow they were mislead, is false.”

China, Russia Block UN Resolution on Syria

After months of negotiations, UN Security Council members tonight failed to agree on a resolution condemning the Syrian government’s violent response to protests, with permanent members China and Russia using their veto to scrap the Western backed text. 

US Ambassador Susan Rice told Security Council members the Obama administration was outraged by the Council’s failure to address an “urgent moral challenge” and “a growing threat to regional peace and security”.

Nine Council members, including the US, France, UK, Portugal and Germany, voted in favor of the draft, while Lebanon, India, South Africa and Brazil chose to abstain.

Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin told Council members his country’s decision to veto the proposed resolution wasn’t based on Russia’s strategic ties to the Syrian government or support of the crackdown against civilian protesters, but was instead a rejection of the West’s “philosophy of confrontation”.

 “We can’t agree with this unilateral accusatory bent against Damascus. We believe it unacceptable the threat of an ultimatum of sanctions against the Syrian authorities.” he said

Churkin also said Western countries had failed to take into account Moscow’s demand that foreign military intervention be clearly ruled out of the resolution.

Russia and several other Council members have criticized the NATO backed mission to Libya for exceeding its mandate of civilian protection by targeting non-military infrastructure and trying to overthrow the Gaddafi regime. 

“The situation in Syria cannot be considered in the Council apart from the Libyan experience. The international community is alarmed by statements that compliance with Security Council resolutions in Libya, in the NATO interpretation, is a model for future actions for NATO in implementing responsibility to protect.”  Churkin told Council members.

US Ambassador Rice said the Syrian people could now see which countries were ignoring their calls for democracy and siding with dictators.

“Those who oppose this resolution and give cover to a brutal regime will have to answer to the Syrian people and indeed to people across the region who are pursuing the same universal aspirations.” 

Rice also dismissed Russia’s claims about NATO’s  interpretation of the Libyan resolution and that the vetoed resolution could have been a pretext for military intervention in Syria.

“This is not about military intervention. This is not about Libya. That is a cheap ruse by those who would rather sell arms to the Syrian regime than stand with the Syrian people.”

US Ambassador Refuses To Comment CableGate Spying Revelations, UN Looking For Answers

US Ambassador Susan Rice declined to comment on the authenticity of the State Department cables released by Wikileaks yesterday that show American diplomats were directed to collect personal information like credit card numbers, passwords and even biometrics information from Security Council members and top UN officials such as Ban Ki Moon.

“Our diplomats are doing what diplomats do around the world every day, which is build relationships , negotiate, advance our interests and work to find common solutions to complex problems. Thats what they do. And they do it extremely well, with great  integrity with hard work.” said Rice, “I’m not going to get in to commenting on classified material or alleged classified material and its contents . “

Rice was also unwilling to speak about the damage the cables might have on American diplomacy at the UN, and instead tried to highlight the Obama administration’s efforts at strengthening the US participation within the world body.”This has been a time when the United States, under president Obama’s leadership, has made enormous progress in repairing and rebuilding our relationships with partners and allies around the world.”

The Secretary General’s deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq said the UN could not comment  on the authenticity of the documents but noted that the organization relied on member states to adhere to the UN Charter, Headquarter Agreements and 1946 Convention that protect UN property and assets as inviolable. 

Haq says the Secretary General was informed of contents of the cable by Ambassador Rice before they were released by Wikileaks yesterday and that the UN would further investigate the claims.”Certainly we will need further information on this and we will respond as appropriate. We will talk to our US counter parts at various level, but at this stage, I don’t have precise details” said Haq

Iranian President Looks To Attend Non-Proliferation Conference in New York

The president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmajinejad appears to want to attend a conference of signatories of the Non Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty (NPT) at UN headquarters in New York. US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice said this afternoon that Ahmadinejad had applied for a visa for the conference next week. Iran is a signatory to the treaty but its nuclear development program has earned it criticism and sanctions from the US and other countries.

Rice seemed hopeful that the ongoing debate surrounding Iran's nuclear program and sanctions would not complicate positive developments during the NPT conference. Although intense negotiations surrounding the drafting of a resolution on more sanctions against Iran have been going on for months now, Rice indicated that consultations within the security council would continue "at an appropriate time" and that she anticipated consensus on the security council's course of actions in "the coming weeks".

"Iran is obviously, in any case, in the backdrop when consideration of the non proliferation treaty is occuring because it remains in violation of its international obligations, but we think this is much bigger than any one country. Our aims are universal and we will approach it in that vein."

Rice emphasized the importance of making concrete progress during next week's conference and that, in the wake of the signing of the START treaty with Russia and the Washington DC nuclear summit earlier this month, President Obama and other UN member states had clearly shown their commitment to non-proliferation and disarmament.

"The NPT has been and remains a cornerstone of our national security and we think this conference is very important opportunity to strengthen all three pillars of the non proliferation treaty" said Rice, referring to treaty's focus on non-proliferation, disarmament and peaceful uses of nuclear energy. "There are many other member states that understand the crucial importance of this conference yielding an outcome that serves to reinforce all three pillars and the risk to the viability of the non proliferation treaty regime if this conference does not make progress in that regard"