TED Conversations

James Whitehead

This conversation is closed.

Were China and Russia justified in vetoing the UN resolution for Syria?

Given the media blackout surrounding Syria and the dubious fatality statistics, is it fair to suggest that the proposed resolution was rushed/ambiguous and left open possibilities for military intervention? Could it be argued that the USA should have been more prepared to negotiate the terms of the resolution? By vetoing the resolution, have China and Russia contributed to the continued bloodshed, or would the implementation of the resolution only have led to further deaths?

At this time, is Western intervention in Syria appropriate, given the current climate of Civil War?

Does intervention question the sovereignty of Syrian Government?

Is the US using Syria as a platform for an attack/action against Iran?

To what extent would you agree that sanctions proposed by the resolution should not have concentrated solely on e Bashar al-Assad's government, but rather look at calming both the militia and armed rebels groups?

To what extent would you agree that the USA government is hiding its true intentions behind the guise of "Human Rights"?

Is it fair to draw parallels between Syria and Libya?


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Feb 9 2012: If you're not looking for a philosophical answer, then chances are you're looking for a partisan answer which is rarely subjective. Maybe we do need to embrace the East meets West dilemma. There are intelligent, concerned, well-meaning individuals on both sides of that divide. What are the philosophical/experiential underpinnings which create that separation? How do we bridge that gap? If the only thing we consider is our version of reality, then conflict is inevitable.

    As for the Lebanon issue, the US did send troops into Lebanon to intervene in the civil war, with disastrous consequences and with no solution to the internal problems. As painful as it may be to stand on the sidelines and watch good people get hurt, imposition of a military solution by an outside force can cause more problems that it solves. Intervention may only work when all parties tire of the destruction and agree that an outside "referee" is desirable.

    Overall what I'm suggesting is a search for common ground, an understanding of interests and insecurities of our bargaining partners. Unfortunately, politics seems to demand a great deal of public posturing which works against cooperation.
    • thumb
      Feb 9 2012: As you can tell, I am not well read on the Lebanon issue :-p

      I agree that military action from outside can (and most likely will) cause additional atrocities and create a more complicated road to recovery. Engaging in thoughts of the Utopian/Realist visions of conflict is a worthwhile practice, although (as you wisely mention) subjectivity is essential. We must take into account the individual scenario at question, and in the age of globalisation and interdependence, it would seem that too much is at stake and self-interest must be protected at all costs.... If we view things like this then it becomes clear that despite "advancements" in our society, national agenda and therefore corruption, are not blurred across the borders as we are led to believe

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.