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.

  • thumb
    Feb 9 2012: What is this life but a continuing education class. basically, I am aginst the "veto" system, because it weakens the action of the UN, and it is real sign of tyrany of the most powerful, or should I say, the tyrany of the most fearsome.

    I do not think that military intervention is adequate in Sirya, nor was it in Libya. Before flying and bombing populations and infrastructures in this country, one should ask about the outcome of the intervention in Libya. What is the conclusion there? I do not think that democratie is the answer, nor freedom.

    The occidental world should open in the UN a real democratic discussion on these subjects affecting the world peace and freedom. Unless, we attack the matters globally, nothing ever will be a success in these revolutions.

    We are in support of the people of Sirya because they have the right to choose their ruler, but what are we doing for the people of Saudi Arabia? When we will have an answer to that question, the siryan situation will find an happy solution. Let's note that before the protests started in Sirya, the siryan had 100 light years freedom than Saudies. No one is saying a thing there because the first to open his mouth will have the head cut.

    So let's face the truth, if it were to really solve the problem to the real benefit of the siryan, the UN should address "universal human rights" principle to all his members, including China and Russia. Then we'll see if they oppose a liberating action afterward.
    • thumb
      Feb 9 2012: I agree! support the people..... but lets find a clear decision on the will of the people first, before crushing the regime and assuming thats what the population wants.

      I also agree with the open debate about world peace and freedom that we must put to the USA!! The UN claims to provide this forum for discussion but it is clear that it is insufficient in coming to agreement AND openly and honestly recognising the need to end conflict............ Perhaps some countries are too highly invested in these conflicts to genuinely want to see them end?

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.