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?

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Feb 9 2012: 1. As I am sure you have noticed, China and Russia are playing a constant game of "ballancing" the decisions the U.S. makes. And by "ballancing" I mean in fact opposing without any other reason than maybe to assert their position as great powers whose decision weighs heavy. It's a game of image and international prestige.

    2. The West is not bound to intervene anywhere, unless there's interest of any sorts in the region, be it economical or military. The pretext to intervention is already at hand: "to avoid further bloodshed, maintain peace in the region and ensure a democratic system". It is only a matter of what will bring more benefits: intervening or not intervening?

    3. Intervention might generate the exact opposite and provide legitimacy to Syrian Government, and the blame will fall again on the U.S. for playing their imperialistic games.

    4. Syria is not the only strategic location in the region the U.S. could use for an eventual attack on Iran.

    5. The resolution was not intended to solve conflicts, the resolution was intended strictly to be ignored by the Bashar-al Assad's regime thus justifying intervention.

    6. I am not even going to answer that. History speaks for itself.

    7. I suppose one could draw a line between the two, though I am aware there are a lot of differences in the background of libyan and syrian uprisings.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.