China/Russia veto UN sanction on Zimbabwe

UK, US slam Security Council's Zimabwe decision - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Quote:

---

Russia and China say the Security Council would be overstepping its authority by passing the resolution, as Zimbabwe is not a threat to international peace and security.

---

China and Russia veto Zimbabwe sanctions | World news | The Guardian

Quote:

---

He (Sir John Sawer) said the Chinese followed the Russian lead and that neither had made any effort to discuss the resolution.
"They simply opposed what was on the table."

---

A few other example of inaction by the UN:
AFP: Sudan leader's arrest harmful to peace: China's UN envoy
China priming the pump to veto actions on the Sudan leader.

Quote:

---

China's UN ambassador said Friday he was concerned at reports that Sudanese President Omar al-Beshir might be arrested over crimes against humanity in Darfur, warning such a move would put peace prospects "in jeopardy."

---

China/Russia continuously block any kind of UN action in Burma - here is one example of this:
Russia, China Veto Resolution On Burma - washingtonpost.com

Quote:

---

China and Russia on Friday jointly vetoed a U.S.-sponsored resolution criticizing Burma's human rights record, striking a blow to the Bush administration's year-long campaign to use the U.N. Security Council to spotlight the repressive rule of Burma's military junta.

---

Not to mention that Russia and especially China could have done much more following the typoon to help get Burma to allow for international support to get to those that needed it.

With shit like this continuing to happen, is it worth it to continue pumping money and support into the UN?

Quote:

---

is it worth it to continue pumping money and support into the UN?

---

not in it's current format :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mid

not in it's current format

---

Agree.

I do not condone the behavior of Mugabe, the Burmese junta or China and Russia's predictable objections/vetos in imposing some kind of punishment on these regimes.

The statement "Russia and China say the Security Council would be overstepping its authority by passing the resolution, as Zimbabwe is not a threat to international peace and security." is however valid as it relates to the authority of the Security Council.

For the UN to effectively enforce universal human rights it needs to have some sort of organization that has the authority to impose sanctions on regimes who flaunt human rights within the borders of their nation. The existing UN Commission on Human Rights is a joke so without considerable reform the most blatant offenders have no fear of reprisal for human rights violations.

Quote:

---

The statement "Russia and China say the Security Council would be overstepping its authority by passing the resolution, as Zimbabwe is not a threat to international peace and security." is however valid as it relates to the authority of the Security Council.

---

debatable my peer , debatable .

given that we now live in a global village where we are ALL interconnected in some way .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mid

debatable my peer , debatable . given that we now live in a global village where we are ALL interconnected in some way .

---

Yes debatable but none the less as long as the charter of the Security Council remains unchanged, Russia and China can and will use the charter as an excuse!

The charter and supporting chapters relate to disputes between nations not to internal/domestic issues.

IMO, even if the charter was changed to allow intervention in domestic affairs, China and Russia would still veto any proposal related to situations as we see in Burma or Zimbabwe.

Given there is seldom consensus regarding human rights the UN will never be effective enforcing human rights abuses. Will always end up being individual nations either imposing sanctions or those like China who will not. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Norton

The statement "Russia and China say the Security Council would be overstepping its authority by passing the resolution, as Zimbabwe is not a threat to international peace and security." is however valid as it relates to the authority of the Security Council.

---

How about South Africa? - aparthied was not an international peace and security issue, yet action was justifiably taken.

The excuse that it is not a threat to international peace and security is simply a cop-out to allow folks to turn thier heads and ignore one atrocious human rights abuse after another around the globe.

this article indicates a different reasoning behind China's veto ..............

China defends veto on Zimbabwe issue, saying political dialogue "the only correct path"

BEIJING, July 12 (Xinhua) -- China said here Saturday political dialogue and negotiation is "the only correct path" to solve the Zimbabwe crisis when responding to its veto against a proposed sanction on the Zimbabwean government.

Parties concerned should seek compromise and cooperation via dialogue and negotiation, Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said. "This is the only correct path to solve the issue."

China and Russia vetoed a U.S.-drafted resolution in the UN Security Council on Saturday (Beijing Time) that would impose sanctions on Zimbabwe over the country's presidential run-off election in late June.

South Africa, Libya and Vietnam also voted against the draft while Indonesia abstained.

The African Union (AU) and the Southern African Development Community (SADC) are mediating Zimbabwe's political crisis. The international society should provide constructive assistance, avoiding any action that might cast shadow on the political dialogue, Liu said.

"This is the common request of the AU countries, which the Security Council should pay attention to and respect, "he said.

Under the current scenario, a sanction resolution would not only endanger the negotiation process between the Zimbabwean government and the opposition, but also further complicate the situation in Zimbabwe, the spokesman said.

Many members of the UN Security Council, including China, expressed such concerns and called for further consultations so to leave enough time for the AU mediating efforts.

"We regret that those reasonable requests were not valued and responded to by the presenting country, therefore, China vetoed the resolution, " Liu said.

Liu also called on different parties in Zimbabwe to take the national security and interest of the people as priority, fully cooperate with the mediation of AU and SADC, so to seek a solution in line with public opinion and political reality.

The failed draft resolution calls for a travel ban and an asset freeze on President Robert Mugabe and his top officials, as well as an arms embargo. (Xinhua)

enews.mcot.net


"We regret that those reasonable requests were not valued and responded to by the presenting country, therefore, China vetoed the resolution, " Liu said.

zip there about , International Peace and Security ...........:rolleyes:

Individual nations can, and hopefully will, apply their own travel bans and trade embargo's.

The UN Security Council needs to reach agreement on what it's human rights mandate actually is. There is a somewhat fine line involved between a universal mandate, and impinging on a sovereign nations internal affairs.

In this case, Mugabe and his Goons certainly crossed that line, but China is constantly telling the UN to stay out of it's internal affairs, so this resolution fell victim to internal UN politics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bugs

The excuse that it is not a threat to international peace and security is simply a cop-out to allow folks to turn their heads and ignore one atrocious human rights abuse after another around the globe.

---

Certainly a cop out. No argument from me. Again, not defending China or Russia just suggesting the UN needs change to prevent them continuing their behavior in the human rights arena. Fix the charter or the cop outs will continue.

The UN continues to seem a pointless diversion from the ability to solve International problems. Very sad since it took two catastrophic World Wars to bring about...

Surely China and Russian couldn't support this motion as it would open up a can of worms in their own backyard and allow them to be criticised as well.

As ass-backward as it sounds, Norton is spot on - the UN simply cannot do what it is not allowed to do.