News / Brèves
Back to previous selection / Retour à la sélection précédente

Eurasian Giants Stand with Russia Against British `Regime Change’ War Drive

Printable version / Version imprimable

China and India are standing firm with Russia against the brazen British-Obama drive for an immediate re-run of their Libyan regime change, this time in Syria, despite much disingenuous protestation from U.K. Foreign Secretary William Hague that the resolution would not open the door to foreign military intervention in Syria, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s claim that no one was planning a Libyan repeat.

As China Daily reported yesterday: China "stood its ground as Western powers clashed with Russia" during yesterday’s U.N. Security Council debate over the so-called "Moroccan" resolution being pushed by the U.K., the U.S., and France. That resolution demands that Syrian President Bashir Assad resign — or else.

"The Syrian people’s request for reform and safeguarding of their own interests should be respected," Chinese U.N. Ambassador Li Baodong told the council. "Sanctions, rather than help resolve an issue, often lead to further complication of the situation."

China firmly opposes the use of force to resolve the Syrian issue and firmly opposes a practice such as pushing through "regime change," he said. "We believe that Syria and its people are able and resourceful enough to find the way to resolve the issue and find a political system and mode of economic growth suited to Syria’s national conditions." Thus, China supports the Russian resolution on Syria.

Once burned is enough. India’s U.N. Ambassador Hardeep Singh Puri told Russia Today that the Eurasian powers are not buying these protestations of innocence. The way "some members" of the Security Council used resolutions in case of Libya has "vitiated" the discussions on Syria.

The UNSC’s Resolution 1973 on Libya spoke of ceasefire, but "when we tried to invoke the ceasefire provision, some other countries, which were involved in the military operation, said that they did not want to consider the possibility of a ceasefire until the regime had been dislodged. I’m not saying it was done for a regime change, but that’s what it amounts to in the end," India’s Ambassador said. Worse, that same resolution specifically spoke of an arms embargo, "but that resolution was interpreted, as some people said, as, ’Well, it means you can carry out a military operation against Qaddafi, but arms embargo does not prevent you from arming the rebels.’ I find that situation unacceptable."