Ambassador Samantha Power: Russia Is Holding UN Security Council 'Hostage'

[Purveyor]

By JENNIFER EPSTEIN | 9/5/13 1:43 PM EDT

The United States has tried to address the crisis in Syria through the United Nations Security Council over the last few years, but Russia has blocked those efforts to a point that has forced the Obama administration to act, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. said Thursday.

"Russia continues to hold the council hostage and shirk its international responsibilities, including as a party to the Chemical Weapons Convention," Samantha Power told reporters at the UN in New York. Her comments came after the U.S. Mission hosted briefings Thursday for U.N. member states on the U.S. assessments of the Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack that took place on the outskirts of Damascus.

The council, Power said, "is not protecting the stability of the region; it is not standing behind, now, an internationally accepted ban on the use of chemical weapons." Instead, "the system has protected the prerogatives of Russia, the patron of a regime that would brazenly stage the world's largest chemical weapons attack in a quarter-century, while chemical weapons inspectors sent by the United Nations were just across town."

--CLIP

Power said it has always been the United States' preference to see action on Syria come through the U.N., but that after trying to work through the international body for the past two-and-a-half years, Russia's position means the Obama administration has no choice but to take action on its own.

MORE...

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2013/09/power-russia-is-holding-un-security-council-hostage-171885.html?hp=l5

[TwilightGardener]

1. Can't argue with that. If Russia and China would give the evidence fair consideration,

at the very least, maybe we could deal with Assad in a better way.

[RobertEarl]

2. What evidence?

Show us the evidence.

[TwilightGardener]

3. The UN inspectors' findings, intelligence reports, eyewitness accounts, etc.

[RobertEarl]

4. No UN report yet

If there was you could show a link, right?

So, you are forced to agree that as of now, you have no evidence, just blah, blah, blah, right?

[TwilightGardener]

5. When the report is readied, and evidence assembled (beyond the US/British/German

assessments), will it get a fair consideration by all parties of the UNSC? Power seems to think that's not going to happen.

[RobertEarl]

6. Will you?

What if it goes against what you have been hoping for?

What if the evidence is that everyone is using CW in Syria?

[TwilightGardener]

7. I haven't drawn a conclusion on whether or not a strike is a good idea.

I don't have much doubt that chem weapons were used, though--I also think Assad used them. It's just the most likely scenario. He keeps chem weapon stockpiles for a reason. I don't trust the rebel factions, and they have motive to draw us in to help them, but I just don't think that's the case this time. But if something comes along to refute what I think so far, I'll listen.

[RobertEarl]

10. Good for you

You are being very cautious about using missiles on people.

Wow, you must be an anti-war prog, peace purist, who is not standing with Obama. Such a delight to see on this board with so many already declaring that bombs must fall or we are all doomed!

[Mass]

14. I guess you mean US bombs, because bombs are falling already. What we should want is to stop the

bombs that are falling.

[RobertEarl]

16. Yes, stop all bombs

The ones that are ours, the ones from the US, the bombs our country are dropping are the ones we can maybe control, so it is good to see TG thinking wisely about not blindly following Obama when he insists that more of our bombs are a solution.

We can and should set an example, right here, now. And forevermore.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

8. Did anyone bother to inform our diplomat that the key to diplomacy is to be diplomatic?

That's pretty antagonistic of people you need to win support from.

[Comrade Grumpy]

9. Russia remembers the "limited" Libyan intervention. They won't get burned again.

[AngryAmish]

11. Luckily, the US has never used it's vote at the Security Council to protect their interests...

http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/geoff/UNresolutions.htm

one interesting tidbit on US Security Council veto:

1981 Urges negotiations on prohibition of chemical and biological weapons. (US veto)


The rank hypocrisy of the US never fails to amaze.


on edit: It looks like they actually think everyone else in the world has shit for brains.

[mike_c]

12. no, they are exercising their RIGHT to a veto....

The U.S. has the same right, and uses it just as shamelessly in support of our client states. Cough cough israel cough. We negotiated those security council rights, and we agreed that permanent members get veto authority. It's only "holding the SC hostage" when we don't get what we want. That's not very democratic, IMO.

[bemildred]

13. I am getting really tired of these moronic statements from the State Dept.

Pooty-Poot has exactly as much right as we do to veto things at USSC, not more, no less. I thought we were supposed to have some diplomats somewhere, people who don't think insults are how you conduct diplomacy, who don't think insults are an argument for your side.

[Downtown Hound]

15. Really. Don't they know that's our job?

How dare they.