"But while Western governments and human rights groups welcomed enforcement of the concept of the "responsibility to protect" civilians, Moscow and Beijing did not hide their disdain for an idea they equate with violating states' sovereignty, which the United Nations was founded to protect." When the UN General Assembly adopted the doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect it did so by a unanimous vote. If Russia and China now disdain R2P as an infringement on national sovereignty, they did not vote accordingly in 2005. They and every other UN member voted to promote human rights over national sovereignty.
"The Russian veto goes beyond alliances, revenues from arms sales and Syria's considerable strategic importance for Moscow. It goes to the heart of a deep split between Russia and China, on the one hand, and the West on the other, on whether the United Nations should intervene in internal domestic conflicts. Russia's and China's support for non-interference should come as no surprise, analysts say. Some Western governments and many human rights groups accuse both Moscow and Beijing of suppressing dissidents at home.
"The Syria vetoes are a dramatic evidence of a longstanding difference between Russia and China and many other countries, but particularly the West," said David Bosco of American University in Washington. "There are all sorts of political interests involved but there is also a basic difference about whether the international community should be involved in internal conflicts against the will of the government," he said.
Lopez said that Russia had a willing helper in China, which has worked hard to keep the Security Council off the backs of countries that it considers strategic allies, like Myanmar, North Korea and Sudan. He said China's veto was not a show of support for Assad but "an act of solidarity so that the Russians will support them on North Korean issues at the council."'
= new reply since forum marked as read