CONNECT
NationofChange / Op-Ed
Published: Saturday 11 February 2012
“In virtually every one of these resolutions, the United States cast the sole negative vote in the otherwise-unanimous 15-member Security Council.”
Putting the UN Veto in Perspective
Official Washington has been rife with condemnation at the decision by the governments of Russia and China to veto an otherwise unanimous UN Security Council resolution condemning the ongoing repression in Syria and calling for a halt to violence on all sides; unfettered access for Arab League monitors; and "a Syrian-led political transition to a democratic, plural political system, in which citizens are equal regardless of their affiliations or ethnicities or beliefs."
Human rights activists were outraged, as they should be. What is striking, however, is the response from US officials and pundits so roundly condemning the use of the veto by these two permanent members of the Security Council to protect the Syrian regime from accountability for its savage repression against its own citizens.
A little perspective is required here: Since 1970, China has used its veto power eight times, and Russia (and the former Soviet Union) has used its veto power 13 times. However, the United States has used its veto power 83 times, primarily in defense of allies accused of violating international humanitarian law. Forty-two of these US vetoes were to protect Israel from criticism for illegal activities, including suspected war crimes. To this day, Israel occupies and colonizes a large swath of southwestern Syria in violation of a series of UN Security Council resolutions, which the United States has successfully blocked from enforcing. Yet, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton insists that it is the Russians and Chinese who have "neutered" the Security Council in its ability to defend basic human rights.
What draft resolutions by the United Nation Security Council did the United States find so terrible that both Democratic and Republican administrations felt compelled to veto? Just to give a few examples:
- Enforcement of sanctions against the brutal white minority regime in Rhodesia - 1970
- Opposition to South Africa's occupation of Namibia - 1975
- The application of Vietnam to join the United Nations -1976
- A call for the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip with strict security guarantees for Israel - 1976
- Sanctions against the apartheid regime in South Africa - 1977
- Condemning the ongoing occupation of southern Angola by apartheid South Africa - 1981
- Opposition to Israel's de facto annexation of Syrian territory invaded and occupied in the 1967 war - 1982
- Calls for a halt to Israel's invasion of Lebanon - 1982
- Calls for cease-fire between Israeli occupation forces and joint Lebanese-Palestinian forces during the siege of Beirut - 1982
- Opposition to the US invasion of Grenada - 1983
- Calls for an end of US-sponsored attacks against Nicaragua - 1985
- A call to honor the ruling by the International Court of Justice calling for an end to US-sponsored contras against Nicaragua - 1986
- Criticism of Israeli attacks against civilians in Lebanon -1988
- Opposition to the US invasion of Panama - 1990
- Condemnation of Israeli violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied West Bank -1997
- Establishment of an unarmed human rights observer force in the occupied Palestinian territories - 2001
- Condemnation of the killing of UN employees and destruction of a World Food Program warehouse by Israeli occupation forces - 2002
- A call on Israel to cease construction of its separation wall deep inside the occupied West Bank - 2003
- Condemnation of Israeli assassinations of Palestinian leaders - 2004
- Reiteration of the illegality of Israeli colonization in the occupied West Bank and a freeze on additional construction of settlements - 2011
In virtually every one of these resolutions, the United States cast the sole negative vote in the otherwise-unanimous 15-member Security Council. And some of the resolutions vetoed by the United States involved governments responsible for even more civilian deaths than the Syrian regime in its bloody yearlong crackdown.
None of this justifies the Russian-Chinese veto of the resolution challenging the Syrian regime's repression, of course. It does, however, make the self-righteous condemnation of this most recent veto by the very supporters of many of these earlier US vetoes look rather ridiculous in the eyes of those who support human rights and international law regardless of the offending regime's geopolitical alliances.
FEATURE A
Connect with your friends
Find new content you might like and see what your friends are sharing!
28 comments on "Putting the UN Veto in Perspective"
April 12, 2012 4:04pm
UN only deals with International law, not US constitutional law. For action to be taken against the US for violations of human rights in our country - the security council would have to vote on a measure. As one of the permanent five, the US would veto the resolution and likely threaten to defund the UN. Therefor your hopes are not feasible.
April 12, 2012 4:01pm
UN only deals with International law, not US constitutional law. For action to be taken against the US for violations of human rights in our country - the security council would have to vote on a measure. As one of the permanent five, the US would veto the resolution and likely threaten to defund the UN. Therefor your hopes are not feasible.
February 15, 2012 3:04pm
posted twice, sorry
February 13, 2012 4:35pm
Gee, are you threatening Israel and its ally, the US? How original! An anti-Semite threatening Israel? Are you going to drive her into the sea or are you going to annihilate her? Will it be UN sanctioned? Only asking...
February 12, 2012 11:51am
Excellent article and broad perspective. I wonder when a resolution will be brought at the United Nations to support Americans and Occupy Wall Street from corporate theft of our property and from our gov. ignoring our bundle of rights under our constitution.
February 12, 2012 11:41am
None of this justifies historical aggressions against Palestinians, against Syria and Lebanon by Israel.
February 12, 2012 1:34am
Do these reasons justify why Little Israel made Large Israel, that is, the United States of A(IPAC) veto all the resolutions related to Little Israel in UNSC listed by Mr. Zumes? What equal rights Mr.Badkramer? Which religious minorities and where, considering the West Bank
Mr Zunes and his family have been anti Israel, arguable antisemetic for 2 generations. Allowing his hatred of Israel into the mainstream of this progressive movement will lose needed support.
Howie Watt
February 11, 2012 7:54pm
There is only one country in the Middle East where women have equal rights: Israel. There is only one country in the Middle East where religious minorities (in this case, Muslims and Christians) can practice their faith without fear of persecution: Israel. There is only one country in the Middle East where gay and lesbian men and women are not persecuted. Any guesses? Israel.
Fellow progressives, open your eyes, and see Israel for what she is. Perfect? No. The most humane, progressive, just, modern society in the Middle East? Without a doubt, yes.
April 12, 2012 4:03pm
Your arguments are not pertinent to this article. This article is discussing Israel's abuses of human rights in the occupied Palestinian Territories, not in Israel itself.
February 12, 2012 1:45am
Do you really believe in what you are claiming, Mr.Bradkramer? Had Little Israel been whatever you are claiming it to be, there would never been any of the UNSC Resolutions drafts tabled against it requiring Large Israel, that is, the United States of A(IPAC) to veto them. What have equal rights for minorities in Israel to do with the subjects of the resoltions vetoed? What have gays and lesbians to do with the continued occupation of Gaza and the Golan Heights? What about your apartheid wall of separation? What about the invasion of Lebanon and in Lebanon th massacres at Sabra & Shatilla? And and and and! Your chicken wil soon come back to roost in Little & Big Israel, you bet!
February 13, 2012 4:36pm
Gee, are you threatening Israel and its ally, the US? How original! An anti-Semite threatening Israel? Are you going to drive her into the sea or are you going to annihilate her? Will it be UN sanctioned? Only asking...
Thank you!
February 11, 2012 7:16pm
Excellent editorial and excellent points. Thank you, Mr. Zunes!
February 11, 2012 5:24pm
i think there would be compelling reasons to remove the 'veto' power in the first place; with it in place, everything else is moot, it is an orwellian 'democracy', where some animals get to be more equal than the others.
the constant war mongering is very disturbing; defending israel and its crimes at all costs is wrong, and calling everyone who dares to tell the truth a 'jew hater' is simply ignorant.
one of the smartest and brightest persons we have in this country, professor nomsky, who happens to be jewish, never held back his criticism, and rightly so.
the best way to secure an end to useless wars and threats of wars would be total disarmament.
short of that, i am not sure who we think we are to tell one country that they cannot arm themselves -IF they even wish to do so - and tell another to go ahead and do whatever they want, since we will keep funding them and stopping all critics.
February 13, 2012 4:41pm
"defending israel and its crimes at all costs is wrong, and calling everyone who dares to tell the truth a 'jew hater' is simply ignorant."
...and saying all of the above without including the constant rocket attacks and suicide bomber attempts against Israel AND THE JEWS is simply Jew hating. Give BOTH sides or you're nothing but an anti-Semite.
February 13, 2012 11:08pm
call me what you want, i KNOW what i am and what i am not, your narrow minded opinion does not bother me.
it is really easy to accuse everyone who disagrees with you of being 'anti-something'. apparently, anyone who dares to disagree with you is an anti-semite. it sounds exactly like george bush'd bullshit of you are either with us or you are against us... no option to disagree, or even to partially agree or debate.
you seem to have the same problem apparently, where you conveniently refuse to acknowledge the other side of the story.
enough of this discussion anyway, it is getting tiring, the same obvious reactions over and over.
February 11, 2012 4:30pm
l
February 11, 2012 4:09pm
Our goons have been busy frothing "freedom" movements around the Middle East. Russia and China are gearing up for confrontation. Our elites seems to think war is the solution for economic crisis. Do you see a way out of global conflagration?
February 11, 2012 4:01pm
The resolution was NOT to take military action against Assad. It was to condemn his actions. That's all. Words. Not action. The US has said repeatedly, including yesterday, when the US Ambassador to Syria stated plainly that the US is NOT considering ANY sort of military action, and so China and Russia are doing nothing more than blocking the words of a resolution, not blocking any sort of action at all -- because none is intended.
February 12, 2012 1:50am
Although I instinctively disbelieve anything that comes out of 1600 Penn and Foggy Bottom, this time I think what you are saying is believable, at least parts of it.
February 11, 2012 3:08pm
Why won't China and Russia let the US and israel bomb the crap out of Syria? NATO only killed around 30,000 people in Libya. Is killing 30,000 people too much to ask?
Sure, tens of thousands of Syrians turned out to demonstrate their support for Assad, the current president of Syria. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7zFUaDOPCE
But thousands also demonstrated for Ghaddafi, and that didn't stop us from bombing the crap out of them. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSnlIlATIKw
Just because most Syrians support Assad, that shouldn't prevent the US or NATO from getting rid of our stockpile of bombs. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/17/syrians-support-assa...
That fact is, bombs go bad after a while, and if you don't use them before the expiration date, then you have wasted your money and nothing got blowed up.
Let's be reasonable. The US and the zionist media have spent a lot of time and money getting everyone to be afraid of the A-rabs. We funded the "rebels" in Libya. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/30/us-libya-usa-order-idUSTRE72T6...
And the CIA trained the "rebel leader". http://peripheralrevision.wordpress.com/2011/04/04/khalifa-haftar-the-ci...
israel is doing its best to help gin up war. In fact, it has been revealed that israeli mossad posed as CIA to recruit terrorists to blow up Iranians. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/13/false_flag
If we don't go ahead and bomb Syria, all of our money will have gone to waste. We already paid for an Arab spring, so let's have us an Arab spring. Our leaders in Tel Aviv have already decided it should be so.
February 11, 2012 4:02pm
The resolution was NOT to take military action against Assad. It was to condemn his actions. That's all. Words. Not action. The US has said repeatedly, including yesterday, when the US Ambassador to Syria stated plainly that the US is NOT considering ANY sort of military action, and so China and Russia are doing nothing more than blocking the words of a resolution, not blocking any sort of action at all -- because none is intended.
February 11, 2012 3:38pm
"our leaders in Tel Aviv have already decided" are you intimating that AIPAC has bought the voice of the USA congress?
I think I remember our congressmen saying nothing about the disrespect shown to our Pres, VP and Sec of State by the Israeli PM over the Palestinian issue and then applauding him in his speech at the Capitol. wt-!
February 11, 2012 4:35pm
Just DIE you Jew hating POS. Marlowe you are full of BS, die you Jew hating mfer. Israel needs to survive, and if that means it has to destroy Iran's nuclear bomb program, then it has to be done. The UN is a joke, if you haven't realized by now. These "war crimes" that Israel somehow did according to this piece of sh*t article are just the regular tirade from the anti-Israel Jew hating Arab world and their allies. Whenever they get asses handed to them trying to attack Israel they do what whiny bitches do - complain. None of those "resolutions" the charade called the UN has voted for are based in fact or have a shred to support them. The writer of this article like many other leftists takes the side of our enemies, not our allies, is a traitor. Israel, like us, is fighting the very real terrorist threat out there, but all you Jew hating (although they lie and say they're not) d bags need to get your history and reality straight. Israel is under existential threat, one nuke could take out Tel Aviv and cripple it. The US isn't, so you leftist traitors have the convenience of speaking on your soapbox over here. So easy to forget when you're not even thinking of what it would be like to be in somebody else's shoes. THERE IS NO "PALESTINE", NO "PALESTINIANS", NO WEST BANK. Judah, Samaria and Gaza belong to Jews, it is their homeland Israel, not the homeland of these Arab terrorists whose families came from other countries since the early 1900s who will not stop till Israel is destroyed. It's a fiction perpetuated by the Arabs who still have this 7th century mentality. Oh you stupid leftists are so concerned with the "Philistines" (look it up fools) as such poor refugees. However you probably haven't heard that close to a million Jews who live in the current "Arab/Muslim" world were thrown out of their homes, dispossessed, killed, abused, and finally expelled after the reestablishment of Israel. If you leftist traitors already know that, they you are just ignoring history. Of course you wouldn't know what moral courage is to begin with. If this were the 1930's you would have probably thought that guy in Germany with a bad mustache was just joking around too. Appeasing fools just make bigger targets. Zionist media? WTF you talking about? You don't sound like you've every cracked open a real history book, not your leftist brainwashing crap that you look at. You should be afraid, because a nuclear Iran is going to be even worse than it is now. You are a traitor, Iran KILLED our soldiers, not only in the Iraq war but in Beirut 1983 through Hezbollah. You terrorist supporting creep. You an everyone of you conspiracy nut friends does this world a disservice by coming up with and perpetuating lies. Oh right the Arabs are our friends, right? Idiot - the "moderates", not just the Islamic jihadis HATE the West, and they wouldn't shed a tear if Tel Aviv got blown up, or Europe or the US. You support those damn Filastines who CELEBRATED 9/11. You probably did too you sick scumbag, you side with our enemies, TRAITOR. You know what the penalty is for TREASON, right? Death.
February 13, 2012 4:52pm
"Just DIE you Jew hating POS. Marlowe you are full of BS, die you Jew hating mfer. "
Just letting you know that you are not alone. Articles like this with unmoderated comments allow the Jew-hating pissants to roll out their usual venom. There's no point in asking them to read some history on the Middle East. It's all around in black and white IF THEY CARED ABOUT OR WANTED TO KNOW THE TRUTH. They hate Jews so there's no chance of convincing them. They are, after all, filled with anti-Semitism NOT intelligence.
February 11, 2012 4:35pm
You have the nerve to call that "disrespect" from Obama and Biden with their stupid arrogance that they think they can solve the Israeli-Arab conflict? Israel is a democracy it has multiple departments in its government, Netanyahu has less power than Obama does over those. Obama and Biden are not exactly the most diplomatically sensitive officials the US has had. Netanyahu is right anyways, he is the leader of Israel, he has the responsibility to make sure it survives. There is no "Palestinian issue", there is no "Palestine" to begin with. Only Israel, and its never ending war against the Arab invaders of Judah, Samaria, and Gaza, they are the occupiers, not Israel. That is Jewish land for over 3500 years. Get your history right fool.
February 15, 2012 3:04pm
wow. you sure have much hate to wish death upon people who disagree with you (the ones you call haters or fools)
history can be a bitch; people can interpret it in so many different ways.
for example, one could argue that israel only exists since may 14 1948, following the 1947 UN (what you call a joke) plan to partition palestine (the one you deny even ever existing).
if we want to go back in time, we would see that there was in fact a 'kingdom of israel' sometimes in the 11th century before christ, which ruled over a part of the area for the next 400 years or so (but what before then, how far back do we want to, or should we go, in order to establish claims over a territory?).
now, this is where it gets tricky: over the following 1500 years, the region was under the control of several different rulers, with a small presence of jewish population.
after the romans then came the arabs, who happened to rule the region for the next 1300 years under muslim control.
then you had christian crusaders, ottoman turks, etc., etc.
we know the more recent history.
so, putting aside irrelevant references to scriptures, prophets, and other superstitious folklore involving god's will, history does not exactly confirm your theory.
the whole region has been always arabic, by culture, ethnicity, background; some arabs are muslim, some are christians, some are jewish, but they are all the same people. that is why the whole notion of an ongoing conflict is so insane.
i am not anti-anyone; i wish people had the maturity to put religious nonsense aside, and realize that we are all the same and must figure out a way to coexist in a peaceful manner.
shalom!