Russia, China Veto Un Security Council Resolution On Syria

[ttelise]

I looked some data up for that: Country XY is only interested in Syrias oil argument.

Syria's share in the global oil production is 0.48% . Thats little bit more than Thailand which holds a share of 0.45% on the global oil production.

Syrian crude oil exports go almost entirely to OECD European countries, in particular Germany (32%), Italy(31%), France(11%), the Netherlands(9%), Austria (7%), Spain (5%), Turkey(5%) and others(1%).

http://www.eia.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=SY

China like Russia, has had strategic interests in Syria, but they have so far been mostly economic, not political.  Most significantly is the Chinese activity in Syrian oil.  The China National Petroleum Company is a partner venture company with the Syrian National Oil Co and Royal Dutch Shell.  Sinochem, another Chinese oil company, has played a large role in oil exploration in Syria.

Trade has important between China and Syria, with nearly $2.2 billion net worth of mutual trade between the two countries in 2o09.  China is the main actor here, importing 99% of goods for Syria.  So, Syria is an important economic partner for China.  Given China’s relatively recent rise to power in the modern world, they have less political connections to the Middle East, but this is changing because of their economic investments.

http://understandhistorynow.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/whats-the-deal-with-the-russo-chinese-balk-on-syria/

[ttelise]

Russia, if Assad falls and instability reigns in Syria, is concerned about losing:

-The use of the naval port at Tartus; a foothold in the Middle East.

-A major recipient of weapons sales

-General instability in the Middle East

While China, for its part, could lose:

-An important economic partner and several billion in exports

-Middle East stability that could threaten oil exports from Iran

So yes, I believe, that China and Russia place economic concerns over human rights and human suffering concerns.

http://understandhistorynow.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/whats-the-deal-with-the-russo-chinese-balk-on-syria/

[coma]

Would outsiders have the kind of knowledge to carry out such attacks?

They would definately require the use of good local assets [HUMINT] that is for sure. And I am sure Syria, in its current chaotic state, would be a intelligence rich enviroment for those seeking such information.

[Exsexyman]

Russia, if Assad falls and instability reigns in Syria, is concerned about losing:

-The use of the naval port at Tartus; a foothold in the Middle East.

-A major recipient of weapons sales

-General instability in the Middle East

While China, for its part, could lose:

-An important economic partner and several billion in exports

-Middle East stability that could threaten oil exports from Iran

So yes, I believe, that China and Russia place economic concerns over human rights and human suffering concerns.

http://understandhis...-balk-on-syria/

And the West doesn't?

[GiHadOrange]

I looked some data up for that: Country XY is only interested in Syrias oil argument.

Syria's share in the global oil production is 0.48% . Thats little bit more than Thailand which holds a share of 0.45% on the global oil production.

Syrian crude oil exports go almost entirely to OECD European countries, in particular Germany (32%), Italy(31%), France(11%), the Netherlands(9%), Austria (7%), Spain (5%), Turkey(5%) and others(1%).

http://www.eia.gov/c...cab.cfm?fips=SY

Syria is not a big oil producer, but would make a very good choice if you wanted to use a land pipe from Iraq, or even further.

Well, that "Country XY is only interested in Syrias oil" is not mine argument. And i have some difficulties to get it.

Such pipeline as you suggests would end in a seaport at the Mediterranean Sea.

Could we now conclude that some Country XY gets involved because its all and only about the oil for them?

[GiHadOrange]

Russia, if Assad falls and instability reigns in Syria, is concerned about losing:

-The use of the naval port at Tartus; a foothold in the Middle East.

-A major recipient of weapons sales

-General instability in the Middle East

While China, for its part, could lose:

-An important economic partner and several billion in exports

-Middle East stability that could threaten oil exports from Iran

So yes, I believe, that China and Russia place economic concerns over human rights and human suffering concerns.

http://understandhis...-balk-on-syria/

I am pretty sure that concerns about the stability in the region include concerns about human suffering.

Maybe others favour instability because they have not much to lose economically.

[ttelise]

The article was simply posted to show the connection between China and Syria's oil which some doubted.

I cannot don't care to change any minds. There are people that believe that ethnic cleansing is morally right. Various cultures and backgrounds have deep engrained ideas that I neither have the ability nor the inclination to change.

Nevertheless, I still stand by my original point that China and Russia have extremely poor records regarding protection of human rights and have been very oppressive and violent towards their own people over the years. China and Russia veto of the UN measures were motivated by economic concerns over human rights or suffering. Otherwise, they would forget economic impact of the measures and focus on the human aspect.

Hell, I would be willing to bet they could even take the lead for once as US clearly is tired of the taking the lead role as seen in Lybia which China and Russia also opposed for same reasons. US is in a delicate situation right now because of Israel and candidly, US not concerned about China and Russia and will do what needs to be done. US can cripple China's economy over night if so desired. Russia is pretty much a mess with a very low functional military.

Edited July 22, 2012 by ttelise

[ttelise]

The claim that Chinas only interest is Syria's oil was doubted and is still just a unproven claim.

US not concerned about China and Russia and will do what needs to be done. US can cripple China's economy over night if so desired. Russia is pretty much a mess with a very low functional military.

Of course the US just do what they want. No doubts about that.

So will UN as seen in Libya. Sad part is that Russian probably could have exerted enough pressure to stop this back in Feb and saved a lot of lives. At least they were in best position to try and stop early . . .

Haha, I wonder how Thailand would feel if civil war busted out there and tens of thousands of civilians were getting slaughtered, but Russia and China vetoed UN resolution to help stop the violence.

[ttelise]

The claim that Chinas only interest is Syria's oil was doubted and is still just a unproven claim.

US not concerned about China and Russia and will do what needs to be done. US can cripple China's economy over night if so desired. Russia is pretty much a mess with a very low functional military.

*Deleted quote edited out

More of what I stated above which came directly from a reputable source that i cited and not me.

The below quotes come out if articles in cites below quotes. At the moment, Syria pretty much can only send it's oil to China because of sanctions so your export figures are dated.

Syrian officials have admitted as much. Announcing the finalization of a $1 billion oil refinery project with China's major oil player the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), Syrian Deputy Prime Minister for Economic Affairs Abdallah al-Dardari said: "If some countries do not want to share technology with us, others will." Construction of the 70,000 barrel per day oil refinery at Deir Al-Zor is expected to start in 2008 and curb the country's massive fuel imports. The deal will also see Syria import oil exploration and mining equipment from CNPC, using preferential loans from China. CNPC has also been awarded a contract to upgrade five existing oil fields to improve productivity, and China has being invited to conduct oil exploration in 5,000 square kilometers of Syrian waters.

http://www.executive...hp?article=9819

"China is actively involved in Syria's oil industry. China National Petroleum Corporation is a joint venture ..."

en.wikipedia.org/.../People's_Republic_of...

China is actively involved in Syria's oil industry. China National Petroleum Corporation is a joint venture ...

LONDON (Reuters) - Iran is helping its ally Syria defy Western sanctions by providing a vessel to ship Syrian oil to a state-run company in China, potentially giving the government of President Bashar al-Assad a financial boost worth an estimated $80 million.

Iran, itself a target of Western sanctions, is among Syria's closest allies and has promised to do all it can to support Assad, recently praising his handling of the year-long uprising against Assad in which thousands have been killed.

China has also shielded Assad from foreign intervention, vetoing two Western-backed resolutions at the United Nations over the bloodshed, and is not bound by Western sanctions against Syria, its oil sector and state oil firm Sytrol.

"The Syrians planned to sell the oil directly to the Chinese but they could not find a vessel," said an industry source who added that he had been asked to help Sytrol execute the deal but did not take part.

The source named the Chinese buyer as Zhuhai Zhenrong Corp, a state-run company hit by U.S. sanctions in January.

http://mobile.reuter...120330?irpc=932

http://m.newser.com/...ks-to-iran.html

Edited July 23, 2012 by Scott
Deleted quote edited out

[ttelise]

I looked some data up for that: Country XY is only interested in Syrias oil argument.

Syria's share in the global oil production is 0.48% . Thats little bit more than Thailand which holds a share of 0.45% on the global oil production.

Syrian crude oil exports go almost entirely to OECD European countries, in particular Germany (32%), Italy(31%), France(11%), the Netherlands(9%), Austria (7%), Spain (5%), Turkey(5%) and others(1%).

http://www.eia.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=SY

These figures are pretty funny given that all of the countries you mention have banned importation of Syrian oil due to sanctions/embargo. China is perhaps only country importing Syrian oil in the last year. Russia and India may also, not sure.

Edited July 22, 2012 by ttelise

[GiHadOrange]

Okay, assumed China gets lots of oil from Syria.

Does that mean they support the Assad regime. No.That is even explained at the source you have cited. Written in bold.

[ttelise]

Okay, assumed China gets lots of oil from Syria.

Does that mean they support the Assad regime. No.That is even explained at the source you have cited. Written in bold.

Look, I hear what your saying and not really trying to bicker. My only point us that China and Russia tend to give two cents less about any human rights issues and vote based purely on economical concerns. Just my perception and what I believe.

Regardless as to China's feelings about the Assad, we know China supports China's economic interests in Syria and apparently are not about to issue sanctions or an embargo due to billions invested and billions in exports each year.

The next question is whether Russia or China will pay economically for their lack of cooperation with UN. Why should European countries sustain economic losses due to sanctions and incur ALL of the costs for UN measures.

[GiHadOrange]

What sanction and does it help anyhow?

And what kind of lack in cooperation with the UN? The US isn't the UN.

The drafter of the last resolution had written it with the intention to get a veto from Russia and China.

http://www.rt.com/news/syria-russia-diplomacy-resolution-630/

[GiHadOrange]

Would outsiders have the kind of knowledge to carry out such attacks?

Sounds like a truther argument.

[Ulysses G.]

The drafter of the last resolution had written it with the intention to get a veto from Russia and China.

Sounds like a conspiracy theory.

[GiHadOrange]

The drafter of the last resolution had written it with the intention to get a veto from Russia and China.

Sounds like a conspiracy theory.

No.

Sounds like you are now NOT following the events or the debate here.

That is how the Russians feel about.

Addressing the council, Russian Representative to the UN Vitaly Churkin accused the Western members of the UNSC of attempting to "fan the flames of confrontation in the Security Council."

http://www.rt.com/ne...veto-syria-584/

VITALY CHURKIN, RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED NATIONS, SAYING:

"The sponsors of this project that just failed have attempted to fan the flames of confrontation in the Security Council. The draft which was just voted on was biased. The threats of sanctions were leveled exclusively at the government of Syria. This runs counter to the spirit of the Geneva document and does not reflect the realities in the country today."

http://www.reuters.c...deoId=236589035

Edited July 22, 2012 by GiHadOrange

[GiHadOrange]

This thread seems to be more about America bashing than any sincere interest for the people of Syria.

Seems to be more about Chinese and Russian Bashing than American. The Chinese and Russians are blocking another U.S lead war and that is not a bad thing.

Its not another US lead war what they are blocking. They just don't want support the Sunni rebels one-sided and are for a more balanced approach with the intention to prevent total chaos and with a focused on peace talks.

[Ulysses G.]

In case you have not noticed, the "peace talks" have had no effect at all on Assad's slaughter of his own people and the Russians and Chinese are complicit in the disaster.

Edited July 23, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Scott]

Some off-topic posts with snide comments directed at other posters have been removed, as well as replies.

It's an interesting discussion and a lot of good information is being presented. Let's not ruin it.

Please stay on-topic.

[ttelise]

This thread seems to be more about America bashing than any sincere interest for the people of Syria.

Seems to be more about Chinese and Russian Bashing than American. The Chinese and Russians are blocking another U.S lead war and that is not a bad thing.

Does the US want to go in. I doubt it very seriously. I am sure the US would love for diplomacy to have worked because the last thing we need is chemical weapons being used, Israel stepping in or more problems in Jordan.

We are trying to bring trips home and Americans are tired of the bs over there. Fat chance of getting congressional backing or public support for another war. No one here wants that. We also tried to do as little as possible in Lybia.

We just all better hope no chemical weapons or WMD start heading toward Israel or this could become a dangerous mess if everything completely destabilizes. It's closer to your back yard than mine.

[ttelise]

What sanction and does it help anyhow?

And what kind of lack in cooperation with the UN? The US isn't the UN.

The drafter of the last resolution had written it with the intention to get a veto from Russia and China.

http://www.rt.com/news/syria-russia-diplomacy-resolution-630/

Perhaps nothing, but Syria's entire economy is now dependent upon China and they get weapons and parts from Russia. There was a small chance if China and Russia exerted their influences early in we may not have gotten to this point. Maybe, maybe not. We will never know now.

Edited July 23, 2012 by ttelise

[GiHadOrange]

In case you have not noticed, the "peace talks" have had no effect at all on Assad's slaughter of his own people and the Russians and Chinese are complicit in the disaster.

Assad isn't slaughtering his OWN people and there are many people still very loyal to Assad.

[GiHadOrange]

This thread seems to be more about America bashing than any sincere interest for the people of Syria.

Seems to be more about Chinese and Russian Bashing than American. The Chinese and Russians are blocking another U.S lead war and that is not a bad thing.

Does the US want to go in. I doubt it very seriously. I am sure the US would love for diplomacy to have worked because the last thing we need is chemical weapons being used, Israel stepping in or more problems in Jordan.

We are trying to bring trips home and Americans are tired of the bs over there. Fat chance of getting congressional backing or public support for another war. No one here wants that. We also tried to do as little as possible in Lybia.

We just all better hope no chemical weapons or WMD start heading toward Israel or this could become a dangerous mess if everything completely destabilizes. It's closer to your back yard than mine.

The US wants to stay out? Also not really true. They want Assad's head as if it were their business.

[Ulysses G.]

The US wants to stay out? Also not really true. They want Assad's head as if it were their business.

Of course they want to stay out of the conflict, but if the butcher Assad is put out of business permanently, so much the better.

[electau]

It may not be in Russias or Chinas interest to intervene in Syria and one must respect their position.

The countries around Syria should use their influence and military intervention should not be discarded.

The pro western countries could be used to carry out Western policy in the region. Where does Israel

stand? What side are they on?

[Ulysses G.]

Israel is not on either side. Their concern is about preventing the use of biological and chemical weapons.

[maidu]

In case you have not noticed, the "peace talks" have had no effect at all on Assad's slaughter of his own people and the Russians and Chinese are complicit in the disaster.

Assad isn't slaughtering his OWN people and there are many people still very loyal to Assad.

If the people getting slaughtered aren't Syrian, then who are they? Why am I responding to a troll post?

[Ulysses G.]

Good question. Assad is not murdering his own army, but they are not the only citizens of Syria.

[geriatrickid]

The US wants to stay out? Also not really true. They want Assad's head as if it were their business.

Of course they want to stay out of the conflict, but if the butcher Assad is put out of business permanently, so much the better.

I think you will find this article interesting. Makes sense to me.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/07/19/jonathan-kay-on-syria-how-obamas-hands-off-policy-paved-the-way-for-the-assads-and-hezbollahs-downfall/

By doing next to nothing, Obama has ensured that the Syrian civil war (which is what the Red Cross is now calling it) has correctly been perceived, inside Syria and out, as exactly what it is: a homegrown rebellion against an old-fashioned Arab tyrant too inept to understand that the winds of the Arab Spring were never confined to North Africa and the Persian Gulf.

[geriatrickid]

In case you have not noticed, the "peace talks" have had no effect at all on Assad's slaughter of his own people and the Russians and Chinese are complicit in the disaster.

Assad isn't slaughtering his OWN people and there are many people still very loyal to Assad.

If the people getting slaughtered aren't Syrian, then who are they? Why am I responding to a troll post?

Because you are a sucker?

Sorry. couldn't resist. Sergei et al needs an audience. Please don't encourage him.