The vetoes that weren't

Posted By David Bosco Monday, March 21, 2011 - 3:29 PM Share

Moscow and Beijing are escalating their criticisms of Western military action in Libya. Today's NYT includes this account:

As it gained force, the allied air campaign met a rising tide of criticism from around the world, notably from Russia and China, which abstained from voting on the United Nations resolution. “In general, it reminds me of a medieval call for a crusade,” Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin of Russia said on Monday, after criticizing the allies on Sunday for “indiscriminate use of force.”

As Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates began a visit to Russia, Mr. Putin called the resolution “deficient and flawed,” saying, “It allows everyone to undertake any actions in relation to a sovereign government.”

A commentary in China’s state-run People’s Daily newspaper said that the Western actions violated international law and courted unforeseen disaster. “It should be seen that every time military means are used to address crises, that is a blow to the United Nations Charter and the rules of international relations,” the commentary said.

All of which leads to one big and obvious question: why didn't they veto the resolution? I can think of a couple explanations. First, they didn't care all that much and they didn't want to use up diplomatic capital resisting strong Western pressure for intervention. Second, and more deviously, they may have liked the idea of the West spending time and resources in Libya. They knew the West wouldn't intervene absent a Council resolution and so they abstained in order to induce an intervention they calculated would drain resources and open up the West to the very kind of criticism they're now happily dishing out.

(7)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

GREG GELFAST

9:31 PM ET

March 21, 2011

Nuclear fears?

Is it possible that they were concerned that the aftermath of a veto might have eventually escalated into a nuclear confrontation with the U.S.?

DORIS37

11:00 PM ET

March 21, 2011

Russia and China on Lybia

To put now the blame on Russia and China and use mean tacticts why they didn't interfer has a very plausibel explanation. First of all the push to get votes at the UN was done quick and the words no- Fly_Zone didn't sound all that dangerous. Most everybody I believe thought they will close the airspace and make some half handed gestures. That out of a no_fly_zone, we made total war and destruction was unbelievable even to the most hardened politician. The whole world is in shock, and as those missiles kept pounding Libya's hardware and infrastructure it just came to all of us, what devlish work was thought up by OBAMA 'S NAVY , AND SARKOZY'S FIGHTER PLANES. I BELIEVE EVEN THE ENGLISH ARE SURPRISED AND CAMERON WILL HAVE A LOT OF EXPlaining to do. This happens when you let an inexperienced guy play with our arsenal and hardware. I suggest that they stop immediately apologize , and pay for the missery they caused before it is to late for America and the other morons who were in on this moronic endeavor.

RALEIGHRASCAL

12:40 AM ET

March 22, 2011

A bit oblique...

Who pray tell does one appeal to when your dictator uses his hired mercenaries, thugs, and elite trained military forces and hardware against his own countrymen. The peoples revolution was put down as much as the civilian population massacred. Perhaps the rule of law applies where you are fun however not all individuals have such benefits. So whom do we, the unarmed, who do we appeal to to protect us from our own leader? Is not the United Nations the body to address such issues? If not who do we go to?

JOSHUAMCGEE0325

1:17 AM ET

March 22, 2011

China's Economic interests

Typically in the Security Council, China has been very adamant about not intervening in other country's internal affairs. But this is not why I think China abstained. China has HUGE economic and energy interests in North Africa nd the Middle East, and Libya's oil is a sizable part of their expected imports. They would never vote for more instability by the International Community if all they want are the natural resources.

I think that they abstained instead of vetoing is because they didn't want to be seen as the only objector in the international community.

BIG BOY

6:06 AM ET

March 22, 2011

Military and Economic Drain

Although the United States isn't going all out in Libya but this would be considered the 3rd military intervention in the region. The US is already fighting two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan so if they are eventually sucked into Libya, this will seriously drain the US Treasury.

Currently there is a no-fly zone imposed so this entitles using fighter jets and cruise missiles to enforce. Each cruise missile costs roughly $1million each so if you were to hit 100 targets, the US would already have wasted $100 million. Let's just hope this doesn't escalate into a ground war since it costs about $100 million each day to supply ground troops. If the US is eventually forced to keep peace in Libya, this would take away from money and troops already in use to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan.

LMWEATHERS

10:58 PM ET

March 22, 2011

Which crisis?

I completely agree with the United States and our allies moving into Libya to take control. I say, "It's about time." I do, however, agree that it diminishes the power of the UN Security Council. Our class at Auburn University recently sat in on a UNSC CFR Report and Conference Call, which the speaker argued for increased membership of the council, because he too believed that, if it's power is diminished even further, there will be door consequences. I'd like to hear the Chinese prospective on what this empending disaster will be, because I agree with David Bosco that the answer might be simple: China, as it stands a secure, global leader, might want to see the US, and the security council fail. I hope this is not the case.

MARCHDEFICIT

12:19 PM ET

March 30, 2011

Similar points were made

... on www.china-snap.com recently. Sorry, don't know if links are allowed on these posts