Of course, the UN draft resolution on Syria was not rejected by Russia and China because it: “Condemns all violence, irrespective of where it comes from, and in this regard demands that all parties in Syria, including armed groups, immediately stop all violence or reprisals, including attacks against State institutions, in accordance with the League of Arab States’ initiative.” No, we can be quite sure that neither of those two states stands to gain from the continued violence and the full scale civil war that will take place should that violence continue.
However, implicit in the call for Damascus to “withdraw all Syrian military and armed forces from cities and towns, and return them to their original home barracks,” is the demand that it is only the Syrian government forces who should in fact withdraw from the streets and this, as ‘Media Lens’ points, is something which is eerily reminiscent of resolution 1973 against Libya. That in itself might inform us that it clear that all of this has nothing to do with protecting the Syrian population, just as there was never any real desire to protect the Libyan population, but rather it is intent on regime change in Damascus. The question has to be asked, who is going to profit from any potential regime change? Well, it most certainly won’t be Russia and China.
Nevertheless, while this might offer some indication that both China and Russia are not really interested in the humanitarian dimensions of this conflict, we should still welcome the veto for, while it might be motivated by a certain “Realpolitik”, and even a Machiavellianism, on the part of those two powers, it does at least put the breaks on the ultimate geopolitical goals of a very hypocritcal West. Goals, of course which go far beyond regime change in Damascus. Moroever, while it is not always clear what is really happening on the ground in Syria, those goals are transparent to the point where they are clearly “articulated” by three rather mentally challenged presidential candidates.
We have Mitt Romney saying it is a good thing that Syria, “the key ally of Iran” is in real trouble”, and as if to parrot him we have Rick Santorum pointing out that “Syria is a puppet state of Iran,” and “a threat not just to Israel, but they have been a complete destabilizing force within Lebanon, which is another problem for Israel and Hezbollah.” These idiots really do choose their words carefully; Syria is problem for “Hezbollah”? However, even if Romney, not wanting to be outdone in the outright idiot contest goes on to say”you have Hezbollah in Latin America and Mexico,” we should remain aware of what those fools are trying to say and what they are trying to say is formulated by our other hopeless candidate, Newt Gingrich.
Newt, “would support a preemptive strike if an Israeli prime minister, “haunted by the history of the Holocaust”, were to call him and say, “I believe in the defense of my country.” If Mitt and Rick are a bit incohesive when it comes to their linking, it is Newt, that leaves us in no doubt as to what this is all about. Bashar al Assad, Ahmadinejad and the mullahs, China and Russia, they might all be pretty ruthless when it comes to pursuing their own agendas. However, it is the bunch of clowns who are sitting in in Washington, Jerusalem, London, and the “moderate” Arab countries, who seem hell bent on starting World War III.